[Federal Register: December 24, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 247)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78611-78663]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24de02-35]
[[Page 78611]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 63, 264, and 265
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Proposed Rule
[[Page 78612]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 63, 264, and 265
[FRL-7418-4]
RIN 2060-AG99
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for automobile and light-duty truck surface
coating operations located at major sources of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP). The proposed NESHAP would implement section 112(d) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) by requiring these operations to meet HAP emission
standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). The primary HAP emitted by these operations are
toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl
isobutyl ketone (MIBK), ethylbenzene, and methanol. The proposed rule
would reduce nationwide HAP emissions from these major sources by about
60 percent.
This action also proposes to amend the Air Emission Standards for
Equipment Leaks for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities to exempt certain activities covered
by the proposed NESHAP from these standards.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 7, 2003.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing, they should do so by January 3, 2003. If requested, a
public hearing will be held approximately 15 days after the date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, written comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Office of Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102T), Attention Docket Number A-2001-
22, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. In
person or by courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to:
Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102T),
Attention Docket Number A-2001-22, U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Room B102, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy
also be sent to the contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at our
Office of Administration auditorium in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. You should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer
Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539-03), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-7946 to request to speak at a public hearing or to find out if a
hearing will be held.
Docket. Docket No. A-2001-22 contains supporting information used
in developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S.
EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460 in Room B108,
and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Salman, Coatings and
Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539-03), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-0859;
facsimile number (919) 541-5689; electronic mail (e-mail) address:
salman.dave@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted
by e-mail to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and
encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect[reg] file format. All comments and data submitted in
electronic form must note the docket number: A-2001-22. No confidential
business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic
comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Mr. David Salman, c/o OAQPS
Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to
the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no
claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received
by the EPA, the information may be made available to the public without
further notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms.
Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards
Division (C539-03), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number (919) 541-7946. Persons interested in attending
the public hearing should also contact Ms. Eck to verify the time,
date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide
interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments
concerning these proposed emission standards.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information considered by the EPA in the development of this
rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards
and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the
record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the
CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this
rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be
mailed on request from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center by calling (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposed rule will also be available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature
by the EPA Administrator, a copy of the proposed rule will be posted on
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated
rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at
(919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are listed in Table 1.
[[Page 78613]]
Table 1.--Categories and Entities Potentially Regulated by the Proposed Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS Examples of potentially regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................................ 336111 Automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants,
336112 producers of automobile and light-duty truck
336211 bodies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your coating operation is regulated by
this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in section
Sec. 63.3081 of the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What are the health effects associated with HAP emissions
from automobile and light-duty truck surface coating?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What source categories are affected by this proposed rule?
B. What is the relationship to other rules?
C. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the
emissions?
D. What is the affected source?
E. What are the emission limits, operating limits, and other
standards?
F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
G. What are the continuous compliance provisions?
H. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How did we select the source category?
B. How did we select the regulated pollutants?
C. How did we select the affected source?
D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed
standards for existing and new sources?
E. How did we select the format of the proposed standards?
F. How did we select the testing and initial compliance
requirements?
G. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
H. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements?
I. How did we select the compliance date?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy
impacts?
E. Can we achieve the goals of the proposed rule in a less
costly manner?
V. How will the proposed amendments to 40 CFR parts 264 and 265,
subparts BB of the hazardous waste regulations be implemented in the
States?
A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States
B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposed Amendments
VI. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601, et seq.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Background
A. What is the Source of Authority For Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The Surface
Coating of Automobiles and Light-duty Trucks category of major sources
was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are
those that emit or have the potential to emit equal to, or greater
than, 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year (tpy)) of any
one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any combination of HAP.
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly
referred to as the MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing
five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30
sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
C. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP Emissions From
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating?
The major HAP emitted from the automobile and light-duty truck
surface coating source category are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers,
MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. These compounds account for over
95 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category.
These pollutants can cause toxic effects following sufficient exposure.
Some of the potential toxic effects include effects to the central
nervous system, such as fatigue, nausea, tremors, and lack of
coordination; adverse effects on the liver, kidneys, and blood;
respiratory effects; and developmental effects.
The degree of adverse effects to human health from exposure to HAP
can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the human
health effects may be experienced are
[[Page 78614]]
dependent upon (1) the ambient concentration observed in the area (as
influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain);
(2) the frequency and duration of exposures; (3) characteristics of
exposed individuals (genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and
lifestyle), which vary significantly with the population; and (4)
pollutant-specific characteristics (toxicity, half-life in the
environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence).
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What Source Categories Are Affected by This Proposed Rule?
The proposed rule would apply to you if you own or operate an
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operation that is a
major source, or is located at a major source, or is part of a major
source of HAP emissions. We have defined an automobile and light-duty
truck surface coating operation as any facility engaged in the surface
coating of new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or collections
of body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks. Coating
operations included in this source category include, but are not
limited to, the application of electrodeposition primer, primer-
surfacer, topcoat (including basecoat and clear coat), final repair,
glass bonding primer, glass bonding adhesive, sealer, adhesive, and
deadener. The application of blackout and anti-chip materials is
included in these coating operations, as is the cleaning and purging of
equipment associated with the coating operations. Automobile
customizers, body shops, and refinishers are excluded from this source
category. Coating of separate, non-body miscellaneous metal parts and
separate, non-body plastic parts that are not attached to the vehicle
body at the time that the coatings are applied to these parts is
excluded from this source category.
You would not be subject to the proposed rule if your coating
operation is located at an area source. An area source is any
stationary source of HAP that is not a major source. You may establish
area source status prior to the compliance date of the final rule by
limiting the source's potential to emit HAP through appropriate
mechanisms available through the permitting authority.
The source category does not include research or laboratory
facilities or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance
operations.
We are also proposing to amend the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Air Emissions Standards for Equipment Leaks at 40
CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts BB. The amendments would exempt
facilities which would otherwise be subject to requirements of subparts
BB if they are subject to the requirements of this proposed NESHAP.
Generally, subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 apply to equipment
that contains or contacts RCRA hazardous wastes with organic
concentrations of at least 10 percent by weight. The regulations apply
to large quantity generators as well as to RCRA treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. The regulations were designed to minimize the
potential for leaks from pumps, valves, flanges, and connections.
The work practice standards that must be met in this proposed
NESHAP in Sec. 63.3094 address coating line purging emissions that
would result from solvent purging of coating applicators, and the
subsequent collection and transmission of the paint/solvent mixture to
reclamation or recovery system. The collection and transmission systems
would potentially be subject to the requirements of subparts BB. To
avoid duplication, and because any potential for air releases from
these sources are relatively small, we are proposing that if such a
collection, transmission, and reclamation or recovery system is located
at a facility subject to this proposed NESHAP, then it is exempt from
the requirements of subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265.
As stated elsewhere in this preamble, the HAP emissions from these
sources are relatively small in comparison with the coating
application, drying, and curing. Measurements made by industry indicate
that emissions of VOC would be at least two orders of magnitude less
than concentrations that would meet the definition of a leak under
subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. Additionally, because the
mixture is usually sold to a solvent recycler, the industry has an
incentive to capture as much of the solvent as possible, and would
therefore want to repair any leaks as quickly as possible.
In addition to the coating operations covered under the proposed
NESHAP, some automobile and light-duty truck facilities also have
separate, non-body plastic parts coating operations or separate, non-
body metal parts coating operations. Purges from these separate, non-
body plastic parts coating operations and separate, non-body metal
parts coatings operations are analogous to those for automobile and
light-duty truck body coatings and would also be exempt from the
requirements of subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, if the
operations occur in the same facility as the automobile and light-duty
truck body coating. Many of the coatings applied to separate, non-body
plastic and separate, non-body metal parts are similar in composition
to those applied to automobile and light-duty truck bodies. The purged
materials are conveyed to waste tanks in the same fashion as the purged
materials from automobile and light-duty truck body coating operations.
B. What Is the Relationship to Other Rules?
Affected sources subject to the proposed rule may also be subject
to other rules. Automobile and light-duty truck surface coating
operations that began construction, reconstruction, or modification
after October 5, 1979 are subject to new source performance standards
(NSPS) under 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM. That rule limits emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC). The EPA has also published control
techniques guidelines which establish reasonably available control
technologies for limiting VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty
truck surface coating operations. Additional VOC emission limitations
may also apply to these facilities through conditions incorporated in
State operating permits and permits issued under authority of title V
of the CAA. Facilities in this subcategory may also be subject to
various emission limitations pursuant to State air toxics rules.
An automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facility may be
subject to other NESHAP. Rules are presently under development which
will limit emissions from coating operations conducted on separate,
non-body miscellaneous metal parts and separate, non-body plastic parts
and products. Coating of parts (such as automobile bumpers, fascias,
brackets, etc.) for subsequent attachment to vehicle bodies would be
subject to one or more of these rules, as would collocated aftermarket
replacement part coating operations. Facilities may also be subject to
other rules relating to collocated equipment such as foundries and
boilers.
The capture, transmission, and storage of purge materials from
coating equipment may also be subject to the RCRA Air Emission
Standards for Equipment Leaks under subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and
265. Those regulations apply to equipment that contains or contacts
RCRA hazardous waste with organic concentrations of at least 10 percent
by weight. To avoid such possible duplication, we are proposing to
exempt such equipment from subparts BB if it is located at a
[[Page 78615]]
facility subject to this proposed NESHAP.
C. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?
HAP emission sources. Emissions from coating application, drying,
and curing account for most of the HAP emissions from automobile and
light-duty truck surface coating operations. The remaining emissions
are primarily from cleaning of booths and application equipment and
purging of spray equipment. In most cases, HAP emissions from surface
preparation, storage, handling, and waste/wastewater operations are
relatively small.
Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the
development of the proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP
emitted from automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations
are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and
methanol. These compounds account for over 95 percent of the nationwide
HAP emissions from this source category.
