National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed Standards for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5116-1]

RIN 2060-AD98

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;

Proposed Standards for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed standards would limit emissions of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) from surface coating operations from any new or

existing shipbuilding and ship repair facilities at a major source

(defined in part V, A). The proposed standards implement section 112(d)

of the Clean Air Act (Act), which requires the Administrator to

regulate emissions of those chemicals designated as HAP in section

112(b). The intent of the proposed standards is to protect the public

health by requiring new and existing major sources to limit HAP

emissions to levels attainable by use of maximum achievable control

technology (MACT).

In addition, this document contains draft recommended best

available control measures (BACM) for volatile organic compound (VOC)

and particulate emissions from this category. The draft BACM implements

section 183(b)(4) of the Act.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 6,

1995.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a

public hearing by December 27, 1994, a public hearing will be held on

January 18, 1995, beginning at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments (in

duplicate if possible) to Public Docket No. A-92-11 at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

The Agency requests that a separate copy also be sent to the contact

person listed below.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public

hearing, the hearing will be held at the EPA Office of Administration

Auditorium in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons

interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral

testimony should notify Ms. Kim Teal, Coatings and Consumer Products

Group (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5580.

Background Information Document. The background information

document (BID) and other documents supporting the proposed standards

may be obtained from the docket or from the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35),

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)

541-2777. Please refer to ``Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding

and Ship Repair Facilities--Background Information for Proposed

Standards,'' EPA-450/-D-94-011a.

Docket. Docket No. A-92-11, containing supporting information used

in developing the proposed standards, is located at the EPA's Air and

Radiation Docket and Information Center at the above address in Room M-

1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8 a.m.

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The proposed regulatory text and

other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in

the docket. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket

materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning regulatory

decisions and the proposed standards, contact Dr. Mohamed Serageldin,

Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-

13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2379.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble

is organized as follows:

I. Description of the Source Category

II. Background

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Applicability

B. Standards

C. Compliance Dates

D. Compliance Procedures

E. Test Methods and Procedures

F. Monitoring Requirements

G. Notification Requirements

H. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

IV. Summary of Estimated Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

of the Proposed Standards

A. Number and Type of Affected Facilities

B. Air Emission Reductions

C. Secondary Environmental Impacts

D. Energy Impacts

E. Cost Impacts

F. Economic Impacts

V. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

C. Categorization/Subcategorization: Determining MACT ``Floors''

D. Regulatory Approach and Regulatory Alternatives

VI. Process Description and Control Technologies

A. Painting Process

B. Control Technologies for Painting Operations

C. Handling, Transfer, and Storage of Volatile Organic HAP

Containing Materials

VII. Selection Rationale

A. Selection of Emission Points to be Covered

B. Selection of the Basis for the Proposed Standards

C. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards

D. Selection of Compliance Dates

E. Selection of Compliance Procedures

F. Selection of Test Methods and Procedures

G. Selection of Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Requirements

H. Operating Permit Program

I. Solicitation of Comments

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

B. Docket

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Clean Air Act Section 117

G. Regulatory Review

IX. Statutory Authority

The proposed regulatory text is not included in this Federal

Register notice, but is available in Docket No. A-92-11 or by request

from the EPA contact persons designated earlier in this notice, free of

charge. The proposed regulatory language is also available on the

Technology Transfer Network (TTN), one of the EPA's electronic bulletin

boards. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various

areas of air pollution control. The service is free, except for the

cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400-bps modem.

If more information on TTN is needed, call the HELP line at (919) 541-

5384.

I. Description of the Source Category

Section 112 of the Act requires the EPA to evaluate and control

emissions of HAP. The control of HAP is to be achieved through

promulgation of emission standards under sections 112(d) and (f) for

major source categories and such minor sources as deemed appropriate

that emit HAP. Pursuant to section 112(c) of the Act, the EPA published

in the Federal Register the initial list of source categories that emit

HAP on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). This list includes both ``major''

and ``area'' sources (as defined by the Act) that the EPA intends to

regulate before November of the year 2000. The initial list of source

categories includes ``Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating),''

the major sources only, as a source category.

For the purpose of the proposed rule, shipbuilding and ship repair

refers to all facilities that build, repair, paint, repaint, convert,

or alter ships. (Hereafter, this industry will be referred to as

``shipbuilding.'') A ship is defined as any marine or fresh-water

vessel used for military or commercial operations, including self-

propelled vessels, those towed by other craft (barges), and

navigational aids (buoys). This definition includes, but is not limited

to, all military vessels, commercial cargo and passenger (cruise)

ships, ferries, barges, tankers, container ships, patrol and pilot

boats, and dredges. It does not include offshore oil and gas drilling

platforms, although it is believed that identical coating systems would

be appropriate for them also.

II. Background

The proposed rule represents the EPA's first extensive regulation

of air pollutants from the shipbuilding and ship repair industry.

Essentially all volatile organic hazardous air pollutants (VOHAP) are a

subset of a category of pollutants referred to as volatile organic

compounds (VOC). The VOC is a class of pollutants that are

photochemically reactive precursors of ozone. Emissions of VOC (and

consequently VOHAP as well) from ``marine coating operations'' have

been regulated by some State and local district rules. California and

Louisiana have defined VOC limits for a wide range of marine coating

categories. The California limits being generally more stringent than

those of Louisiana. Other States have limited VOC emissions from the

industry's spray booths as one of many ``miscellaneous metal coating

operations,'' using guidance presented in the EPA's control techniques

guidelines (CTG) document ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from

Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VI: Surface Coating of

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products'' (June 1978) EPA 450/2-78-015.

Outdoor painting of ships' hulls was specifically exempt from this

guidance, but some States have rules that limit shipyard painting done

inside buildings and on the interior of ships based on the guidance.

Control Techniques Guidelines

Section 183(b)(4) of the Act, as amended in 1990 (1990 Amendments),

requires the Administrator to issue CTG's for VOC and particulate

emissions from coatings (paints) and solvents used in shipbuilding and

ship repair facilities, to such level as the Administrator determines

may be achieved through the adoption of BACM. Volatile organic

compounds react in the atmosphere to form ozone, a criteria air

pollutant for which primary and secondary ambient air quality standards

have been established. The EPA is required to take into account the

applicable requirements of section 112 in developing the guidelines.

The organic HAP emissions described in the remainder of this

document are, with only one exception, a subset of the VOC emissions

from coatings and solvents used in shipbuilding and ship repair

facilities. Thus the control techniques evaluated for the MACT standard

are also applicable to VOC emissions.

The EPA has traditionally issued draft CTG's containing recommended

control levels for public comment. Rather than issue a separate draft

CTG in this case, the EPA is using this document to request public

comment on a draft recommended by BACM. The recommended BACM is

identical to the proposed MACT for coatings and solvents, stated in

terms of VOC units rather than VOHAP units (where a VOHAP means any

compound of carbon, excluding metallic carbides and carbonates, that is

listed in or pursuant to section 112(b) of the Act; this includes both

VOC and exempt compounds that are listed as HAP). For those options

using VOC as a surrogate for VOHAP for the MACT standard, compliance

would be based on the Agency's reference Method 24. For any compliance

option involving measurement of actual VOHAP content, the test method

used by the source must be documented and approved by the

Administrator. Comments received on the proposed MACT rule will also be

considered in formulating a final recommended BACM and vice-versa.

Meanwhile, States are in the process of developing VOC rules for

these sources to meet other Act requirements. The EPA published an

alternative control techniques (ACT) document in February 1994 to

provide guidance to the States for these efforts. The recommended BACM

described here is consistent with information in the ACT. Also, as

explained in the ACT, although control technologies for particulate

emissions at shipyards are in development, none are sufficiently

demonstrated at this time to recommend as BACM. Therefore, the Agency

has no recommendation for BACM for particulate emissions at this time.

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Applicability

1. Description of the Source Category

The proposed rule would apply to each shipbuilding facility whose

total activities emit or have the potential to emit, considering

controls, 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year [tons/yr])

or more of any HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) or more of any

combination of HAP.

In general, the shipbuilding industry covered by the proposed rule

is represented by SIC Code 3731, ``Shipbuilding and Repairing.'' This

industry consists of establishments that build, repair, repaint,

convert, and alter ships. However, SIC Code 3731 includes the

manufacture of both offshore oil and gas well drilling and production

platforms; marine coatings used on such platforms will not be subject

to this rule, but rather to limitations imposed by the EPA's Federal

rule on Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings.

Based on information obtained through the U. S. Maritime Directory

Listings (June 1992), there are an estimated 437 facilities of varying

capabilities involved in the construction and repair of ships in the

United States. Of the 437 facilities, an estimated 25 qualify as major

sources of HAP emissions and would be subject to the proposed rule. The

total VOHAP emissions from surface coating operations at the 25

facilities that would be subject to the proposed rule are estimated at

1,155 Mg/yr (1,272 tons/yr).