Inorganic HAP. Based on information reported during the development
of the proposed NESHAP, lead, manganese, and chromium are contained in
some of the coatings used by this source category but are not likely to
be emitted due to the coating application techniques used. No inorganic
HAP were reported in thinners or cleaning materials. Most of the
inorganic HAP components remain as solids in the dry coating film on
the parts being coated, are collected by the circulating water under
the spray booth floor grates, or are deposited on the walls, floor, and
grates of the spray booths and other equipment in which they are
applied. Therefore, inorganic HAP emission levels are expected to be
very low and have not been quantified.
D. What Is the Affected Source?
We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of
stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific
emission standard applies. The proposed rule for automobile and light-
duty truck surface coating defines the affected source as all of the
equipment used to apply coating to new automobile or new light-duty
truck bodies or collections of body parts for new automobiles or new
light-duty trucks and to dry or cure the coating after application; all
storage containers and mixing vessels in which vehicle body coatings,
thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and
automated equipment and containers used for conveying vehicle body
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers
and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for
conveying waste materials generated by an automobile and light-duty
truck surface coating operation.
The affected source does not include research or laboratory
equipment or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations.
E. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards?
Emission limits. We are proposing to limit organic HAP emissions
from each new or reconstructed automobile and light-duty truck surface
coating facility using the emission limits in Table 2 of this preamble.
Table 2.--Emission Limits for New or Reconstructed Affected Sources
(monthly average)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined electrodeposition primer, 0.036 kilogram (kg) (0.30 pound
primer-surfacer, topcoat, final (lb)) organic HAP/liter (HAP/
repair, glass bonding primer, and gallon (gal)) of coating
glass bonding adhesive operation. solids deposited).
Combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, 0.060 kg (0.50 lb organic HAP/
final repair, glass bonding primer, 1iter (HAP/gal) of coating
and glass bonding adhesive operation solids deposited).
(for sources meeting the operating
limits of Sec. 63.3092(a) and (b)).
Adhesives and sealers, other than glass 0.010 kg/kg (lb/lb) of material
bonding adhesive. used.
Deadener............................... 0.010 kg/kg (lb/lb) of material
used.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to limit organic HAP emissions from each existing
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facility using the
emission limits in Table 3 of this preamble.
Table 3.--Emission Limits for Existing Affected Sources (monthly
average)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined electrodeposition primer, 0.072 kg (0.60 lb) organic HAP/
primer-surfacer, topcoat, final liter (HAP/gal) of coating
repair, glass bonding primer, and deposited.
glass bonding adhesive operation.
Combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, 0.132 kg (1.10 lb) organic HAP/
final repair, glass bonding primer, liter (HAP/gal) of coating
and glass bonding adhesive operation solids deposited.
(for sources meeting the operating
limits of Sec. 63.3092(a) and (b)).
Adhesives and sealers other than glass 0.010 kg/kg (lb/lb) of material
bonding adhesive. used.
Deadener............................... 0.010 lb/lb (kg/kg) of
material used.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would calculate emissions from combined electrodeposition
primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer,
and glass bonding adhesive operations, or from combined primer-
surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass
bonding adhesive operations using the procedures in the proposed rule,
which account for variable organic HAP contents of the materials
applied in each month, as well as transfer efficiency and overall
efficiencies of any capture systems and control devices in use. You
would average organic HAP contents of other materials used on a monthly
basis to determine separately those emissions from sealers and
adhesives (other than glass bonding adhesive), and deadeners.
Operating limits. If you use an emission capture and control system
to reduce emissions, the proposed operating limits would apply to you.
These proposed operating limits are site-specific parameter limits you
determine during the initial performance test of the system. For
capture systems, you would identify the parameter(s) to monitor and
establish the limits and monitoring procedures. For thermal and
catalytic oxidizers, you would establish temperature limits. For
solvent recovery systems, you would
[[Page 78616]]
monitor the outlet concentration or carbon bed temperature and the
amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed. All operating
limits must reflect operation of the capture and control system during
a performance test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limit
during representative operating conditions.
Work practice standards. You would have to develop and implement a
work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage,
mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials
used in and waste materials generated by all coating operations for
which emission limits are proposed. The plan would have to specify
practices and procedures to ensure that, at a minimum, the following
elements are implemented:
[sbull] All organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning
materials, and waste materials must be stored in closed containers.
[sbull] The risk of spills of organic-HAP-containing coatings,
thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized.
[sbull] Organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning
materials, and waste materials must be conveyed from one location to
another in closed containers or pipes.
[sbull] Mixing vessels, other than day tanks equipped with
continuous agitation systems, which contain organic-HAP-containing
coatings and other materials must be closed except when adding to,
removing, or mixing the contents.
[sbull] Emissions of organic HAP must be minimized during cleaning
of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment.
You would also have to develop and implement a work practice plan
to minimize organic HAP emissions from cleaning and from purging of
equipment associated with all coating operations for which emission
limits are proposed. The plan would have to specify practices and
procedures to ensure that emissions of HAP from the following
operations are minimized:
[sbull] Vehicle body wiping;
[sbull] Coating line purging;
[sbull] Flushing of coating systems;
[sbull] Cleaning of spray booth grates;
[sbull] Cleaning of spray booth walls;
[sbull] Cleaning of spray booth equipment;
[sbull] Cleaning external spray booth areas; and
[sbull] Other housekeeping measures (e.g., keeping solvent-laden
rags in closed containers.)
General Provisions. The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A) also would apply to you as outlined in table 2 of the proposed rule.
The General Provisions codify certain procedures and criteria for all
40 CFR part 63 NESHAP. The General Provisions contain administrative
procedures, preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and
procedures for conducting compliance-related activities such as
notifications, recordkeeping and reporting, performance testing, and
monitoring. The proposed rule refers to individual sections of the
General Provisions to emphasize key sections that you should be aware
of. However, unless specifically overridden in table 2 of the proposed
rule, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements would apply
to you.
F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?
Compliance dates. Existing affected sources would have to be in
compliance with the final standards no later than 3 years after the
effective date. The effective date is the date on which the final rule
is published in the Federal Register. New and reconstructed sources
would have to be in compliance upon startup of the affected source or
by the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later.
Compliance with the emission limits is based on a monthly organic
HAP emission rate. The initial compliance period, therefore, is the 1-
month period beginning on the compliance date. If the compliance date
occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial
compliance period begins on the compliance date and extends through the
end of that month plus the following month. We have defined ``month''
as a calendar month or a pre-specified period of 28 to 35 days to allow
for flexibility at sources where data are based on a business
accounting period.
Being ``in compliance'' means that the owner or operator of the
affected source meets all the requirements of the proposed rule to
achieve the emission limit(s) and operating limits by the end of the
initial compliance period, and that the facility is operated in
accordance with the approved work practice plans. At the end of the
initial compliance period, the owner or operator would use the data and
records generated to determine whether or not the affected source is in
compliance for that period. If it does not meet the applicable
limit(s), then it is out of compliance for the entire initial
compliance period.
Emission limits. Compliance with the emission limit for combined
electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass
bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive, or the emission limit for
combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer,
and glass bonding adhesive would be based on mass organic HAP emissions
per volume of applied coating solids as calculated monthly using the
procedures in the proposed rule. Compliance with the emission limits
for adhesives and sealers (other than glass bonding adhesive) and
deadener would be based on mass average organic HAP content of
materials used each month.
Electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair,
glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. Compliance with this
emission limit, or if eligible, with the emission limit for combined
primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass
bonding adhesive, is based on the calculations in the proposed rule.
You may also use the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for Determining
Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (docket A-2001-22).
To determine the organic HAP content, the volume solids, and the
density of the coatings and thinners, you could rely on manufacturer's
data, results from the test methods listed below, or alternative test
methods for which you get EPA approval on a case-by-case basis
according to the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR 63.7(f). However,
if there is any inconsistency between the test results and
manufacturer's data, the test results would prevail for compliance and
enforcement purposes.
[sbull] For organic HAP content, use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63,
appendix A.
[sbull] The proposed rule allows you to use nonaqueous volatile
matter as a surrogate for organic HAP. If you choose this option, then
use Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
[sbull] For volume fraction of coating solids, use either ASTM
Method D2697-86 (1968) or ASTM Method D6093-97.
[sbull] For density, use ASTM Method D1475-98 or information from
the supplier or manufacturer of the material. For each emission capture
and control system that you use, you would:
[sbull] Conduct an initial performance test to determine the
overall control efficiency of the equipment (described below) and to
establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis (also
described below). The performance test would have to be completed no
later than the compliance date. You would also need to schedule it in
time to
[[Page 78617]]
obtain the results for use in completing your initial compliance
determination for the initial compliance period.
The overall control efficiency for a capture and control system
would be demonstrated based on emission capture and reduction
efficiency. To determine the capture efficiency, you would either
verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204
of 40 CFR part 51; measure the capture efficiency using either EPA
Method 204A through F of 40 CFR part 51 or appendix A of 40 CFR part
63, subpart KK; or use the panel test procedures in ASTM Method D5087-
91 (1994), ASTM Method D6266-00a, or the guidelines presented in
``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/
3-88-018 (docket A-2001-22). If you have a permanent total enclosure
and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device,
then you would assume 100 percent capture. For panel testing, the
coatings used may be grouped based on similar appearance
characteristics (e.g., solid color or metallic), processing sequences,
and dry film thicknesses. One coating from each group can be tested to
represent all of the coatings in that group.
To determine the emission reduction efficiency of the control
device, you would conduct measurements of the inlet and outlet gas
streams. The test would consist of three runs, each run lasting 1 hour,
using the following EPA Methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A:
[sbull] Method 1 or 1A for selection of the sampling sites.
[sbull] Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the gas
volumetric flow rate.
[sbull] Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis to determine dry
molecular weight.
[sbull] Method 4 to determine stack moisture.
[sbull] Method 25 or 25A to determine organic volatile matter
concentration. Alternatively, any other test method or data that have
been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of
40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and approved by the Administrator, could be
used.
You would be required to determine the transfer efficiency for
primer-surfacer and topcoat materials using ASTM Method D5066-91 (2001)
or the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for Determining Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (docket A-2001-22). These
guidelines include provisions for testing representative coatings
instead of testing every coating. You may assume 100 percent transfer
efficiency for electrodeposition primer coatings, glass bonding
primers, and glass bonding adhesives. For final repair coatings, you
may assume 40 percent transfer efficiency for air atomized spray and 55
percent transfer efficiency for electrostatic spray and high volume,
low pressure spray.
The monthly emission rate, in terms of mass of organic HAP emitted
per volume of coating solids deposited, is determined in accordance
with the procedures in the proposed rule. These procedures incorporate
the volume, organic HAP content, and volume solids content of each
coating applied, as well as the transfer efficiency for the coatings
and spray equipment used, and the overall control efficiency for
controlled booths or bake ovens and other controlled emission points.
Adhesives and sealers, and deadener. Compliance with emissions
limits for adhesives and sealers (other than windshield materials)
would be based on the monthly mass average organic HAP content of all
materials of this type used during the compliance period. Compliance
with emission limits for deadener would be based on the monthly mass
average organic HAP content of all materials of this type used during
the compliance period.
Operating limits. As mentioned above, you would establish operating
limits during the initial performance test of an emission capture and
control system. The operating limit is defined as the minimum or
maximum (as applicable) value achieved for a control device or process
parameter during the most recent performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit.
The proposed rule specifies the parameters to monitor for the types
of control systems commonly used in the industry. You would be required
to install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all
monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and
ensure that the continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) meet the
requirements in Sec. 63.3168 of the proposed rule. If you use control
devices other than those identified in the proposed rule, you would
submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator
for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored
is retained by EPA and is not delegated to States.
If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you would continuously
monitor temperature and record it at least every 15 minutes. For
thermal oxidizers, the temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or
in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any
substantial heat exchange occurs. The operating limit would be the
average temperature measured during the performance test and for each
3-hour period, the average temperature would have to be at or above
this limit. For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed
immediately before and after the catalyst bed. The operating limit
would be the average temperature increase across the catalyst bed
during the performance test and for each 3-hour period, the average
temperature increase would have to be at or above this limit. As an
alternative for catalytic oxidizers, you may monitor the temperature
immediately before the catalyst bed and develop and implement an
inspection and maintenance plan.
If you use a solvent recovery system, then you would either: (1)
Continuously monitor the outlet concentration of organic compounds, and
the operating limit would be the average organic compound outlet
concentration during the performance test (for each 3-hour period, the
average concentration would have to be below this limit); or (2)
monitor the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and the
total amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed for each
regeneration, in which case the operating limits would be the carbon
bed temperature (not to be exceeded) and the amount of steam or
nitrogen used for desorption (to be met as a minimum).
If you use a capture and control system to meet the proposed
standards, you would have to meet operating limits for the capture
system. If the emission capture system is a permanent total enclosure,
you would be required to establish that the direction of flow was into
the enclosure at all times. In addition, you would have to meet an
operating limit of either an average facial velocity of at least 61
meters per minute (200 feet per minute) through all natural draft
openings in the enclosure, or a minimum pressure drop across the
enclosure of at least 0.018 millimeter water (0.007 inch water), as
established by Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51.
If the emission capture system was not a permanent total enclosure,
you would have to establish either the average volumetric flow rate or
the duct static pressure in each duct between the capture device and
the add-on control device inlet during the performance test. Either the
average volumetric flow rate would have to be maintained above the
operating limit for each 3-hour period or the average duct static
pressure would
[[Page 78618]]
have to be maintained above the operating limit for each 3-hour period.
Work practice standards. You would have to develop and implement
two site-specific work practice plans. One plan would address practices
to minimize organic HAP emissions from storage, mixing, and conveying
of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in operations for
which emission limits are established, as well as the waste materials
generated from these operations. A second site-specific work practice
plan would address practices to minimize emissions from cleaning
operations and purging of coating equipment.
The plans would have to address specific types of potential organic
HAP emission points and are subject to approval of the Administrator.
Deviations from approved work practice plans would be reported
semiannually.
G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?
Emission limits. Continuous compliance with the emission limit for
combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final
repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive, or if
eligible, the emission limit for combined primer-surfacer, topcoat,
final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive, would
be based on monthly calculations following the procedures in the
proposed rule. These procedures take into account the amount of each
coating used, the organic HAP and volume solids content of each coating
used, the transfer efficiency of each coating application system, and
the organic HAP abatement from each capture and control system, and
provide for calculating monthly mass organic HAP emissions per volume
of coating solids deposited.
Continuous compliance with the emission limits for adhesives and
sealers (other than components of the windshield adhesive system), and
deadener is based on the monthly average mass organic HAP concentration
of all materials applied in each category.
Operating limits. If you use an emission capture and control
system, the proposed rule would require you to achieve on a continuous
basis the operating limits you establish during the performance test.
If the continuous monitoring shows that the system is operating outside
the range of values established during the performance test, then you
have deviated from the established operating limits.
If you operate a capture and control system that allows emissions
to bypass the control device, you would have to demonstrate that HAP
emissions from each emission point within the affected source are being
routed to the control device by monitoring for potential bypass of the
control device. You may choose from the following four monitoring
procedures:
(1) Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether
the exhaust stream is directed to the control device;
(2) Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures to secure the bypass
line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating;
(3) Valve closure continuous monitoring to ensure any bypass line
valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating; or
(4) Automatic shutdown system to stop the coating operation when
flow is diverted from the control device.
If the continuous control device bypass monitoring shows that the
control device is bypassed, then you have deviated from the established
operating limits.
Operations during startup, shutdown, and malfunction. When using an
emission capture and control system for compliance, you would be
required to develop and operate according to a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
of the capture and control system.
Work practice standards. You would be required to operate your
facility in accordance with your approved site-specific work practice
plans at all times.
H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
You are required to comply with the applicable requirements in the
NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in
Table 2 of the proposed rule. The General Provisions notification
requirements include: initial notifications, notification of
performance test if you are complying by using a capture and control
system, notification of compliance status, and additional notifications
required for affected sources with continuous monitoring systems. The
General Provisions also require certain records and periodic reports.
Initial notifications. If the standards apply to you, you must send
a notification to the EPA Regional Office in the region where your
facility is located and to your State agency at least 1 year before the
compliance date for existing sources, and within 120 days after the
date of initial startup for new and reconstructed sources, or 120 days
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, whichever
is later. That report notifies us and your State agency that you have
an existing facility that is subject to the proposed standards or that
you have constructed a new facility. Thus, it allows you and the
permitting authority to plan for compliance activities. You would also
need to send a notification of planned construction or reconstruction
of a source that would be subject to the proposed rule and apply for
approval to construct or reconstruct.
Notification of performance test. If you demonstrate compliance by
using a capture and control system for which you do not conduct a
monthly liquid-liquid material balance, you would conduct a performance
test no later than the compliance date for your affected source. You
must notify us (or the delegated State or local agency) at least 60
calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as
indicated in the General Provisions for the NESHAP.
Notification of compliance status. You would send us a notification
of compliance status within 30 days after the end of the initial
compliance demonstration. In the notification, you would certify
whether the affected source has complied with the proposed standards;
summarize the data and calculations supporting the compliance
demonstration; describe how you will determine continuous compliance;
and for capture and control systems for which you conduct performance
tests, provide the results of the tests. Your notification would also
include the measured range of each monitored parameter and the
operating limits established during the performance test, and
information showing whether the source has achieved its operating
limits during the initial compliance period.
Recordkeeping requirements. The proposed rule would require you to
collect and keep records according to certain minimum data requirements
for the CPMS. Failure to collect and keep the specified minimum data
would be a deviation that is separate from any emission limit,
operating limit, or work practice requirement. You would be required to
keep records of reported information and all other information
necessary to document compliance with the proposed rule for 5 years. As
required under the General Provisions, records for the 2 most recent
years must be kept on-site; the other 3 years' records may be kept off-
site. Records pertaining to the design and operation of the control and
monitoring equipment must be kept for the life of the equipment.
[[Page 78619]]
You would have to keep the following records:
[sbull] A current copy of information provided by materials
suppliers such as manufacturer's formulation data or test data used to
determine organic HAP or VOC content, solids content, and quantity of
the coatings and thinners applied.
[sbull] All documentation supporting initial notifications and
notifications of compliance status.
[sbull] The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of the emission capture and control system.
[sbull] All maintenance performed on the emission capture and
control system.
[sbull] Actions taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction
that are different from the procedures specified in your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan.
[sbull] All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan when the plan procedures
are followed.
[sbull] Each period during which a CPMS is malfunctioning or
inoperative (including out-of-control periods).
[sbull] All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance
with the standards.
[sbull] All results of performance tests.
[sbull] Data and documentation used to determine capture system
efficiency or to support a determination that the system is a permanent
total enclosure.
[sbull] Required work practice plans and documentation to support
compliance with the provisions of these plans.
Deviations, as determined from these records, would need to be
recorded and also reported. A deviation is any instance when any
requirement or obligation established by the proposed rule, including
but not limited to the emission limits, operating limits, and work
practice standards, is not met.
If you use a capture and control system to reduce organic HAP
emissions, you would have to make your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests
to see it. It would stay in your records for the life of the affected
source or until the source is no longer subject to the proposed
standards. If you revise the plan, you would need to keep the previous
superceded versions on record for 5 years following the revision.
Periodic reports. Each reporting year is divided into two
semiannual reporting periods. If no deviations occur during a
semiannual reporting period, you would submit a semiannual report
stating that the affected source has been in continuous compliance. If
deviations occur, you would need to include them in the report as
follows:
[sbull] Report each deviation from each applicable monthly emission
limit.
[sbull] Report each deviation from the work practice plan.
[sbull] If you are complying by using a thermal oxidizer, report
all times when a 3-hour average temperature is below the operating
limit.