The EPA requests comment on the appropriate timing of the

shipbuilding and ship repair facility's applicability determination,

and on whether all facilities, regardless of their past emissions or

HAP usage, should be eligible to qualify as area sources under the HAP

usage limits. The Agency also seeks comment on whether a facility that

is initially determined to be subject to the rule should be able

subsequently to escape applicability, and if so, under what

circumstances.

2. Affected Sources

For purposes of this rulemaking, the affected source would be

considered the aggregate of all operations at a shipbuilding facility.

A new operation at a shipbuilding facility would not be considered a

new source. Instead, it may qualify as a modification of the existing

source.

The proposed standards would limit VOHAP emissions from indoor and

outdoor coating operations. The VOHAP emissions result largely from

solvent evaporation from the coatings. These emissions occur during

application and drying/curing. Due to the size of ships and their

components, most coatings are applied outdoors.

The proposed standards would also reduce VOHAP emissions from

handling, transfer, use, and storage of VOHAP-containing materials

through work practice measures. These emissions also occur as a result

of solvent evaporation.

B. Standards

The proposed standards would be the same for new and existing

facilities. (See section VII.B. for discussion on the basis for the

standards.) The proposed standards would impose limits on the VOHAP

content of 23 types of coatings used at shipbuilding facilities. (See

section VII.C. for a list of the proposed limits.) The limits would be

stated in terms of mass of VOHAP per volume of coating less water and

less negligibly photochemically reactive (exempt) compounds. Compliance

with the VOHAP limits must be demonstrated on a monthly basis.

The proposed standards would allow for an alternative means of

compliance other than using compliant coatings, if approved by the

Administrator.

The proposed standards would also require that all handling and

transfer of VOHAP containing materials to and from containers, tanks,

vats, vessels, and piping systems be conducted in a manner that

minimizes spills and other factors leading to emissions. In addition,

containers of thinning solvent or waste that hold any VOHAP must be

normally closed (to minimize evaporation) unless materials are being

added to or removed from them.

C. Compliance Dates

The proposed rule would require compliance for existing affected

sources within 1 year after the effective date of the rule. An existing

unaffected area source that increases its HAP emissions (or potential

to emit) such that it becomes a major source would be required to

comply within 1 year after becoming a major source.

Any new or reconstructed sources would be required to adhere to the

compliance schedule in the General Provisions Sec. 63.6(b) of subpart A

without any modification. For new or reconstructed affected sources

whose startup date is before the effective date of the rule, the

compliance date is the effective date of the rule. For new or

reconstructed affected sources whose startup date is after the

effective date of the rule, the compliance date is the startup date. A

new unaffected area source that increases its emissions (or potential

to emit) such that it becomes a major source would be required to

comply immediately upon becoming a major source.

D. Compliance Procedures

The proposed rule would allow affected sources to choose among five

options for demonstrating compliance with the VOHAP standards. Their

choice will be influenced by the perceived need to add ``thinning''

solvent (thinner) to alter the viscosity of the coating in order to

spray effectively. (For the purposes of this proposed regulation,

thinner is defined as any liquid material added to a coating.)

Regardless of the option(s) chosen, affected sources would first be

required to determine the coating category (e.g., general use, air

flask, antenna, etc.), the applicable VOHAP limit, and the VOC content

for each batch of coating received from the manufacturer.

A source may demonstrate compliance either by showing that the VOC

content is less than the VOHAP limit (options 1-4) or by the use of

option 5 (discussed below) which would measure the actual VOHAP

content. If the shipyard is subject to regulatory limits on the VOC

content of its coatings, the primary compliance method for this rule

would be to certify the VOC content of each container of coating, as

applied. (That information would then be used to determine compliance

with the applicable VOHAP limit using any of the options 1-4.)

Certification of VOC content is done by: (1) using Method 24 of 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A; (2) using forms similar to those included in the

certification procedure published in EPA-450/3-84-019 (revised 6/86),

``Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds

Emitted by Paint, Ink, and Other Coatings''; or (3) an alternative

method approved by the Administrator. Option 5 may be used for

demonstrating compliance when a shipyard is not subject to VOC limits.

Affected sources would be allowed to use the following methods to

demonstrate compliance to avoid testing every container of coating;

however, any analysis of an individual container of coating using the

Agency's Method 24 would take precedence to determine or to verify a

violation. Paragraphs (i) through (iii) are summaries of options 1, 2,

and 3.

(i) Shipyards can demonstrate compliance of the as-supplied VOC

content as certified by the manufacturer. If the as-supplied coating is

used without adding thinning solvent, shipyards can certify that the

as-applied VOC content of the batch of coating is identical to the as-

supplied VOC content, if it were certified by the manufacturer. If the

certified VOC content is less than the VOHAP limit, compliance is

demonstrated. (``As applied'' means after any thinning by the user or

just prior to application to the substrate. ``As supplied'' means as

supplied by the coating manufacturer.)

(ii) Shipyards can demonstrate compliance if the actual volume of

thinner used is less than the maximum allowable volume of thinner on a

coating-by-coating basis.

(iii) Shipyards can demonstrate compliance by comparing the actual

volume of thinner used to the maximum allowable volume on a ``group''

basis. A group of coatings would be defined as those which use the same

thinner. (See section VII.E. for more explanation.)

Compliance with options 1 through 4 is based on the VOC content of

each container of coating, as applied. If the as-applied VOC content is

less than or equal to the VOHAP limit, then compliance would be

demonstrated (See part III.E. for how ``exempt'' compounds which are

HAP are considered in compliance determinations and other details).

Shipyards can also demonstrate compliance by measuring the actual

VOHAP content of a coating. If the as-applied VOHAP content is less

than or equal to the alternate VOHAP limit, then compliance would be

demonstrated. (See II.E., Option 5, for how alternate VOHAP limits are

determined). (Concurrently with this rule, the Agency is preparing

requirements for sample preparation and the performance specifications

required of an acceptable analytical procedure.)

An affected source may choose to use only one of the options for

all coatings at the facility or a combination of options. Each option

is discussed in more detail below.

E. Test Methods and Procedures

The proposed rule would require Method 24 be used as the reference

method to determine compliance if the VOC content is used as a

surrogate for VOHAP. Manufacturers whose coatings do not release

reaction by-products may request an alternative or equivalent method to

be approved by the Administrator. If it is demonstrated to the

satisfaction of the Administrator that a specific coating does not

release VOC by-products from the cure reaction (all VOC emissions are

evaporated solvent), then she may approve use of batch solvent

formulation data to certify the as-supplied VOC content of that paint.

In the event of any inconsistency between the VOC content as measured

by Method 24 and formulation data, however, the Method 24 test shall

govern.

A few coatings may contain HAP which are (or through subsequent

formal action may become) excluded from EPA's definition of VOC because

these HAP have negligible photochemical reactivity and do not

contribute to tropospheric ozone formation. These non-VOC HAP are

nonetheless of regulatory concern as toxic chemicals. Therefore, for

the purposes of this rule the mass of VOHAP determined by Method 24

would be the mass of VOC plus exempt compounds; hence, unlike for a VOC

determination, the total mass loss of these organic volatiles must be

used in subsequent calculations. However, the volume of exempt

compounds should be subtracted (from the total coating volume) just as

water, as indicated by the units for VOHAP presented in Method 24.

Manufacturers and affected sources would be required to certify the

VOHAP of paints using a form similar to that published in the EPA's

``Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds

Emitted by Paint, Ink, and Other Coatings'' (Revised June 1986) EPA-

450/3-84-019 [Docket A-92-11, II-B-27]. If the shipyard chooses to

demonstrate compliance using the VOHAP content of the coating(s), the

manufacturer or affected source would need to provide details on how

the VOHAP values were determined.

F. Monitoring Requirements

Section 114(a)(3) of the amended CAA requires enhanced monitoring

and compliance certifications of all major stationary sources. The

annual compliance certifications certify whether compliance has been

continuous or intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall be capable of

detecting deviations from each applicable emission limitation or

standard with sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision,

reliability, frequency and timeliness to determine if compliance is

continuous during a reporting period. The monitoring in this regulation

satisfies the requirements of enhanced monitoring.

The test methods and procedures described in the previous section

will be used to determine compliance. Failure to meet the emission

limits as measured by these procedures would be an enforceable

violation of the emission limits of the standard. When add-on controls

are used, monitoring shall be capable of detecting deviations from each

applicable emission limitation or other standard with sufficient

reliability and timeliness to determine continuous compliance over the

applicable reporting period.

Although the term ``continuous'' generally means at all times, the

Agency has determined that less frequent measurements or determinations

of compliance can ensure continuous compliance. The potential

variability of the emissions or parameters is a primary factor in

establishing the frequency of measurements.

G. Notification Requirements

The proposed rule would require affected sources to follow the

notification requirements in Secs. 63.9(a)-(d) and (h)-(j) of subpart A

of the general provisions. In addition to the initial notification

requirements in Secs. 63.9(b)(2) and (3) of subpart A, sources would be

required to include in the initial notification: (1) the compliance

procedure(s) that they intend to use; (2) procedures for ensuring

compliance with the handling, transfer, and storage standard; and (3)

procedures for maintaining records. These are subject to the approval

of the Administrator. In addition, they would be required to submit a

notification of compliance status on a quarterly basis, with any

exceedances reported on a quarterly basis. Following the first year,

the owner or operator of a source that has had no exceedances for a

full year (can be any year after the first year), may request

Administrator approval to reduce the frequency of notification to

semiannual.

H. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

The proposed rule would require affected sources to follow the

general recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Secs. 63.10(a)-(b)

and (f) of subpart A of the general provisions. Sections 63.10(c)-(e)

of subpart A do not apply unless a source uses a control device to

comply with the standards except for the excess emission report

required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3) which applies regardless of how emissions

are controlled.

In addition, each owner or operator of an affected source would be

required to certify annually that all personnel involved with coatings,

thinning of coatings, keeping coating records, or handling/transferring

VOHAP-containing materials have received the training required by the

regulation. A record of the certification is required, but no report is

required. The purpose of the certification is to ensure that the

training does occur at least once per year, and that documentation does

exit for an enforcement official to review.

Affected sources would be required to keep all records needed to

demonstrate compliance with the standards, including calculations and

records of any Method 24 or alternate VOHAP tests. All records would be

compiled each calendar month and compliance status determined every

month. In addition, a source is required to report on a quarterly basis

any exceedances to the EPA and to provide in the excess emissions

report the data needed to confirm and quantify the reported exceedance.

All records must be maintained for a minimum of 5 years.

The quarterly report should include:

1. A summary of the number and duration of deviations during the

reporting period classified by reason, including known causes for which

a Federally-approved or promulgated exemption from an emission

limitation or standard may apply;

2. Identification of the data availability achieved during the

reporting period, including a summary of the number and total duration

of incidents during which the monitoring protocol failed to operate in

accordance with design or produced data that did not meet minimum data

accuracy and precision requirements (classified by reason);

3. Identification of the compliance status as of the last day of

the reporting period and whether compliance was continuous or

intermittent during the reporting period;

4. If, pursuant to (2) of this section, the owner or operator

identifies any deviation as resulting from a known cause for which no

Federally-approved or promulgated exemption from an emission limitation

or standard applies, the monitoring report shall also include all

records that the source is required to maintain that pertain to the

periods during which such deviation occurred and:

a. The magnitude of each deviation;

b. The reason for each deviation;

c. A description of the corrective action taken for each deviation,

including action taken to both minimize it and prevent recurrence; and

d. All quality assurance activities performed on any element of the

monitoring protocol.

IV. Summary of Estimated Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of

the Proposed Standards

The nationwide impacts presented below are the impacts the proposed

standards would have on existing facilities. Because of downsizing of

military forces, no new major sources are expected to be built in the

next five years. Therefore, impacts on new sources are expected to be

zero.

A. Number and Type of Affected Facilities

Approximately 437 facilities (shipyards) are involved in the

construction and repair of ships nationwide. Based on industry

information and data reported in the U.S. Department of Commerce's

``U.S. Industrial Outlook '92--Shipbuilding and Repair'' (January 1992)

and the U.S. Maritime Directory Listings (June 1992). It is estimated

that only 25 qualify as major sources of HAP emissions and would be

affected by the proposed rule.

B. Air Emission Reductions

The nationwide baseline VOHAP emissions for the approximately 25

major shipbuilding facilities from surface coating operations are

estimated to be 1,155 Mg/yr (1,272 tons/yr). Implementation of the

proposed standards would reduce these emissions by approximately 24

percent to 883 Mg/yr (972 tons/yr).

C. Secondary Environmental Impacts

No environmental impacts to water, solid waste, noise, or secondary

air impacts are associated with implementation of the proposed

standards, as explained below.

1. Water

There are no negative water pollution impacts resulting from

transition to compliant coatings.

2. Solid Waste

There are no negative solid waste impacts associated with the

proposed standards. No additional or new types of solid or hazardous

waste will be generated. Because the compliant (higher solid) coatings

are more concentrated, fewer containers will require disposal when the

same volume of solids is applied.

3. Noise

There is no additional noise associated with the proposed

standards. Pumps and compressors, the source of the majority of the

noise in paint operations, is not expected to change.

4. Secondary Air Impacts

There are no significant secondary air pollution impacts. Use of

compliant coatings avoids use of any type of control device or

equipment that would consume large amounts of energy. Furthermore, any

reduction in VOC emissions that result from compliance with the HAP

rule will reduce both ozone formation and CO2, a greenhouse gas

(VOC that remain airborne react to form ozone and are ultimately

oxidized to CO2).

D. Energy Impacts

Paint heaters are now used in some shipyards. Some sources may use

paint heaters in lieu of solvent to reduce paint viscosity. Although

some secondary air impacts would result from the power requirements of

the electrical heaters, the amount of electricity that they draw is

insignificant.

E. Cost Impacts

The incremental nationwide annual costs associated with the

proposed standards (MACT cost minus baseline cost) is approximately

$1.7 million per year. The use of compliant coatings will not require

different equipment. Because lower-VOC (and presumably lower-VOHAP)

coatings are more concentrated, less coating volume is required to

cover the same surface area to the same dry film thickness. Some of

these compliant coatings, however, may be more expensive both on a

dollar-per-gallon basis, but also in cost-per- volume solids

(nonvolatiles). Therefore, the annual costs associated with the

proposed standards reflect the difference between the costs of higher-

priced coatings and the savings associated with the decreased volume of

coatings (because of the higher solids content) and labor to apply

them.

Minor costs would be incurred by any source that purchases paint

heaters or other minor equipment necessary to comply with the handling,

transfer, and storage standard. These costs are expected to be

insignificant.

F. Economic Impacts

Economic impacts were calculated on a facility-specific basis as

well as on a market segment basis (i.e., military construction,

commercial repair, etc.). Economic impact indicators examined included

price, output, and employment impacts. The economic impact analysis

calculated economic impacts for six market segments within the

shipbuilding and repair industry. Two methods were used to calculate

the potential price impacts; therefore, these impacts will be provided

in terms of ranges.

Twenty major-source yards were identified as first-tier shipyards

(facilities that have the capability to construct, drydock, and/or

topside repair vessels with a minimum overall length of 400 feet). Two

market segments in the first tier, facilities engaging in construction

of military ships and privately owned facilities engaging in repair of

military ships, are each estimated to increase their prices 0.1 percent

or less to recover increased costs of the rule. The cost for the third

market segment, government-owned shipyards engaging in repairing

military ships, will be negligible.

The remaining five major-source shipyards are categorized into the

``second tier'' (facilities building and repairing ships less than 400

feet in length). Within this tier, the market segment consisting of

facilities constructing ships for the military is estimated to require

a price increase between 0.1 and 0.2 percent. The market segment

consisting of facilities engaging in construction of ships for the

commercial sector is estimated to require a price increase of 0.3

percent or less. Lastly, the market segment consisting of facilities

performing repair on ships in the commercial sector is expected to

require little or no price increase.

The facility-specific impact calculations estimate the maximum

price increase necessary for a regulated facility to fully recoup its

annualized control costs. For the purposes of the analysis, a

facility's price increase was considered significant if greater than 1

percent and deviated considerably from its corresponding market segment

price increase.

The facility-specific price increase calculations indicated that 23

of the 25 major-source shipyards are expected to experience price

increases of 0.1 percent or less. Of the two remaining, one is expected

to experience a 0.2 percent price increase and the other, 0.3 percent.

The above data indicate that none of the regulated facilities are

expected to experience price increases greater than 1 percent. In

addition, a comparison of each facility's price increase to its

corresponding market segment price increase reveals that the results of

each analysis are not significantly different. Therefore,

implementation of the NESHAP is not expected to have a significant

impact on the 25 major-source facilities in the shipbuilding and repair

industry.

The economic analysis also examined the impact of the NESHAP on

industry output and employment. The industry is expected to experience

a negligible reduction in output as a result of implementing the

regulation. Assuming a one-to-one relationship between output and

employment, the same conclusion can be applied to the NESHAP impact on

the industry's employment level.

V. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development

Section 112 of the Act gives the EPA the authority to establish

national standards to reduce HAP emissions from sources that emit one

or more HAP. Section 112(b) contains a list of the specific HAP to be

regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the EPA to use this

pollutant list to develop and publish a list of source categories for

which NESHAP will be developed. The Act defines major sources as those

that emit or have the potential to emit considering controls, in the

aggregate, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) or greater of individual HAP or 22.7

Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) or greater of any combination of HAP. The initial

list of source categories was published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).

Shipyards (major sources only) appear on this list.