[sbull] If you are complying by using a catalytic oxidizer, report
all times when a 3-hour average temperature increase across the
catalyst bed is below the operating limit.
[sbull] If you are complying by using oxidizers or solvent recovery
systems, report all times when the value of the site-specific operating
parameter used to monitor the capture system performance was greater
than or less than (as appropriate) the operating limit established for
the capture system.
[sbull] Report other specific information on the periods of time
the deviations occurred.
You would also have to send us explanations in each semiannual
report if a change occurs that might affect your compliance status.
Other reports. You would be required to submit other reports,
including those for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of
the emission capture and control system. If the procedures you follow
during any startup, shutdown, or malfunction are inconsistent with your
plan, you would report those procedures with your semiannual reports in
addition to immediate reports required by 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How Did We Select the Source Category?
Automobile and light-duty truck surface coating is a source
category that is on the list of source categories to be regulated
because it contains major sources which emit or have the potential to
emit at least 9.7 Mg (10 tons) of any one HAP or at least 22.7 Mg (25
tons) of any combination of HAP annually. The proposed rule would
control HAP emissions from both new and existing major sources. Area
sources are not being regulated under this proposed rule.
The automobile and light-duty truck surface coating source category
as described in the listing includes any facility engaged in the
surface coating of new automobile and light-duty truck bodies. Excluded
from this source category are automobile customizers, body shops, and
refinishers. For purposes of this proposed rule, we are defining the
source category to include the application of electrodeposition primer,
primer-surfacer, topcoat (including basecoat and clear coat), final
repair, glass bonding primer, glass bonding adhesive, sealer, adhesive,
and deadener; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which the
above listed coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials associated with
the above listed coatings are stored or mixed; all manual and automated
equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials; and all storage containers and manual and automated
equipment used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating
operation.
We intend the source category to include facilities for which the
surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks or automobile and
light-duty truck bodies is either their principal activity or is an
integral part of an automobile or light-duty truck assembly plant.
The initial listing for this source category included the surface
coating of body parts for inclusion in new vehicles. As provided in the
initial source category listing notice (57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992):
. . . the Agency recognizes that these descriptions [in the
initial list], like the list itself, may be revised from time to
time as better information becomes available. The Agency intends to
revise these descriptions as part of the process of establishing
standards for each category. Ultimately, a definition of each listed
category, or subsequently listed subcategories, will be incorporated
in each rule establishing a NESHAP for a category.
Some automobile assembly plants operate separate lines which apply
coatings to parts such as bumpers, fascias, and brackets for attachment
to separately coated vehicle bodies. However, since most plastic and
metal parts that are attached to coated vehicle bodies are produced in
separate facilities, we have decided that it makes more sense to
regulate these off-line plastic and metal parts coating operations
under separate NESHAP for surface coating of plastic parts and products
and miscellaneous metal parts because of the substantially different
equipment that may be used to coat these parts and for consistency with
the NSPS and other air pollution control regulations affecting these
coating operations.
The source category does not include research or laboratory
facilities or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance
operations.
[[Page 78620]]
B. How Did We Select the Regulated Pollutants?
Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the
development of the proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP
emitted from automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations
are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene and
methanol. These compounds account for over 95 percent of this
category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. Because coatings used in
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating contain many
combinations of these and other organic HAP, it is not practical to
regulate them individually. Therefore, the proposed standards would
regulate emissions of all organic HAP.
Inorganic HAP. Based on information reported during the development
of the proposed NESHAP, inorganic HAP contained in the coatings used by
this source category include lead, manganese, and chromium compounds.
There is limited opportunity for these HAP to be emitted into the
ambient air. The lead compounds are present in the electrodeposition
primers. This technique would not typically generate air emissions of
these compounds which are in the coating solids. Once the coating
solids are deposited on the substrate, they remain on the substrate and
are not emitted during cure of the coating. Therefore, we conclude that
there are limited or no air emissions of lead compounds. Based on
information reported during the development of the proposed NESHAP, a
small amount of chromium compounds are contained in a few of the
coatings used by this source category. Because these inorganic
compounds are in the coating solids, they are retained on the substrate
to which they are applied, and the only opportunity for them to enter
the ambient air is if they are spray-applied. Because of the
atomization of the coating during spray application, inorganic
compounds become airborne, and they are either deposited on the
substrate, collected by the circulating water under the spray booth
floor grates, adhere to the surrounding walls and other surfaces in the
area, or enter the air and become susceptible to transport to other
areas in the building or outside into the ambient air. The data
available to EPA indicate that the facilities in this source category
that use spray application techniques sometimes apply coatings that
contain inorganic HAP compounds, including small quantities of chromium
oxide. Overspray, including that containing inorganic HAP, is
controlled to an extremely high level by down-draft impingement in
circulating sub-grate water systems.
C. How Did We Select the Affected Source?
In selecting the affected sources for MACT standards, our primary
goal is to ensure that MACT is applied to HAP-emitting operations or
activities within the source category or subcategory being regulated.
The affected source also serves to distinguish where new source MACT
applies under a particular standard. Specifically, the General
Provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 define the terms
``construction'' and ``reconstruction'' with reference to the term
``affected source'' (40 CFR 60.2) and provide that new source MACT
applies when construction or reconstruction of an affected source
occurs (40 CFR 60.5). The collection of equipment and activities
evaluated in determining MACT (including the MACT floor) is used in
defining the affected source. Some source categories are comprised of
HAP-emitting equipment and activities that are independent, have no
functional interactions at the process level, and are not related to
each other in terms of emission control. In these cases, it is
reasonable from a MACT implementation perspective to have separate,
narrowly defined affected sources for purposes of focusing MACT
applicability. An implication of a narrow definition of affected source
is that new source MACT requirements could be triggered more frequently
as equipment is replaced (potential ``reconstruction'') or facilities
are expanded (potential ``construction'') than with a broader
definition of affected source, such as some collection of equipment or
even the entire facility. This approach is sometimes appropriate based
on consideration of emission reductions, cost impacts, and
implementation factors.
When a MACT standard is based on total facility emissions, we
select an affected source based on the entire facility as well. This
approach for defining the affected source broadly is particularly
appropriate for industries where a plantwide emission standard provides
the opportunity and incentive for owners and operators to utilize
control strategies that are more cost effective than if separate
standards were established for each emission point within a facility.
The affected source in the automobile and light-duty truck surface
coating source category for which MACT standards are being proposed is
the equipment used for electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer,
topcoat (including basecoat and clear coat), final repair, glass
bonding primer, glass bonding adhesive, sealer, adhesive, and deadener;
as well as storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings,
thinners, and cleaning materials are stored and mixed; all manual and
automated equipment for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated
equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated
by a coating operation for which an emission limit is proposed.
Standards for new sources apply to newly constructed or reconstructed
paintshops. All of the organic HAP-emitting coating operations covered
by this source category occur within the area of an automobile assembly
plant referred to as the paint shop, except for the operations related
to glass installation (glass bonding primer, glass bonding adhesive,
and pre-installation cleaning) and certain off-line final repair
operations. All existing affected sources are located at automobile
assembly plants. Other collocated operations at automobile assembly
plants may be subject to other NESHAP, including NESHAP currently under
development for source categories such as miscellaneous metal parts
coating and plastic parts and products coating.
Additional information on the operations at automobile and light-
duty truck surface coating facilities that were selected for regulation
and other operations that are conducted at automobile assembly plants
are included in the docket for the proposed standards.
D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards
for Existing and New Sources?
After we identify the specific source categories or subcategories
of sources to regulate under section 112 of the CAA, we must develop
MACT standards for each category or subcategory. Section 112
establishes a minimum baseline or ``floor'' for standards. For new
sources in a category or subcategory, the standards cannot be less
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the
best-controlled similar source (section 112(d)(3)). The standards for
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources,
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources for
which the Administrator has emissions information (or the best-
performing five sources for categories or
[[Page 78621]]
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
Electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair,
glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. All 59 facilities in
the source category that were in operation in 1997 or 1998 responded to
an information collection request (ICR). (Several facilities did not
have operating paint shops during this period, but submitted
information pertaining to their applications of sealers and adhesives
in the assembly process.) Two facilities that presently track their
usage and emissions on a line-by-line basis submitted two sets of data
each. The responses contained data on the mass of organic HAP emissions
per volume of coating solids deposited for each month of a calendar
year for electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, and topcoat
operations; and additional information on final repair, glass bonding
primer, and glass bonding adhesive. Final repair and glass bonding
materials are functionally tied to the electrodeposition primer,
primer-surfacer, and topcoat materials. Final repair materials must be
compatible with these other coatings and must provide an exact color
and appearance match. Glass bonding materials also must be compatible
with these other coatings. The choice of glass bonding materials is
highly dependent on the performance characteristics of and interaction
with these other coatings. Glass bonds must meet safety requirements
issued by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
Therefore, we have included final repair, glass bonding primer, and
glass bonding adhesive with electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer,
and topcoat.
In most cases, facilities calculated their monthly emissions from
primer-surfacer and topcoat operations using a procedure that closely
matched the procedure in ``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (docket A-2001-22). The
calculations took into account the overall efficiency of capture
systems and control devices, as well as the transfer efficiency of
spray equipment used to apply coatings. In addition, the responses
included the mass organic HAP content and the volume solids content of
all materials added to the electrodeposition system on a monthly basis.
Using the data, we ranked the facilities on the basis of mass of
organic HAP emissions per volume of coating solids deposited on an
annual basis. Several of the lowest emitting facilities did not apply
full body primer-surfacer during the ICR reporting year (although these
facilities as well as all other presently operating facilities do so
currently). Since the data from these facilities did not represent the
current and anticipated industry practices, we eliminated them from the
ranking. We then identified the eight facilities with the lowest-
organic-HAP emissions (from electrodeposition, primer-surfacer, and
topcoat combined) per volume coating solids deposited. As four of the
eight lowest emitting plants used a powder primer-surfacer application
system which results in a much thicker film than a liquid application
system, we adjusted the solids deposited volumes for the powder systems
to reflect liquid primer surfacer thicknesses.