Area sources are those sources that are not major sources. Area

source categories selected by the EPA for NESHAP development will be

based on the Administrator's judgment that the sources in a category,

individually or in the aggregate, pose a ``threat of adverse effects to

health and the environment.'' The EPA will continue to evaluate whether

area source shipyards should be added to the list of area source

categories.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both

new and existing sources according section 112(d) of the Act. The

standards are to reflect the maximum degree of reduction that is

achievable for new or existing sources. The NESHAP must reflect

consideration of the cost of achieving the emission reduction, nonair

quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements for

control levels more stringent than the MACT floor (described below).

The Act specifies that emission reduction may be accomplished through

application of measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques,

including, but not limited to, measures which:

1. Reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, such pollutants

through process changes, substitution of materials, or other

modifications;

2. Enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions;

3. Collect, capture, or treat such pollutants when released from a

process, stack, storage, or fugitive emission point;

4. Are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards

including requirements for operator training or certification as

provided in section 112(h); or

5. Any combination of the above [section 112(d)(2)].

To develop NESHAP, the EPA collects information about the industry,

including information on emission source characteristics, control

technologies, data from HAP emission tests at well-controlled

facilities, and information on the cost, energy, and other

environmental impacts of emission control techniques. The EPA uses this

information to analyze possible regulatory approaches.

Although NESHAP are normally structured in terms of numerical

emission limits, alternative approaches are sometimes necessary. In

some cases, physically measuring emissions from a source may be

impossible or at least impracticable due to technological and economic

limitations. Section 112(h) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate

a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard or

combination thereof, in those cases where it is not feasible to

prescribe or enforce an emissions standard.

If any sources in the source category are considered major (based

on their emissions), then a MACT standard is required. To establish a

MACT standard, the level of control corresponding to the MACT floor

needs to be determined as a starting point for developing the

regulatory alternatives.

C. Categorization/Subcategorization: Determining MACT ``Floors''

Section 112 of the Act provides certain very specific directives to

guide the EPA in the process for establishing MACT standards. It states

that the EPA shall establish standards that require ``the maximum

degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants ***

that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving

such emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and

environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable

***'' [section 112(d)(2)]. In addition, a minimum baseline or ``floor''

for a standard is specified. For new sources, the standard for a source

category or subcategory ``shall not be less stringent than the emission

control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar

source, as determined by the Administrator'' [section 112(d)(3)].

Further, standards for existing sources shall be no less stringent

than: (1) the average emission limitation achieved by the best

performing 12 percent of the existing sources in the category or

subcategory for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources;

or (2) the best performing five sources for categories or subcategories

with fewer than 30 sources [section 112(d)(3)].

Once the floor has been determined for new or existing sources for

a category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT standards no

less stringent. Such standards must then be met by all sources within

the category or subcategory. However, in establishing standards, the

Administrator may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of

sources within a category or subcategory and establish a different

emission standard for each class, provided all standards are at least

as stringent as the MACT floor.

The EPA has determined that there are less than 30 major

shipbuilding sources. Consequently, the MACT floor for existing

categories or subcategories was calculated to be the arithmetic average

(the mean) of the emission limitation achieved by the best performing

five sources.

D. Regulatory Approach and Regulatory Alternatives

The next step in establishing standards is the investigation of

regulatory alternatives. With MACT standards, only alternatives at

least as stringent as the floor may be considered. Information about

the industry is analyzed to develop model plant populations for

projecting national impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels,

costs, energy, and secondary impacts. Several regulatory alternative

levels (which may be different levels of emissions control or different

levels of applicability or both) are then evaluated to determine the

most appropriate regulatory alternative to serve as the basis for the

standard.

The regulatory alternatives for new versus existing sources may be

different, and separate regulatory decisions must be made for new and

existing sources. For both source types, the selected alternative may

be more stringent than the MACT floor. However, the control level

selected as the name maximum achievable control technology indicates,

must be available, i.e., technically achievable. In selecting a

regulatory alternative, the Agency considers the achievable reduction

in emissions of HAP (and possibly other pollutants that are co-

controlled), the cost and economic impacts, the energy requirements,

and other environmental impacts.

The selected regulatory alternative is then translated into a

proposed regulation. The regulation implementing the decision typically

includes the following sections: applicability, standards, test

methods, compliance demonstration, monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping. The preamble to the proposed regulation provides an

explanation of the rationale for the decisions embodied in the rule.

The public is invited to comment on the proposed regulation. Based on

an evaluation of these comments, the EPA promulgates the final

standard.

VI. Process Description and Control Technologies

This section describes the painting process and technologies that

can be used to control organic HAP emissions from painting operations

at shipyards. For more detailed description of the process and control

technologies, consult the BID for the proposed standards (see ADDRESSES

at the beginning of this Preamble).

Over 99 percent of HAP emissions at shipyards are organic solvents

associated with paints and cleaning. Other activities that collectively

contribute the remaining 1 percent include welding, metal forming/

cutting, and abrasive blasting. The proposed standards will affect

operations involving the use of paint and organic solvents.

A. Painting Process

Marine coatings are applied to the surface of ship components to

form a protective, functional or decorative films. The basic components

of a coating are the vehicle (resin or binder), solvent, pigment

(except in clear coatings), and a variety of additives. Different

coatings are used for different purposes; depending on where it is

applied, the intended use of the ship, ship activity, travel routes,

desired time between coatings (service life), aesthetic desires of the

ship owner or commanding officer, and fuel costs.

Marine coatings are vital for protecting the ship from corrosive

and biotic attacks from the water environment. Many marine coatings

serve specific functions, such as corrosion protection, heat/fire

resistance, or antifouling (to prevent the settlement and growth of

marine organisms on the ship's underwater hull).

The most popular techniques for applying coatings to marine vessels

are brushing, rolling, air-atomizing, and airless spraying. Brushing

and rolling are primarily used for touchup and recessed surfaces where

spraying is not practical. Spraying is used for all other surfaces

because of its high application speed.

Thinning solvent is sometimes added to coatings before application

even though paint manufacturers state that it is unnecessary.

Temperature, reportedly can play a big part in the decision to thin;

cold increases paint viscosity. For such cases, the appropriate solvent

to use for each coating is specified by the manufacturer. Typically

these paints and thinning solvents contain one or more of the following

HAP: xylene, toluene, and/or methyl ethyl ketone.

B. Control Technologies for Painting Operations

Emissions of VOHAP result primarily from solvent evaporation--both

solvent in the paint ``as supplied'' by the manufacturer and any

solvent used by the shipyard to thin the paint. Reaction by-products

released during the cure of some coatings may also contain HAP.

Essentially, all organic solvents, including those which are HAP, are

emitted either as the paint is applied or when it dries/cures. The

shipyard may limit emissions of HAP from, ``as supplied'' or ``as

applied,'' coatings as discussed below.

1. Paints As-Supplied by the Manufacturer

Since the Agency began its program to reduce emissions of volatile

organics in the late 1970's, the coating industry has made significant

progress in research of new products with increased solids: organic

solvent ratios. These liquid paints are of two primary types:

waterborne and higher solids. Although many new waterborne products

have been developed, manufacturers of marine coatings have reduced

solvent primarily by increasing the solids (nonvolatile) content of

their products. Use of these concentrated or ``higher solids'' coatings

reduce solvent emissions per surface area painted (at same film

thickness). Because most hazardous air pollutants are also volatile

organics, the VOC program has tended to also reduce HAP.

In addition, some coating manufacturers have reportedly been able

to reduce the HAP content of certain paints by merely substituting a

solvent not on the HAP list yielding paints that contain little or no

HAP solvents. A coating reformulated in this manner may have the same

or even higher VOC content than the one it replaces. In some cases, the

HAP to VOC ratio may even increase when a company develops a new

reformulation with lower VOC. (Note, the absolute HAP emissions are

likely to go down.)

2. Paints As-Applied by the Shipyard

There are several alternatives a shipyard may follow to minimize

HAP emissions from as-applied paints. One is to avoid diluting the

paint and apply it as-supplied. Another is to only use thinners that

contain little or no HAP. A third is to reduce paint viscosity by

heating the paint to avoid or minimize the need for thinning. (Paint

heaters are heating elements placed in the paint delivery line upstream

of the spray gun. Depending on the length of the delivery line, the

coating characteristics, and ambient temperature, multiple paint

heaters may be required at intervals along the line. These decrease the

ease of portability and flexibility of the application system.)

``Add-on'' pollution control systems are often used to control

emissions from spray booths when coatings are applied in factory

operations. Such systems are not now a practical alternative for many

shipyard operations because the size of ship components is too large to

enable capturing of the emissions with an enclosure. (There is

currently under development a mobile enclosure that, if successful,

will offer shipyards a method of capturing both particulate and

volatile organics. Metro Machine shipyard in Norfolk, Virginia has

developed a prototype portable enclosure that mounts adjacent to the

ship and supports an omni-directional elevator platform used by the

operator to abrasive blast and paint ship's hulls. The method shows

promise of containing particulate and volatile organics of

concentrations great enough to make recovery available at reasonable

cost. It also provides weather protection thereby allowing work to

continued in inclement weather. Final evaluation will likely be

completed in 1996.)

C. Handling, Transfer, and Storage of Volatile Organic HAP Containing

Materials

Volatile organic emissions (including HAP) result from storage,

handling, and transfer of solvents and paint wastes that contain VOHAP.

These solvents, typically stored in 55-gallon drums, are frequently

transferred by pump or spigot into small buckets or 1 gallon containers

for transport to the painting site. Waste solvent and HAP also

evaporate from solvent-laden rags and spent solvent used in cleaning

activities and coating operations.

These HAP emissions may be minimized with appropriate work

practices including managed chemical (paint and solvent) distribution

systems designed to curb the volume of material exposed to the

atmosphere and the length of the exposure. For example, solvent-soaked

cleaning rags should be kept in impervious bags or containers that are

normally closed when not in use.

VII. Selection Rationale

A. Selection of Emission Points to be Covered

The proposed standards would limit VOHAP emissions from surface

coating operations at shipbuilding facilities that are major sources in

accordance with the EPA's list of source categories published in the

Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Standards are being

proposed to limit the VOHAP content of 23 categories of coatings used

in shipyards. In addition, the proposed standards would require work

practice measures for handling, transfer, and storage of solvent and

paint wastes.

Welding, gas freeing (tank degassing), metal fabrication, fuel

combustion, flame cutting, cooling towers, asbestos removal, and

cleaning would not be regulated under the proposed rule, although their

emissions must be included in determining if a facility qualifies as a

major source. Asbestos removal is covered in 40 CFR part 61, subpart M;

cooling towers are treated in the industrial process cooling tower rule

proposed on August 12, 1993; and chromium emissions by the rule for

hard and decorative electroplating and anodizing operations proposed on

November 30, 1993. Methodology for determining and managing emissions

from cleaning solvents is detailed in the ACT document--Industrial

Cleaning Solvents, EPA-453/R-94-015.

B. Selection of the Basis for the Proposed Standards

The general methodology for selecting the basis for MACT standards

was discussed in section V. A more detailed discussion specific to this

industry is presented below.

1. Coating Operations

No emission control measures are known to have previously been

implemented specifically to reduce HAP emissions from this industry.

Regulations that reduce VOC emissions will limit HAP emissions since

almost all organic HAP are VOC.

At shipyards, the only VOC control measure that has been fully

demonstrated for outdoor coating operations is the use of coatings with

inherently lower emissions. Such coatings have and are being developed

by an enlightened industry to reduce its environmental impact. The new

products are used for compliance with VOC regulations in Louisiana and

some California jurisdictions. There are as yet no known cases where

add-on pollution control systems have been used to control VOC

emissions from outdoor coating operations at shipyards.

The California and Louisiana regulations limit the allowable

quantity of VOC in each of several categories of coatings, as applied.

Because VOHAP are VOC (with the exception noted above), such

regulations also reduce, or at a minimum, put a ceiling on the

allowable HAP content of these coatings.

The California regulations (VOC limits) are more stringent than

those in Louisiana. Thus, the major sources subject to those California

rules represent the ``best controlled sources.'' Because three major

source facilities are located in California, the single best controlled

facility and the median facility of the best performing five sources

are both subject to the stringent California regulations. Therefore,

the Agency has determined that the MACT floor for both new and existing

sources is identical to the current California VOC limits on marine

coatings, except for one additional paint category [weld-through (shop)

primer].

A variety of more stringent alternatives were considered, including

more restrictive limits based on HAP content (rather than VOC content),

more stringent VOC limits, and requiring use of pollution control

equipment. These alternatives are discussed below.

To evaluate other potential limits, the EPA gathered existing data

on HAP content from marine coating manufacturers and shipyards.

Information compiled from a material safety data sheet (MSDS) was used

to determine (estimate) the HAP content of each paint. Most of the data

came from MSDSs and product data sheets. Based on these data, the

percentage of VOC in marine coatings that are HAP varies from zero to

100 percent and averaged 30 percent by weight for all paints in the

project data base. (The HAP content could exceed the VOC content in

coatings containing non-VOC HAP.)

Industry subsequently informed EPA that the quality of HAP-specific

data on MSDSs is poor. The MSDSs are prepared primarily to meet

Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) requirements.

Although one section addresses hazardous constituents, the industry

indicated that information and format required for OSHA purposes are

not as detailed or accurate as would be desired for development of a

regulation. Further, the list of hazardous materials that OSHA

regulations require must be addressed in MSDSs is different from the

HAP list in section 112(b) of the Act. In addition, it is acceptable to

give a concentration range on the MSDS, rather than a specific value.

Finally, many entries on the MSDS are generic petroleum solvents, such

as mineral spirits, which are mixtures of many organics (some of which

may be HAP) and vary in composition from lot to lot.

Because of these drawbacks in MSDS data, the EPA considered it not

accurate enough to be used in setting limits for VOHAP. The Agency

believes, however, that the resulting data base is sufficiently

accurate for use in estimating broad parameters, such as the potential

reduction associated with limitations on VOC content.

Enforcement of a limit on HAP content would require an EPA

reference test method. Although one is under development by the Agency,

it has not yet been published. Based on the quality of the HAP content

data on the MSDSs and the lack of an approved test method for

speciating and quantifying HAP, the EPA has determined that VOC will be

used as a surrogate to limit HAP emissions. Consequently, the proposed

rule would establish the VOHAP limit at the VOC limit of the California

rules using VOC as a surrogate for HAP and the Agency's VOC test

method, Method 24, for determining compliance.

The EPA considered requiring limits more stringent than the

existing California limits. The data base indicates that within each

category of coatings there are coatings with VOC contents below the

California limit. (Some may have been developed in response to the

technology-forcing provisions of the California regulations that

provide for more stringent limits to come into effect in September 1994

for some coating categories.)

Although coatings with lower VOC contents than the rule requires

are marketed in each category, they reportedly would not perform for

the full range of potential applications within a coating category.

An important consideration in examining control requirements for

this industry is U.S. Navy military specifications or ``milspecs.''

Because of the need for coatings for specialized applications and the

demand for predictable performance, the Navy oversees exhaustive

performance testing procedures. Naval personnel indicate an ongoing

program to qualify lower VOC coatings. The California rules were

developed with considerable input from the Navy, and according to a

Naval representative, reflect the ``state of the art'' for lower-VOC

shipbuilding coatings. Volatile organic compound limits more stringent

than proposed would require that the Navy use paints for which they

have not yet completed long term testing, hence are not milspec

approved. Given these considerations, the EPA is proposing MACT

emission levels based on the 1992 California regulations that limit the

total VOC as-applied paint.

The EPA also evaluated the potential of add-on VOC control devices

(i.e., carbon adsorbers and incinerators). Although no cases are known

where add-on controls are used for outdoor painting at shipyards, they

have been used to reduce spraybooth emissions by many other industries.

Most coating operations at shipyards take place outdoors, primarily

because of the size of parts painted. This makes capture of emissions

difficult and expensive. Use of add-on controls for outdoor painting

was not selected as the basis for MACT for these reasons. It should be

noted, however, that a portable enclosure that will contain particulate

and VOC during abrasive blasting and coating of ships' hulls is under

commercial development. Should these enclosures prove technically and

economically feasible, their performance should be considered by any

State or the Federal Government in developing future rules for this

industry.

Two types of coating operations at shipyards where emissions are

more available to capture were examined more closely for the

feasibility of add-on controls: indoor coating operations and painting

inside of ship's tanks or other internal enclosed spaces. Based on a

brief screening analyses, using the limited available data that assumes

all spray areas are continually drafted to the control device (whether

painting operations are underway in all areas or not), add-on control

was estimated to be on the order of $150,000/Mg of VOHAP removed. The

EPA believes that this cost is not reasonable for this source category.

As a result, add-on controls were not investigated further nor selected

as the basis for MACT.

In reality, the amount of VOC and HAP controlled at a site is

dependent on the rate of paint application, the concentration of these

compounds in the exhaust air stream during the painting operation, the

flow rate of the air stream flowing into the add-on control unit and a

host of other factors. The suitability of add-on controls can only be

determined on a case-by-case basis.

After review of alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor,

the EPA is proposing to set the MACT standard at the floor based on the

California marine coatings rule which is for both new and existing

sources. The costs of the control option for new and existing sources

is expected to be the same. The Agency solicits comments on this

determination.

``Models'' of shipyards were developed to help determine the need

to differentiate among classes of shipyards in identifying the MACT.''