We then identified the month of the reporting year with the peak
organic HAP emission rate for the eight facilities with the lowest
annual emission rates. Since the proposed rule requires compliance each
and every month, an emission limit based on the annual emissions would
be unachievable by even the lowest emitting plants approximately 6
months of the year. Variations in colors or vehicles produced and the
organic HAP contents of different basecoats and color-keyed primer-
surfacers leads to unavoidable fluctuations in organic HAP emission
rates, even with the same application equipment and capture and control
devices in use. The average organic HAP emission rate for the peak
month for the eight lowest emitting plants (as determined on an annual
basis) was determined to be the MACT floor for a monthly compliance
standard for combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer,
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive
operations at existing plants.
We have also proposed a compliance demonstration option based on
emissions from combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass
bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations for those plants
with well controlled electrodeposition operations, or that use very
low-organic-HAP materials in their electrodeposition primer operation.
This was based on the emission rate from primer-surfacer and topcoat
application at the eight lowest emitting plants. (The same plants as
those with the lowest emission rates from electrodeposition, primer-
surfacer, and topcoat combined.) The emission rate without
electrodeposition is comparable to the proposed emission rate with
electrodeposition when the lower-organic-HAP emissions per volume of
coating solids deposited which result from including electrodeposition
primer are considered.
The floor for new sources was based on the performance of the plant
with the lowest annual emission rate. The peak monthly emission rate
for this plant for the reporting year would represent the best
consistently achievable emission rate for new sources.
Both the existing source MACT floor and the new source MACT floor
are based on monthly compliance. All or nearly all automobile and
light-duty truck surface coating facilities are subject to compliance
with existing rules demonstrated by calculations based on monthly
coating use. The ICR responses upon which the MACT determination was
made provided data on a monthly basis. A 1-month time period is the
shortest compliance period for which data are available to reliably
determine MACT.
Adhesives and sealers (other than glass binding adhesive), and
deadeners. All facilities in the source category submitted responses to
an ICR. The responses contained data on the mass used, and the mass
fraction of organic HAP in each of the materials used during the
reporting year. The average mass organic HAP content of the materials
used throughout the reporting year was determined for each facility.
The eight facilities with the lowest-average-organic-HAP content in
each group (i.e., adhesives and sealers were considered separately from
deadeners) were determined. These facilities used materials with an
average mass fraction of organic HAP of less than 0.01 kilogram (kg)/kg
(pound (lb)/lb. Because of imprecision in analytical methods at this
level, and because the organic HAP reported as zero for some materials
at some facilities may have contained traces of organic HAP that were
not reported to the facility by the material supplier, the MACT floor
mass organic HAP content was determined to be 0.01 kg/kg (lb/lb). This
is the lowest level for both new and existing facilities for which
compliance could be reliably demonstrated. The proposed rule would
require compliance to be demonstrated monthly on the basis of a mass
average organic HAP content of the materials used. A shorter compliance
time interval would result in excessive recordkeeping with little or no
additional reduction in organic HAP emissions. If each and every
material used within a particular group of materials meets the monthly
average emission limit on an individual basis, then no calculations are
required to demonstrate compliance.
Storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning
[[Page 78622]]
materials. The proposed rule would regulate these operations in
accordance with a site-specific work practice plan to be developed
subject to approval by the Administrator and implemented by each new
and existing source. We have no reliable data on the extent of
emissions from these operations but believe them to be low.
Cleaning and equipment purging emissions. While the responses to
the ICR contain extensive (though in some cases inconsistent) data
pertaining to the volumetric use and organic HAP content of cleaning
and purging materials, a substantial but unknown fraction of the
organic HAP emissions from cleaning and purging operations are captured
and controlled. We have no reliable data that would enable us to
determine an emission limit for these operations that would represent
MACT level control. The proposed rule would regulate these operations
in accordance with a site-specific work practice plan to be developed
subject to approval by the Administrator and implemented by each new
and existing source.
After the floors have been determined for new and existing sources
in a source category or subcategory, we must set MACT standards that
are technically achievable and no less stringent than the floors. Such
standards must then be met by all sources within the category or
subcategory. We identify and consider any reasonable regulatory
alternatives that are ``beyond-the-floor,'' taking into account
emission reduction, cost, non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. These alternatives may be different
for new and existing sources because different MACT floors and separate
standards may be established for new and existing sources.
The eight facilities with the lowest-organic-HAP emission rates
from electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, and topcoat application
employed a combination of various organic HAP emission limitation
techniques, including the use of lower-organic-HAP electrodeposition
primer materials, powder primer-surfacer, waterborne basecoats, lower-
organic-HAP solvent based primer-surfacers, lower-organic-HAP solvent
based basecoats and clearcoats, and improved capture and control
systems. However, no single technology or combination of technologies
representing a beyond-the-floor MACT was identified, nor did we
identify any other available technologies which are not presently in
use with the potential to decrease organic HAP emissions beyond-the-
floor for either new or existing sources.
We expect that many existing plants will improve capture and
control device efficiency as a means of compliance. Control options
beyond-the-floor could involve even higher overall efficiencies.
Because of the dilute nature of the organic HAP-containing streams
available for capture, the cost of such a beyond-the-floor limit would
exceed $40,000 per ton of incremental organic HAP controlled. We are
not proposing beyond-the-floor limits at this time. Following a future
analysis of residual risk, EPA may propose a beyond-the-floor emission
limit, if it is found to be justified.
The facilities which presently use adhesives and sealers, and
deadeners with the lowest-mass-organic-HAP contents would not be able
to reliably demonstrate compliance with a standard more stringent than
the floor level emission limit for these materials due to uncertainty
in the analytical methods available and the expected inability or
unwillingness of the suppliers of the materials to certify lower-
organic-HAP contents.
A wide variety of techniques exist for reducing organic HAP
emissions from mixing, storage, and conveying of coatings, thinners,
and cleaning materials, and from cleaning and purging of equipment.
Because we have no data upon which to establish a numerical organic HAP
emission limit for these operations, we have proposed to regulate them
through the development and implementation of site-specific work
practice plans. The proposed rule identifies a number of potential
emission control practices which must be considered, as applicable, in
these work plans. Alternative practices which achieve equivalent or
improved emission limitations are also permitted under the proposed
rule. Because we are unable to reliably estimate the emissions
reductions that will be achieved beyond the present baseline emissions
from these operations, the work practices requirements may represent
beyond-the-floor standards. We believe that the costs of implementing
these work practices will be reasonable, as many of the same or
equivalent practices would be required for control of VOC emissions
under title V air permits.
In lieu of emission standards, section 112(h) of the CAA allows
work practice standards or other requirements to be established if: (1)
A pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance or capture system,
or (2) measurement is not practicable due to technological and economic
limitations. All automobile and light-duty truck surface coating
facilities use some type of work practice measures to reduce HAP
emissions from mixing, storage, conveying, and cleaning and purging as
part of their standard operating procedures. They use these measures to
decrease solvent usage and minimize exposure to workers. However, data
to quantify accurately the emissions reductions achievable by the work
practice measures are unavailable, and it is not feasible to measure
emissions or enforce a numerical standard for emissions from these
operations.
We selected MACT floor level standards for electrodeposition
primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer,
glass bonding adhesive, sealer, and adhesive application, and deadener
because we were unable to identify any specific technologies that would
result in a lower level of emissions. We have proposed a more stringent
emission limit for electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, and
topcoat application for new sources. This more stringent limit is not
appropriate for existing sources because of the difficulty,
uncertainty, and in some cases, impossibility of retrofitting the best
combination of emission limitation techniques to existing facilities,
as well as the high cost associated with what would be a beyond-the-
floor limit for existing facilities.
We believe the proposed standards for existing sources are
achievable because they are presently being achieved by at least six
existing sources. We believe the proposed standards for new sources are
achievable because they are presently being achieved by the best
performing facility in the source category.
We have proposed standards for which compliance would be
demonstrated on a monthly basis. The data used to determine MACT for
electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, and topcoat were based on
organic HAP emission limits that were achieved by the best performing
plants each month (during which production occurred) during the
reporting year for the ICR responses. We used annual data to determine
MACT for adhesives and sealers, and deadeners, but believe that monthly
compliance is achievable because the standards are based on organic HAP
per mass of material, or organic HAP per volume of material and we have
no reason to believe that different materials are used at different
times throughout the year.
E. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Standards?
Numerical emission standards are required by section 112 of the CAA
unless we can justify that it is not
[[Page 78623]]
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard, in which case a
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard can be set
(section 112(h) of the CAA).
Formats considered. We considered the following formats for
allowable organic HAP emissions from the affected source: (1) Mass of
organic HAP per unit weight or volume of coating, coating solids, or
coating solids deposited; (2) mass of organic HAP per unit of
production; (3) organic HAP concentration exiting a control device; (4)
organic HAP emissions per unit surface area coated; and (5) percent
reduction achieved by a capture system and control device. Each format
is defined, and the major advantages and disadvantages are discussed
below.
The first type of format considered would express the emission
limitation as mass of organic HAP emissions per volume of coating, mass
of coating solids, volume of coating solids, or volume of coating
solids deposited. An advantage of this type of format is that it
relates emissions to production levels, but in a more equitable way
than one based on units of production. Also, an affected source would
have flexibility in choosing among several compliance options to
achieve a standard based on this type of format. This type of standard,
when based on mass or volume of coating solids deposited, takes into
account the transfer efficiency, i.e., the fraction of coating solids
used that actually adhere to the substrate.
A mass of HAP per volume of coating format (i.e., kg HAP/liter (lb
HAP/gallon (gal)) of coating) either for each coating or as an average
across all coatings could be used. While this format is simple to
understand and use, its main disadvantage is that it would not credit
sources that switch to lower-emitting, higher-solids coatings. For
example, a facility using a coating with a solids content of 40 percent
and a HAP content of 3 lb/gal will use fewer pounds of HAP than a
facility using a coating with a solids content of 20 percent and a HAP
content of 2 lb/gal because the first facility will use 50 percent less
coating than the second. A comparison of the emission potential of two
coatings using a mass HAP per volume coating format cannot be made.