Models were developed for classes of yards based on market segment

(yards that construct ships versus those that only repair) and size

(large versus medium). The EPA concluded there is no basis for

differentiating among classes of major source shipyards, but

specifically solicits comments on whether this category should be

subcategorized; and if so, how.

2. Handling, Transfer, and Storage of VOHAP Containing Material

Based on information received from industry, a variety of ``work

practice'' measures are used to reduce evaporative losses of VOC from

transfer, handling, and storage of solvent and paint wastes. These

include spill minimization techniques (use of spouts, funnels, or catch

basins during transfer of liquids from one container to another), the

use of normally closed containers or piping to transport liquids, and

the use of close-fitting or tight covers on containers for solvent, wet

rags, and waste.

Many more than five facilities employ some type of work practice

measures. Facilities in California are subject to regulations to

minimize evaporative emissions; other facilities employ such measures

to decrease solvent usage or to minimize exposure of workers. However,

data to quantify accurately the emission reductions achievable by

different work practice measures is unavailable. The beneficial effect

of a specific change is largely a function of the previous plant

practice being remedied. As a result, even though such activities

obviously reduce emissions, there is no way to distinguish between the

``best controlled source'' and the ``best performing five existing

sources.'' Therefore, the EPA has designated the same select work

practice measures as the MACT floor for control of emissions from

handling and transfer of VOHAP containing material at both new and

existing facilities. For emissions from storage containers, the MACT

floor is use of tight-fitting covers that must be normally closed; that

is, in place except when materials are being added to or withdrawn. The

Agency believes that this is a reasonable approach. Because work

practice measures typically entail negligible cost, any emission

reduction that is achieved is believed to be worthwhile. The EPA

specifically solicits comments on this determination.

No other more effective control options for these VOHAP emissions

from cleaning activities were found. Use of lower-HAP or lower-vapor-

pressure substitutes to minimize evaporative losses may be feasible,

although this option depends on the availability of a suitable

replacement cleaning material.

Capture and control of fugitive emissions from the many transfer,

handling, and storage of solvents (and operation wastes) although

conceivable, is impractical, making it difficult to invoke any

quantifiable standard other than work practice requirements. Associated

monitoring and recordkeeping are included for determining compliance.

In an attempt to ensure that employees understand and comply with the

requirements, the proposed standards also require each source to

implement a training program for all involved personnel.

C. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards

1. Coating Operations

Most HAP emissions from coating operations in this industry occur

outdoors where the technology for their capture has not been

demonstrated. As a result the only available technology for reducing

emissions is to require use of coatings with lower volatile content.

Virtually all of the HAP and VOC contained in marine coatings are

emitted to the atmosphere during the course of application and drying.

Thus, an emission standard based on limiting both HAP and VOC content

of the coatings, as applied, is appropriate for these operations,

particularly because any additional HAP and VOC that may be formed and

emitted during the curing process are detected and measured by the

reference measurement methodology.

As a result, the types of coatings used by the industry were

identified and maximum, never-to-be-exceeded HAP limits were selected

for each of the several coating categories. To allow additional

flexibility, the ability to average limits across categories was also

considered. Under an averaging approach, any coating regardless of

volatile organic content, can be used as long as the volume weighted

average as applied VOHAP content, i.e., as measured by the reference

method, of all coatings does not exceed the average calculated from

their individual limits. In developing the limits, the Agency

considered two types of averages: (1) Separate averages for coating

within each of the coating categories and (2) a single average for all

coatings used by a facility. The option of establishing limits based on

weighted averages of various coatings of different pollution content

was abandoned when the industry indicated that time and effort to plan,

track, and demonstrate compliance would be too burdensome. As a result,

the limits are based on never-to-be-exceeded VOHAP contents for 23

categories of coatings and permits ``averaging'' for purposes of

compliance under certain conditions. The proposed coating categories

and associated HAP limits are presented in Table 1.

2. Handling, Transfer, and Storage of VOHAP Containing Material

The proposed work practice standards require that these operations

be carried out in such a manner that minimizes spills. For storage and

transport, the proposed standards require use of containers that are

normally closed.

To provide a measure of enforceability to these standards, each

source will be required to indicate how it intends to comply with the

standards as part of the initial notification that is required of all

sources under the part 63 general provisions. After the Administrator

or her designee negotiates and approves these compliance measures as

part of the operating permit program, each source will have a specific

set of requirements for which compliance can be determined by

monitoring, observation and/or inspection.

D. Selection of Compliance Dates

The proposed rule would require that existing sources comply within

1 year after the effective date of the rule. This provides time for

shipyards and coating manufacturers to deplete most existing

inventories of contemporary coatings. An existing unaffected area

source that increases its emissions (or potential to emit) such that it

becomes a major source would be required to comply within 1 year after

becoming a major source.

Table 1.--Proposed Volatile Organic HAP (VOHAP) Content Limits for

Marine Coatings

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

VOHAP limitsa,d VOHAPalt limitsc,d

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

Pounds Pounds

Coating category Grams per per Grams per per

liter (g/ gallon liter (g/ gallon

L) (lb/gal)b L) (lb/gal)b

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

General use................. 340 2.83 571 4.76

Specialty:

Air flask................. 340 2.83 571 4.76

Antenna................... 530 4.42 1,439 12.00

Antifoulant............... 400 3.33 765 6.38

Heat resistant............ 420 3.50 841 7.00

High gloss................ 420 3.50 841 7.00

High temperature.......... 500 4.17 1,237 10.31

Inorganic zinc high-build

primer................... 340 2.83 571 4.76

Military exterior......... 340 2.83 571 4.76

Mist...................... 610 5.08 2,235 18.63

Navigational aids......... 550 4.58 1,597 13.31

Nonskid................... 340 2.83 571 4.76

Nuclear................... 420 3.50 841 7.00

Organic zinc.............. 360 3.00 630 5.25

Pre-treatment wash primer. 780 6.50 11,095 92.46

Repair and maintenance of

thermoplastic coating of

commercial vessels....... 550 4.58 1,597 13.31

Rubber camouflage......... 340 2.83 571 4.76

Sealant coat for thermal

spray aluminum........... 610 5.08 2,235 18.63

Special marking........... 490 4.08 1,178 9.82

Specialty interior........ 340 2.83 571 4.76

Tack coat................. 610 5.08 2,235 18.63

Undersea weapons systems.. 340 2.83 571 4.76

Weld-through (shop) primer 650 5.42 2,885 24.04

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

aVolatile organic HAP limits (for compliance options 1 through 4) are

expressed in units of mass of VOHAP per volume of coating less water

and non-HAP ``exempt'' solvents, as applied. Volatile compounds

classified by EPA as having negligible photochemical reactivity are

listed as ``exempt'' in 40 CFR 51.100(s) (except those on the HAP

list).

bTo convert from g/L to lb/gal, multiply by: [(3.785 L/gal)(lb/453.6 g)]

or (lb-L/120 g-gal).

cAlternate volatile organic HAP (VOHAPalt) limits (for compliance option

5) are expressed in units of mass of VOHAP per volume of solids, a

value that assumes the volumes of all components within a coating are

additive.

dFor compliance purposes, the metric limits are the standard.

Any new or reconstructed sources would be required to adhere to the

compliance schedule in Sec. 63.6(b) of subpart A of the general

provisions. For new or reconstructed sources whose startup date is

before the effective date of the rule, the compliance date would be the

effective date of the rule. For new or reconstructed sources whose

startup date is after the effective date of the rule, the compliance

date would be the startup date. A new unaffected area source that

increases its emissions (or potential to emit) such that it becomes a

major source would be required to comply immediately upon becoming a

major source.

Many shipyards in California have been complying with VOC limits

equal to those in the proposed BACM since September 1991. Hence,

coatings that meet the limits should be readily available.

E. Selection of Compliance Procedures

The proposed rule would allow affected sources to choose from five

options for demonstrating compliance with the VOHAP standards.

Regardless of the option(s) chosen, for each coating, affected sources

would be required to first determine: (1) its coating category in Table

1 (e.g., general use, air flask, antenna, etc.), (2) the applicable

VOHAP limit, and (3) the VOC (or VOHAP) content for each manufactured

batch of coating. The VOC (or VOHAP) content of the batch would be

determined through certification as explained in part III.D. (It is in

the best interest of affected sources to use manufacturers that certify

their coatings.)

For options 1 through 4 involving VOC content determinations, the

compliance method is the Agency's Method 24. Affected sources would be

allowed any of the methods described below to avoid testing every

container. The ultimate referee method, however, is Method 24. Option 5

involves VOHAP content determinations; the compliance method has to be

approved by the Administrator and comply with EPA requirements for

sample preparation.

The proposed rule does not specify compliance procedures for the

handling, transfer, and storage standard. Each affected source would be

required to develop and include specific compliance procedures for

their facility in the initial notification to the Administrator.

An affected source would be allowed to select any of the following

methods for compliance and may choose to use only one of the options

for all coatings at the facility or use a combination of options.