An alternative format is a mass HAP per volume of coating solids
(i.e., kg HAP/liter (lb HAP/gal) of coating solids). This format would
adequately credit sources that converted conventional higher-HAP-
solvent coatings to higher-solids coatings. The same is true for a
format of mass HAP/mass of solids (i.e., kg HAP/kg (lb HAP/lb) solids).
For example, if a source were to increase the solids content of a
coating and thereby decrease the quantity of coating used, either of
these formats would properly credit the affected source's emissions
reductions. However, there are potential drawbacks to the mass HAP/mass
solids format. Such a standard does not take into account the sometimes
considerable differences in coating solids densities. Either the mass
HAP/mass solid or the mass HAP/volume solid formats can be restated to
consider applied solids rather than solids contained in the coating to
provide credit for application techniques with higher transfer
efficiencies.
The second format considered is mass of organic HAP emissions per
unit of production (e.g., kg HAP per vehicle coated). Its major
disadvantage is that the surface area of automobiles and light-duty
trucks varies greatly.
The third format considered, a limit on the concentration of
organic HAP in the exhaust from the control device would only apply to
sources that use add-on control devices. This format for a standard is
the easiest to enforce because direct emissions measurements can be
made using Method 25 or 25A. However, the concentration of organic HAP
emitted from the control device does not reflect total emissions
because of the possibility of uncaptured emissions from the coating
operation, nor does it limit total emissions because of the effect of
varying the exhaust flow rates (i.e., increasing dilution air). For
example, two similar coating operations could produce the same amount
of organic HAP yet have different inlet concentrations to the control
device because of variations in capture of emissions from the coating
operation and because of varying oven airflow rates. A standard based
on outlet concentration would require the line with the higher
concentration (lower airflow rate) to control more organic HAP
emissions than the line with the lower inlet concentration. Because
management of airflow rates is generally under the control of the
operator, this format would not reflect the application of MACT for the
coating operation. Furthermore, this format would limit the compliance
options available to sources because it would not accommodate the use
of either low-HAP content coatings and other materials, or the use of a
combination of capture and control systems in conjunction with reduced-
HAP coatings and other materials.
The fourth format, organic HAP emissions per unit surface area
coated, provides flexibility in the selection of coating materials, the
streams to be controlled, and the approach to capture and control. We
requested surface area data for vehicles produced during the ICR
reporting year and received data of this type from a number of
respondents. The data that we received were incomplete, and the methods
of estimating vehicle surface areas varied widely. In many cases,
computer generated design drawings were analyzed to estimate surface
areas. The algorithms used to make the estimates are unlikely to be
consistent from manufacturer to manufacturer. While a standard in this
format has some advantages, it would be difficult to establish MACT
because of the inconsistent basis of the estimates.
The fifth format, percent reduction, would only apply to sources
that use add-on control devices. This format is often the best choice
when capture and control systems are widely used in the source
category, and the achievable percent reduction over a wide range of
operating conditions is predictable. The advantages of this format are
that it would reflect MACT at all facilities, and the facilities would
be allowed flexibility in the method selected for achieving the percent
reduction. A disadvantage of the percent reduction format is that it
does not credit improvements in the materials or processes. For
example, reduction in the organic HAP content of a coating or in the
amount of coating applied per unit of substrate manufactured would not
be credited toward compliance. This might discourage development of
low- or non-HAP coatings. Similar to the concentration format for a
standard, this format also would not accommodate the use of either low-
HAP content coatings and other materials or a combination of capture
and control systems in conjunction with reduced-HAP coatings and other
materials as a means of compliance.
Format selected. We selected mass of HAP emitted per volume of
coating solids deposited as the format for the proposed emission limit
for electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair,
glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. All automobile and
light-duty truck surface coating facilities presently calculate VOC
emissions from primer-surfacer and topcoat application in this format
and have recordkeeping systems in place to track coating usage, mass
fraction of VOC, volume fraction of solids, and transfer efficiencies.
Responses to the ICR were, for the most part, based on adaptions of
these systems to calculate organic HAP emissions from both topcoat and
primer
[[Page 78624]]
surfacer application. Only minor adjustments would be necessary to
include electrodeposition coatings, as only two to four different
materials are used for this process, and the transfer efficiency is
essentially 100 percent. Such a format would be consistent with the
information upon which MACT determination was based. This format gives
credit for the use of low- or zero-organic-HAP coatings or high solids
coatings in one or more application processes, as well as improved
application techniques which result in higher transfer efficiencies for
primer-surfacer and topcoat. This format would allow sources
flexibility to use a combination of emission capture and control
systems as well as low-HAP content coatings and other materials.
We selected mass of organic HAP per mass of coating as the format
for the proposed standards for adhesives and sealers, and deadeners.
These materials are applied with nearly 100 percent transfer efficiency
in most cases and emissions from these materials are rarely, if ever,
directed to add-on control devices.
F. How Did We Select the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?
We have proposed a compliance procedure for electrodeposition
primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer,
and glass bonding adhesive. The procedure takes into account the volume
of each coating used, its mass organic HAP content, volume solids
content, and density, as well as the transfer efficiency and the
overall efficiency of any add-on control devices. The procedure is
modeled after the procedure in ``Protocol for Determining Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (docket A-2001-22),
presently used to demonstrate compliance with VOC emission limits for
topcoat and primer-surfacer application at automobile and light-duty
truck surface coating facilities.
We have proposed a monthly average mass organic HAP content
determination to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for
adhesives and sealers, and deadeners.
Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, is the method developed
by EPA for determining the HAP content of coatings and has been used in
previous surface coating NESHAP. We have not identified any other
methods that provide advantages over Method 311 for use in the proposed
rule.
Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is the method developed by
EPA for determining the VOC content of coatings and can be used if you
choose to determine the nonaqueous volatile matter content as a
surrogate for organic HAP. In past rules, VOC emission control measures
have been implemented in the coatings industry with Method 24 as the
compliance method. We have not identified any other methods that
provide advantages over Method 24 for use in the proposed rule.
The proposed requirements for determining volume solids would allow
you to choose between calculating the value using either ASTM Method
D2697-86 (1988) or ASTM Method D6093-97.
You may use information provided by your coating supplier instead
of conducting the HAP, solids, and density determinations yourself. The
above specified test methods will take precedence if there is any
discrepancy between the result of the methods and information provided
by your suppliers.
Capture and control systems. If you use an emission capture and
control system, you would be required to conduct an initial performance
test of the system to determine its overall control efficiency. The
overall control efficiency would be combined with the monthly HAP
content of the coatings and other materials used in the affected source
to derive the monthly HAP emission rate to demonstrate compliance with
the standard for electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat,
final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive.
If you conduct a performance test, you would also determine
parameter operating limits during the test. The test methods that the
proposed rule would require for the performance test have been required
for many industrial surface coating sources under NSPS in 40 CFR part
60 and NESHAP in 40 CFR part 63. We have not identified any other
methods that provide advantages over these methods.
Work practices. In the initial compliance report, you would certify
that you have met the proposed work practice standards during the
initial compliance period. You would also keep the records required to
document your actions. These are minimal compliance requirements to
ensure you are meeting the standards.
G. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
To ensure continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits
and operating limits, the proposed rule would require continuous
parameter monitoring of capture systems, add-on control devices, and
recordkeeping. We selected the following requirements based on:
reasonable cost, ease of execution, and usefulness of the resulting
data to both the owners or operators and EPA for ensuring continuous
compliance with the emission limits and operating limits.
We are proposing that certain parameters be continuously monitored
for the types of capture and control systems commonly used in the
industry. These monitoring parameters have been used in other standards
for similar industries. The values of these parameters that correspond
to compliance with the proposed emission limits are established during
the initial or most recent performance test that demonstrates
compliance. These values are your operating limits for the capture and
control system.
You would be required to determine 3-hour average values for most
monitored parameters for the affected source. We selected this
averaging period to allow for normal variation of the parameter while
ensuring that the control system is continuously operating at the same
or better control level as during a performance test demonstrating
compliance with the emission limits.
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the monthly emission
limits, you would also need records of the quantity of coatings and
other materials used and the data and calculations supporting your
determination of their HAP content.
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice
standards, you would keep the associated records specified in your work
practice plan, as required by the proposed rule, and comply with the
associated reporting requirements.
H. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
You would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in
the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as
described in Table 2 of the proposed rule. We evaluated the General
Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be the
minimum notification, reporting, and recordkeeping necessary to ensure
compliance with, and effective enforcement of, the proposed standards.
I. How Did We Select the Compliance Date?
The proposed rule allows existing sources 3 years from the
effective date of the final standards to demonstrate
[[Page 78625]]
compliance. This is the maximum compliance period permitted by the CAA.
We believe that 3 years may be necessary for some affected sources to
design, install, and test improved capture systems and control devices.
Sources that adopt reformulated lower HAP coatings or powder coatings
may also need 3 years to specify, adjust application equipment, and
modify existing coating processes. New or reconstructed affected
sources must comply immediately upon startup or the effective date of
the proposed rule, whichever is later as required by the CAA.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
The proposed rule would decrease HAP emissions from automobile and
light-duty truck surface coating facilities from an estimated 10,000
tpy to 4,000 tpy. This represents a decrease of 6,000 tpy or 60
percent. The proposed rule would also decrease VOC by approximately
12,000 to 18,000 tpy. These values were calculated in comparison to
baseline emissions reported to EPA by individual facilities for 1996 or
1997.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The estimated total capital costs of compliance, including the
costs of monitors, is $670 million. This will result in an additional
annualized capital cost of $75 million compared to a baseline total
capital expenditure of $4 to $5 billion per year.
The projected total annual costs, including capital recovery,
operating costs, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting is $154
million per year. This represents less than one-tenth of 1 percent of
the baseline industry revenues of $290 billion and just over 1.0
percent of baseline industry pre-tax earnings of $14 billion.