Option 1. Certification of Each Container or Coating, As-Applied

Procedures for certifying the quantity of VOC emitted by paints,

ink, and other coatings are combined in the EPA publication 450/3-84-

019 (revised 6/86). Compliance with the VOHAP content limits would be

achieved by sampling, testing, and certifying the VOC content of each

container of coating, as applied. If the as-applied VOC content is less

than or equal to the VOHAP limit in Table 1, the coating complies.

Option 2. Coatings To Which Thinning Solvent Will Not Be Added

If thinning solvents will not be added to the coating under any

circumstances, the affected source may demonstrate compliance with the

VOHAP content limit by certifying the as-applied VOC content by

manufacturer's batch. The as- applied certification may be based on a

coating that has been certified by the manufacturer as to the as-

supplied content and simply requires documentation that no thinning

solvent was added to the coating. No additional testing would be

necessary.

All painters would have to be notified that no thinning solvent may

be added to the coating before application. This notification may be

accomplished through a label affixed to each container in the batch or

through another means of notification specified in the source's initial

notification that is required in Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A of the

general provisions. Other means of notifying painters may include use

of a bar coding system or posting of a list of coatings that should not

have thinning solvents added.

This option is the least burdensome to affected sources, but it may

only be used for coatings that will not be thinned. However, any Method

24 tests on individual containers of coating, as applied, that show

noncompliance with the standards would take precedence and indicate a

violation.

Option 3. Coatings to Which Thinning Solvent Is Added--Coating-by-

Coating Compliance

If thinning solvents are added to the coating, the affected source

could determine the allowed level of dilution for purpose of

demonstrating compliance on a coating-by-coating basis. The source

would determine the as-supplied VOC content of each type of thinning

solvent. Then, using the as-supplied certification for the coating and

the maximum allowable limit from Table 1, the source would calculate

the maximum allowable thinning ratio that would not violate the VOHAP

content limit.

The persons responsible for applying each coating shall be notified

of the designated thinner and maximum allowable dilution ratio for that

coating by affixing a label to each container of coating in the batch

or through another means as discussed in the rule.

(A) For coatings and thinning solvents that do not contain water or

exempt compounds, use Equation 1 as follows:

TP06DE94.013

where:

Rd=Maximum allowable thinning ratio (L thinner/L coating

as supplied);

VOCs=As-supplied VOC content of the coating (g VOC/L coating as

supplied, less water and exempt solvents);

HAPa=Allowable as-applied VOHAP content of the coating (g VOHAP/L

coating as applied, less water and exempt solvents);

Rd=Density of the thinners (g thinner/L thinner);

(B) For coatings or thinners that contain water or exempt

compound(s), use Equation 2 as follows:

TP06DE94.014

where:

(Vw)s=Volume fraction of water and exempt solvents in the

coating as supplied (L water and exempt solvents/L coating as

supplied);

(Vw)d=Volume fraction of water and exempt solvents in the

thinner (L water and exempt solvents/L thinner); and

(Ww)d=Weight fraction of water and exempt solvents in the

thinner (g water and exempt solvents/g thinner).

(C) The procedures specified under test methods and procedures may

be used to determine the values of variables defined in this paragraph,

as necessary.

A source is to determine the total allowable volume of thinner for

each coating for the month using the following equation.

TP06DE94.015

where:

Vd=Total allowable volume of thinner for the coating for the

previous month (L thinner);

Vc=Volume of each batch of the coating, as supplied, used during

the month (L coating as supplied);

i=Each batch of coating; and

n=Total number of batches of the coating.

If the actual thinner volume used for a coating is less than or

equal to the total allowable thinner volume for that coating then

compliance is presumed for that coating for the month, unless a

violation is revealed using Method 24. (If it is greater, the facility

must report a violation.) Any Method 24 test on individual containers

of coating, as applied, that shows noncompliance with the standards

would take precedence and indicate a violation.

Option 4. A Group of Coatings To Which the Same Thinning Solvent Is

Added--Group Compliance

Inasmuch as shipyards may use the same solvent to reduce more than

one category of coating, this option was created to minimize

recordkeeping in such cases. The group compliance option is similar to

the coating-by-coating compliance option, except the source does not

need to maintain thinner usage by individual paint category; it would

be allowed to calculate the total allowable volume of thinner used for

a group of coatings. A group would be constituted based on use of

common thinner. A group could consist of two or more different batches

of the same coating or different coatings. For example, a group may

consist of a certain batch of antenna coating combined with all batches

of general use coatings. However, a group may not contain any coating

to which thinning solvent will not be added.

Affected sources would calculate the maximum allowable dilution

ratio for each coating using equation 1 or 2. All painters would have

to be notified of the maximum allowable dilution ratio for each

coating. Beginning with the recorded amount of coating used during the

previous month, the facility would calculate the net allowable volume

of thinner that could have been used by each coating in the group. If

the actual usage was less than or equal to the net allowable volume for

the group, the source is in compliance. However, any Method 24 test on

individual containers of coating, as applied, that shows noncompliance

with the standards would take precedence and indicate a violation.

Equations 1 through 3 were derived from the EPA's ``Procedures for

Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by Paint,

Ink, and Other Coatings'' (Revised June 1986), EPA--450/3-84-019.

Option 5. Coatings with Noncompliant VOC Contents Used in Areas Without

VOC Limits

In those facilities located in areas without required VOC limits

for marine coatings (i.e., ozone attainment areas; all 25 of the

existing major source facilities are located in current ozone

nonattainment areas), the affected source may measure the HAP content

using the following techniques and using alternate limits derived from

the limits in the regulation to demonstrate compliance on a coating-by-

coating basis. The VOHAPalt limits were calculated using the

maximum allowable VOHAP limits (see Table 1) and an assumed average

density for all solvents. To demonstrate compliance, the source would

determine (using formulation data from the coating manufacturer) the

as-supplied VOC content and volume solids (Vs) of each coating.

Then, using the measured (via any approved test method) VOHAP

content divided by the volume solids, compliance can then be determined

with the calculated VOHAPalt limit. The following equations were

used to calculate the alternate VOHAP limits (for coatings that do not

contain any exempt solvents or water):*

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

*Equation 5 only applies to those coatings containing only VOC's

and (volume) solids.

TP06DE94.016

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

where:

Vs**=Volume fraction of solids in the coating as supplied (L

solids/L coating as applied);

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

\*\*For purposes of this general discussion and example

calculation, volume solids (Vs) has been used interchangeably

with the term ``nonvolatiles.''

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

VOC=Applicable as-supplied VOC content of the coating (g VOC/L coating

as supplied, less water and exempt solvents; and

Davg=Average density of solvents in the coating (to demonstrate

compliance of a marine coating, use the solvent mixture in the coating

to calculate Davg.)

In order to calculate VOHAPalt limits, the VOC content was

assumed to be equal to the VOHAP limit for each coating category in

Table 1, therefore:

TP06DE94.017

where:

VOHAPlimit=Applicable as-applied VOHAP limit of the coating

category (g VOHAP/L coating as applied, less water and non-HAP exempt

solvents);

Davg=840 g/L (for conversion purposes, the average density of

solvents used in all marine coatings).

The VOHAPalt limits were then calculated using the following

equation:

TP06DE94.018

where:

VOHAPalt=Allowable as-applied alternate VOHAP content of the

coating (g VOHAP/L solids as applied)

Vs=Volume fraction of solids in the as applied coating (L solids/L

coating)

If the measured VOHAP contents for a coating divided by the volume

solids (Vs) is less than or equal to the calculated VOHAPalt

limit in Table 1, then compliance is demonstrated.

An example calculation for determining the VOHAPalt limit for

a ``general use'' coating follows:

First, the VOHAP limit=340 g/L and based on the assumption that the

coating is only comprised of VOC and (volume) solids,

TP06DE94.019

Then,

TP06DE94.020

When the as-applied coating contains thinner and/or exempt

compounds, special allowances (calculations) must be

TP06DE94.021

used to determine VOHAPalt limits. These special allowances and

procedures for compliance testing are covered in a June 30, 1994, memo

to the project file [Docket A-92-11, II-B-26] from Dr. Mohamed

Serageldin.

To further illustrate the VOHAPalt limit calculations, the

following example is provided: A shipyard wants to use (demonstrate

compliance using option 5) a general use coating with a VOC content of

392 g/L less water and exempt solvents, a measured VOHAP content of 288

g/L less water, and an average solvent density of 880 g/L. Since the

VOHAP limit for general use coatings is 340 g/L less water, the

VOHAPalt limits were calculated to be 571 g VOHAP/L solids (see

Table 1).

TP06DE94.022

Compliance for the coating is therefore demonstrated because the

VOHAP content of 519 g/L solids is less than the VOHAPalt limit of

571 g/L solids.

F. Selection of Test Methods and Procedures

Since the EPA does not yet have a published reference method for

analyzing for the amount of VOHAP in a coating, the measure of total

VOC is to be used as a surrogate. Method 24 is the Agency's reference

method for determining the total volatile organic content (the total

amount of VOHAP and other volatile organics). The proposed rule would

use the VOC content of as-applied coatings to determine compliance with

the VOHAP content limits (see section VII.B.1).

Most, if not all, major shipbuilding facilities are believed to be

located in ozone nonattainment areas. These facilities are likely to be

required to meet State VOC regulations requiring BACM. As explained

earlier in this notice, the EPA's draft recommended BACM for the draft

CTG contains VOC limits equivalent to the VOHAP limits being proposed.

Thus, using Method 24 to measure compliance with both the VOC and HAP

rules (i.e., one test to satisfy two concerns) should be the least

burdensome route of any source having to meet VOC rules in addition to

HAP rules. However, in case there are any sources which are not

required to meet VOC rules and have a desire to determine compliance

through measuring VOHAP instead of VOC, an approach as outlined in

option 5 is being proposed. (Comments are requested.)

The proposed rule would require that affected sources use forms and

procedures comparable to those in the EPA's ``Procedures for Certifying

Quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by Paint, Ink and Other

Coatings,'' (Revised June 1986) EPA-450/3-84-019 for all certifications

needed for compliance demonstrations. Consistent use of these forms and

procedures will provide uniform and complete records that will allow

determination of ``continuous'' compliance with the standards.

Procedures other than test methods would be required to demonstrate

compliance with the handling, transfer, and storage standard. Each

source is required to submit an implementation plan that will include

specific procedures to ensure compliance.

G. Selection of Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

1. Notification Requirements

The proposed rule would require affected sources to submit an

initial notification and subsequent quarterly notifications of

compliance status. Exceedances (violations) should be reported on a

quarterly basis. The notification requirements in Secs. 63.9 (a)-(d)

and (h)-(j) of subpart A would apply to all affected sources in

addition to the source category-specific requirements in the proposed

rule. Sections 63.9 (e)-(g) of subpart A would not apply unless an

affected source installs an add-on control device.

Section 63.9(b) of subpart A contains the initial notification

requirements. The initial notification would alert the Administrator

of: (1) The applicability for existing facilities or of construction

for new facilities, (2) how the source plans to comply with the

proposed standards, and (3) if any delays in compliance are expected.

This notification would be due no later than 120 calendar days after

the effective date of the rule for existing sources; for new or

reconstructed sources, the due date would be within 120 days after

initial startup if approval of construction or reconstruction is not

required under Sec. 63.5(d) of subpart A. In addition to the items

listed in Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A, sources would be required to

include in the initial notification: (1) The compliance procedure(s)

that they intend to use for the coating operation standards; (2)

procedures for ensuring compliance with the handling, transfer, and

storage standard; and (3) procedures for maintaining records.

Section 63.9(h) of subpart A contains the requirements for

notification of compliance status. These would notify the Administrator

of whether compliance has been achieved over the past 3 months. These

notifications would be due before the 60th day following completion of

each 3-month period. If there are no violations within the first year,

compliant sources may request permission from the Administrator to go

to 6-month notifications. Because records would be compiled on a

monthly basis, 60 days should provide sufficient time to prepare these

notifications. In addition to the items listed in Sec. 63.9(h) of

subpart A, affected sources would be required to include in these

notifications all other records that the source is required to maintain

and compile on a monthly basis according to the proposed rule.

2. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

The proposed rule would require affected sources to maintain

adequate records to verify the compliance status of the source on a

monthly basis. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the

general provisions in Secs. 63.10 (a)-(b) and (f) of subpart A would

apply to all affected sources. The source category-specific

requirements in the proposed rule also apply. Sections 63.10 (c)-(e) of

subpart A would not apply unless an affected source installs an add-on

control.

Affected sources would be required to keep records for 5 years of

all VOC content certifications, VOHAP content certifications, maximum

allowable dilution ratios, quantities of coatings and thinner consumed,

and compliance calculations needed to determine compliance with the

standards. These records would vary slightly depending on the method(s)

of determining compliance under Sec. 63.784 that the source chooses to

use. Records of any Method 24 tests (or VOHAP tests) conducted on

individual coatings, as applied, would also be maintained. These

records are required in case the results of any such test conflicts

with the results of any compliance determination conducted in

accordance with the other allowable methods.

The Administrator believes that the records required under the

proposed rule are necessary for a regulatory agency to determine the

compliance status of an affected source efficiently and effectively.

All records would be compiled each calendar month and maintained for a

minimum of 5 years.

H. Operating Permit Program

Under the operating permit regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70,

any source that is considered major under the Act or any nonmajor

source subject to a standard under sections 111 or 112 of the Act must

obtain an operating permit [see Sec. 70.3(a)(1)]. Often, emission

limits, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements are

scattered among numerous provisions of State implementation plans or

Federal regulations. As discussed in the promulgated regulation for the

operating permit program published on July 21, 1992 (57 FR 32250), this

new permit program includes all of the air pollution control

requirements that pertain to a single major stationary source in a

single document. Sources subject to the program are required to submit

complete permit applications within a year after a State operating

permit program is approved by the EPA; if a State program is not

approved, sources will submit applications to the EPA within a year

after the Federal program is promulgated.

I. Solicitation of Comments

The Administrator solicits comments on all aspects of this

proposal. However, the Administrator is specifically requesting comment

on the topics discussed in this section. Commenters should provide

available data and rationale to support their comments on each topic.

The Administrator specifically requests comments on the MACT floor

determination, subcategorization, and claims by some shipyards on the

need for thinning solvents beyond levels indicated by the manufacturer

because of viscosity problems attributable to extremely cold weather.

Specifically, comments are requested on: (1) Are such needs compulsory

or more convenience, (2) why in-line heaters would not provide

sufficient viscosity control, (3) what extreme climatic conditions

(e.g., temperature, humidity, etc.) would justify excess thinning, (4)

how such additional solvent could be linked in quantity (e.g., dilution

to a preapproved viscosity setpoint), and (5) any other information

that would help the Agency in this matter.

The Administrator also requests comments on the timeframe for

submitting items in the initial notification that are not required

under the General Provisions Secs. 63.9(b) (2) and (3) of subpart A.

These items are the compliance procedure(s) that the source intends to

use to demonstrate compliance; procedures for ensuring compliance with

the handling, storage, and transfer standards; and procedures for

maintaining records. Specifically, comments are requested on whether

120 days is sufficient time to prepare and submit these items.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the

proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act.

Persons wishing to make oral presentation on the proposed standards for

coating operations at shipbuilding facilities should contact the EPA at

the address given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Oral

presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the

public may file a written statement before, during, or within 30 days

after the hearing. Written statements should be addressed to the Air

and Radiation Docket and Information Center address given in the

ADDRESSES section of this preamble, and should refer to Docket No. A-

92-11.

A transcript of the hearing and written statements will be

available for public inspection and copying during normal working hours

at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in

Washington, DC (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

B. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information

submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of

this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1)

To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate documents so

that they can intelligently and effectively participate in the

rulemaking process, and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial

review [except for interagency review materials (section

307(d)(7)(A))].

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the

Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as

one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order. The proposed rule for coating operations at

shipbuilding facilities does not meet any of the criteria in the

Executive Order and is therefore not subject to the requirement for a

regulatory impact analysis.

It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant

regulatory action'' under the terms of the E.O. 12866 and is therefore

not subject to OMB review.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in the proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request document has

been prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1712.01), and a copy may be obtained

from Ms. Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW. (Mail Code 2136), Washington, DC

20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is

estimated to average 845 hours per source for the first year after the

date of promulgation of the rule, including time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the

collection of information. The cost for this additional burden per

source is estimated to be $27,158 during the first year.

Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing his

burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for the

EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the

information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the

EPA to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small

business ``entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a

proposed regulation would have a significant economic impact on 20

percent or more of small entities, then a regulatory flexibility

analysis must be prepared.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Using the Small Business Administration's definition of small

business for SIC Code 3731 of less than 1,000 employees, and examining

the result of the economic impact analysis it has been determined that

no small entities will be affected by the proposed rule. Therefore, a

preliminary assessment of the impact of today's proposed rule on small

entities indicated that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not

required.

F. Clean Air Act Section 117

In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this

proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory

committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.

The Administrator will welcome comments on all aspects of the proposed

rule, including health, economic, technological, or other aspects.

G. Regulatory Review

In accordance with sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) of the Act,

this regulation will be reviewed within 8 years from the date of

promulgation. This review may include an assessment of such factors as

evaluation of the residual health risk, any overlap with other

programs, the existence of alternative methods, enforceability,

improvements in emission control technology and health data, and

reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard for

shipbuilding and ship repair facilities.

X. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections

101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42

U.S.C., 7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601.

Dated: November 22, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-29824 Filed 12-5-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-40-P