The cost analysis assumed that each existing facility would use, in
the order presented, as many of the following four steps as necessary
to meet the proposed emission limit. First, if needed, facilities that
did not already control their electrodeposition primer bake oven
exhaust would install and operate such control at an average cost of
$8,200 per ton of HAP controlled. Next, if needed, facilities would
reduce the HAP-to-VOC ratio of their primer-surfacer and topcoat
materials to 0.3 to 1.0 at an average cost of $540 per ton of HAP
controlled. Finally, if needed, facilities would control the necessary
amount of primer-surfacer and topcoat spray booth exhaust at an average
cost of $40,000 per ton of HAP controlled. For all four steps combined,
the average cost is about $25,000 per ton of HAP controlled.
New facilities and new paint shops would incur little additional
cost to meet the proposed emission limit. These facilities would
already include bake oven controls and partial spray booth exhaust
controls for VOC control purposes. New facilities might need to make
some downward adjustment in the HAP content of their materials to meet
the proposed emission limit.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The EPA prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the
primary and secondary impacts the proposed rule would have on the
producers and consumers of automobiles and light-duty trucks, and
society as a whole. The analysis was conducted to determine the
economic impacts associated with the proposed rule at both the market
and industry levels. Overall, the analysis indicates a minimal change
in vehicle prices and production quantities.
Based on the estimated compliance costs associated with the
proposed rule and the predicted changes in prices and production in the
affected industry, the estimated annual social costs of the proposed
rule is projected to be $161 million (1999 dollars). The social costs
take into account changes in behavior by producers and consumers due to
the imposition of compliance costs from the proposed rule. For this
reason the estimated annual social costs differ from the estimated
annual engineering costs of $154 million. Producers, in aggregate, are
expected to bear $152 million annually in costs while the consumers are
expected to incur the remaining $10 million in social costs associated
with the proposed rule.
The economic model projects an aggregate price increase for the
modeled vehicle classes of automobiles and light-duty trucks to be less
than 1/100th of 1 percent as a result of the proposed standards. This
represents at most an increase in price of $3.00 per vehicle. The model
also projects that directly affected producers would reduce total
production by approximately 1,400 vehicles per year. This represents
approximately 0.01 percent of the 12.7 million vehicles produced by the
potentially affected plants in 1999, the baseline year of analysis.
In terms of industry impacts, the automobile and light-duty truck
manufacturers are projected to experience a decrease in pre-tax
earnings of about 1 percent or $152 million. In comparison, total pre-
tax earnings for the potentially affected plants included in the
analysis exceeded $14 billion in 1999. The reduction in pre-tax
earnings of 1 percent reflects an increase in production costs and a
decline in revenues earned from a reduction in the quantity of vehicles
sold. Through the market and industry impacts described above, the
proposed rule would lead to a redistribution of profits within the
industry. Some facilities (28 percent) are projected to experience a
profit increase with the proposed rule; however, the majority (72
percent) that continue operating are projected to lose profits. No
facilities are projected to close due to the proposed rule.
D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
Solid waste and water impacts of the proposed rule are expected to
be negligible. Capture of additional organic HAP-laden streams and
control of these streams with regenerative thermal oxidizers is
expected to require an additional 180 million kilowatt hours per year
and an additional 4.9 billion standard cubic feet per year of natural
gas.
E. Can We Achieve the Goals of the Proposed Rule in a Less Costly
Manner?
We have made every effort in developing this proposal to minimize
the cost to the regulated community and allow maximum flexibility in
compliance options consistent with our statutory obligations. We
recognize, however, that the proposal may still require some facilities
to take costly steps to further control emissions even though those
emissions may not result in exposures which could pose an excess
individual lifetime cancer risk greater than 1 in 1 million or exceed
thresholds determined to provide an ample margin of safety for
protecting public health and the environment from the effects of HAP.
We are, therefore, specifically soliciting comment on whether there are
further ways to structure the proposed rule to focus on the facilities
which pose significant risks and avoid the imposition of high costs on
facilities that pose little risk to public health and the environment.
During the rulemaking process on a separate proposed NESHAP,
representatives of the plywood and composite wood products industry
provided EPA with descriptions of three approaches that they believed
could be used to implement more cost-effective reductions in risk.
These approaches could be effective in focusing regulatory controls on
facilities that pose significant risks and avoiding the
[[Page 78626]]
imposition of high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public
health or the environment, and we are seeking public comment on the
utility of each of these approaches with respect to this rule. The
docket for today's proposed rule contains ``white papers'' prepared by
the plywood and composite wood products industry that outline their
proposed approaches (see docket number A-2001-22).
One of the approaches, an applicability cutoff for threshold
pollutants, would be implemented under the authority of CAA section
112(d)(4); the second approach, subcategorization and delisting, would
be implemented under the authority of CAA section 112(c)(1) and (c)(9);
and the third approach would involve the use of a concentration-based
applicability threshold. We are seeking comment on whether these
approaches are legally justified and, if so, we ask for information
that could be used to support such approaches.
The MACT program outlined in CAA section 112(d) is intended to
reduce emissions of HAP through the application of MACT to major
sources of toxic air pollutants. Section 112(c)(9) is intended to allow
EPA to avoid setting MACT standards for categories or subcategories of
sources that pose less than a specified level of risk to public health
and the environment. The EPA requests comment on whether the proposals
described here appropriately rely on these provisions of CAA section
112. The two health-based approaches focus on assessing inhalation
exposures or accounting for adverse environmental impacts. In addition
to the specific requests for comment noted in this section, we are also
interested in any information or comment concerning technical
limitations, environmental and cost impacts, compliance assurance,
legal rationale, and implementation relevant to the identified
approaches. We also request comment on appropriate practicable and
verifiable methods to ensure that sources' emissions remain below
levels that protect public health and the environment. We will evaluate
all comments before determining whether to include an approach in the
final rule.
1. Industry HAP emissions and potential health effects
For the automobile and light-duty truck surface coating source
category, seven HAP account for over 95 percent of the total HAP
emitted. Those seven HAP are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers (including
ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE)), MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and
methanol. Additional HAP which may be emitted by some automobile and
light-duty truck surface coating operations are: Ethylene glycol,
hexane, formaldehyde, chromium compounds, diisocyanates, manganese
compounds, methyl methacrylate, methylene chloride, and nickel
compounds.
Of the seven HAP emitted in the largest quantities by this source
category, all can cause toxic effects following sufficient exposure.
The potential toxic effects of these seven HAP include effects to the
central nervous system, such as fatigue, nausea, tremors, and loss of
motor coordination; adverse effects on the liver, kidneys, and blood;
respiratory effects; and developmental effects. In addition, one of the
seven predominant HAP, EGBE, is a possible carcinogen, although
information on this compound is not currently sufficient to allow us to
quantify its potency.
In accordance with CAA section 112(k), EPA developed a list of 33
HAP which present the greatest threat to public health in the largest
number of urban areas. None of the predominant seven HAP is included on
this list for EPA's Urban Air Toxics Program, although three of the
other emitted HAP (formaldehyde, manganese compounds, and nickel
compounds) appear on the list. In November 1998, EPA published ``A
Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
(PBT) Pollutants.'' None of the predominant seven HAP emitted by
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations appears on
the published list of compounds referred to in EPA's PBT strategy.
To estimate the potential baseline risks posed by the source
category and the potential impact of applicability cutoffs, EPA
performed a ``rough'' risk assessment for 56 of the approximately 60
facilities in the source category by using a model plant placed at the
actual location of each plant and simulating impacts using air
emissions data from the 1999 EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). In
addition to the seven predominant HAP, the following additional HAP
were included in this rough risk assessment because they were reported
in TRI as being emitted by facilities in the source category: ethylene
glycol, hexane, formaldehyde, diisocyanates, manganese compounds,
nickel compounds, and benzene. The benzene emissions and some of the
nickel emissions are from non-surface coating activities which are not
part of the source category. Of the HAP reported in TRI which are
emitted from automobile and light-duty truck surface coating
operations, three (formaldehyde, nickel compounds, and EGBE) are
carcinogens that, at present, are not considered to have thresholds for
cancer effects. Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, however, may be a
threshold carcinogen, as suggested by some recent evidence from animal
studies, though EPA, at present, considers it to be a non-threshold
carcinogen without sufficient information to quantify its cancer
potency. Likewise, formaldehyde is a potential threshold carcinogen,
and EPA is currently revising the dose-response assessment for
formaldehyde. Most facilities in this source category emit some small
quantity of formaldehyde. In the 1999 TRI, however, only two facilities
in this source category reported formaldehyde emissions. No other
facilities exceeded the TRI reporting threshold for formaldehyde in
1999.
The baseline cancer risk and subsequent cancer risk reductions were
estimated to be minimal for this source category. Of the three
carcinogens included in the assessment, emissions reductions
attributable to the proposed standards could be estimated for only
EGBE. However, since EGBE risks cannot currently be quantified, the
cancer risk reductions associated with the proposed rule are estimated
by this rough assessment to be minimal. However, noncancer risks are
projected to be significantly reduced by the proposed rule. (Details of
this assessment are available in the docket.)
2. Applicability Cutoffs for Threshold Pollutants Under CAA Section
112(d)(4)
The first approach is an ``applicability cutoff'' for threshold
pollutants that is based on EPA's authority under CAA section 112(d)(4)
to establish standards for HAP which are ``threshold pollutants.'' A
``threshold pollutant'' is one for which there is a concentration or
dose below which adverse effects are not expected to occur over a
lifetime of exposure. For such pollutants, section 112(d)(4) allows EPA
to consider the threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, when
establishing emission standards. Specifically, section 112(d)(4) allows
EPA to establish emission standards that are not based upon the MACT
specified under section 112(d)(2) for pollutants for which a health
threshold has been established. Such standards may be less stringent
than MACT. Historically, EPA has interpreted section 112(d)(4) to allow
categories of sources that emit only threshold pollutants to avoid
further regulation if those emissions result in ambient levels that do
not exceed the
[[Page 78627]]
threshold, with an ample margin of safety.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 63 18754, 18765-66 (April 15, 1998) (Pulp and Paper
Combustion Sources Proposed NESHAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A different interpretation would allow us to exempt individual
facilities within a source category that meet the section 112(d)(4)
requirements. There are three potential scenarios under this
interpretation of the section 112(d)(4) provision. One scenario would
allow an exemption for individual facilities that emit only threshold
pollutants and can demonstrate that their emissions of threshold
pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the threshold
levels, with an ample margin of safety, even if the category is
otherwise subject to MACT. A second scenario would allow the section
112(d)(4) provision to be applied to both threshold and non-threshold
pollutants, using the 1 in 1 million cancer risk level for
decisionmaking for non-threshold pollutants.
A third scenario would allow a section 112(d)(4) exemption at a
facility that emits both threshold and non-threshold pollutants. For
those emission points where only threshold pollutants are emitted and
where emissions of the threshold pollutants would not result in air
concentrations above the threshold levels, with an ample margin of
safety, those emission points could be exempt from the MACT standards.
The MACT standards would still apply to non-threshold emissions from
other emission points at the source. For this third scenario, emission
points that emit a combination of threshold and non-threshold
pollutants that are co-controlled by MACT would still be subject to the
MACT level of control. However, any threshold HAP eligible for
exemption under section 112(d)(4) that are controlled by control
devices different from those controlling non-threshold HAP would be
able to use the exemption, and the facility would still be subject to
the sections of the standards that control non-threshold pollutants or
that control both threshold and non-threshold pollutants.
Estimation of hazard quotients and hazard indices. Under the
section 112(d)(4) approach, EPA would have to determine that emissions
of each of the threshold pollutants emitted by automobile and light-
duty truck surface coating operations at the facility do not result in
exposures which exceed the threshold levels, with an ample margin of
safety.
The common approach for evaluating the potential hazard of a
threshold air pollutant is to calculate a ``hazard quotient'' by
dividing the pollutant's inhalation exposure concentration (often
assumed to be equivalent to its estimated concentration in air at a
location where people could be exposed) by the pollutant's inhalation
Reference Concentration (RfC). An RfC is an estimate (with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation
exposure that, over a lifetime, likely would not result in the
occurrence of adverse health effects in humans, including sensitive
individuals.
The EPA typically establishes an RfC by applying uncertainty
factors to the critical toxic effect derived from the lowest-or no-
observed-adverse-effect level of a pollutant \2\. A hazard quotient
less than one means that the exposure concentration of the pollutant is
less than the RfC and, therefore, presumed to be without appreciable
risk of adverse health effects. A hazard quotient greater than one
means that the exposure concentration of the pollutant is greater than
the RfC. Further, EPA guidance for assessing exposures to mixtures of
threshold pollutants recommends calculating a hazard index (HI) by
summing the individual hazard quotients for those pollutants in the
mixture that affect the same target organ or system by the same
mechanism \3\. The HI values would be interpreted similarly to hazard
quotients; values below one would generally be considered to be without
appreciable risk of adverse health effects, and values above one would
generally be cause for concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Methods for Derivation of Inhalation reference
Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation Dosimetry.'' EPA-600/
8-90-066F, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, October 1994.
\3\ ``Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum Technical
Panel,'' EPA/630/R-00/002. USEPA, August 2000. http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/pdfs/chem_mix/chem_mix_08_2001.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the determinations discussed herein, EPA would generally plan
to use RfC values contained in EPA's toxicology database, the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). When a pollutant does not
have an approved RfC in IRIS, or when a pollutant is a carcinogen, EPA
would have to determine whether a threshold exists based upon the
availability of specific data on the pollutant's mode or mechanism of
action, potentially using a health threshold value from an alternative
source, such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) or the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).
Table 4 provides RfC, as well as unit risk estimates, for the HAP
emitted by automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations.
A unit risk estimate is defined as the upper-bound excess lifetime
cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at
a concentration of 1 ug/m \3\ in the air.
Table 4.--Dose-Response Assessment Values for HAP Reported Emitted by the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CAS No. Reference concentration a (mg/m\3\) Unit risk estimate b (1/(ug/m\3\))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium (VI) compounds.................. 18540-29-9 1.0E-04 (IRIS) 1.2E-02 (IRIS)
Chromium (VI) trioxide, chromic acid mist 11115-74-5 8.0E-06 (IRIS) .............................................
Ethyl benzene............................ 100-41-4 1.0E+00 (IRIS) .............................................
Ethylene glycol.......................... 107-21-1 4.0E-01 (CAL) .............................................
Formaldehyde............................. 50-00-0 9.8E-03 (ATSDR) 1.3E-05 (IRIS)
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether........ 112-34-5 2.0E-02 (HEAST) .............................................
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether.......... 111-76-2 1.3E+01 (IRIS) .............................................
Hexamethylene-1, 6-diisocyanate.......... 822-06-0 1.0E-05 (IRIS) .............................................
n-Hexane................................. 110-54-3 2.0E-01 (IRIS) .............................................
Manganese compounds...................... 7439-96-5 5.0E-05 (IRIS) .............................................
Methanol................................. 67-56-1 4.0E+00 (CAL) .............................................
Methyl ethyl ketone...................... 78-93-3 1.0E+00 (IRIS) .............................................
Methyl isobutyl ketone................... 108-10-1 8.0E-02 (HEAST) .............................................
Methyl methacrylate...................... 80-62-6 7.0E-01 (IRIS) .............................................
Methylene chloride....................... 75-09-2 1.0E+00 (ATSDR) 4.7E-07 (IRIS)
[[Page 78628]]
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate.......... 101-68-8 6.0E-04 (IRIS) .............................................
Nickel compounds......................... 7440-02-0 2.0E-04 (ATSDR) .............................................
Nickel oxide............................. 1313-99-1 1.0E-04 (CAL) .............................................
Toluene.................................. 108-88-3 4.0E-01 (IRIS) .............................................
2,4/2,6-Toluene diisocyanate mixture 26471-62-5 7.0E-05 (IRIS) 1.1E-05 (CAL)
(TDI).
Xylenes (mixed).......................... 1330-20-7 4.3E-01 (ATSDR) .............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Reference Concentration: An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human
population (including sensitive subgroups which include children, asthmatics, and the elderly) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors generally applied to
reflect limitations of the data used.
b Unit Risk Estimate: The upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 ug/
m\3\ in air. The interpretation of the Unit Risk Estimate would be as follows: if the Unit Risk Estimate = 1.5 x 10 -6 per ug/m\3\, 1.5 excess tumors
are expected to develop per 1,000,000 people if exposed daily for a lifetime to 1 ug of the chemical in 1 cubic meter of air. Unit Risk Estimates are
considered upper bound estimates, meaning they represent a plausible upper limit to the true value. (Note that this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit.) The true risk is likely to be less, but could be greater.
Sources: IRIS = EPA Integrated Risk Information System (http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html) ATSDR = U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html) CAL = California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_
spots/index.html) HEAST = EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (PB(=97-921199, July 1997).
spots/index.html) HEAST = EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (PB(=97-921199, July 1997).
To establish an applicability cutoff under section 112(d)(4), EPA
would need to define ambient air exposure concentration limits for any
threshold pollutants involved. There are several factors to consider
when establishing such concentrations. First, we would need to ensure
that the concentrations that would be established would protect public
health with an ample margin of safety. As discussed above, the approach
EPA commonly uses when evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold
air pollutant is to calculate the pollutant's hazard quotient, which is
the exposure concentration divided by the RfC.
The EPA's ``Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures'' suggests that the noncancer health
effects associated with a mixture of pollutants ideally are assessed by
considering the pollutants' common mechanisms of toxicity.\4\ The
guidance also suggests that when exposures to mixtures of pollutants
are being evaluated, the risk assessor may calculate a HI. The
recommended method is to calculate multiple hazard indices for each
exposure route of interest and for a single specific toxic effect or
toxicity to a single target organ. The default approach recommended by
the guidance is to sum the hazard quotients for those pollutants that
induce the same toxic effect or affect the same target organ. A mixture
is then assessed by several HI, each representing one toxic effect or
target organ. The guidance notes that the pollutants included in the HI
calculation are any pollutants that show the effect being assessed,
regardless of the critical effect upon which the RfC is based. The
guidance cautions that if the target organ or toxic effect for which
the HI is calculated is different from the RfC's critical effect, then
the RfC for that chemical will be an overestimate, that is, the
resultant HI potentially may be overprotective. Conversely, since the
calculation of a HI does not account for the fact that the potency of a
mixture of HAP can be more potent than the sum of the individual HAP
potencies, a HI may potentially be underprotective in some situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Options for establishing a HI limit. One consideration in
establishing a HI limit is whether the analysis considers the total
ambient air concentrations of all the emitted HAP to which the public
is exposed.\5\ There are several options for establishing a HI limit
for the section 112(d)(4) analysis that reflect, to varying degrees,
public exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Senate Debate on Conference Report (October 27, 1990),
reprinted in ``A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990,'' Comm. Print S. Prt. 103-38 (1993) (``Legis. Hist.'') at
868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One option is to allow the HI posed by all threshold HAP emitted
from automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations at the
facility to be no greater than one. This approach is protective if no
additional threshold HAP exposures would be anticipated from other
sources at, or in the vicinity of, the facility or through other routes
of exposure (e.g., through dermal absorption).
A second option is to adopt a ``default percentage'' approach,
whereby the HI limit of the HAP emitted by the facility is set at some
percentage or fraction of one (e.g., 20 percent or 0.2). This approach
recognizes the fact that the facility in question is only one of many
sources of threshold HAP to which people are typically exposed every
day. Because noncancer risk assessment is predicated on total exposure
or dose, and because risk assessments focus only on an individual
source, establishing a HI limit of 0.2 would account for an assumption
that 20 percent of an individual's total exposure is from that
individual source. For the purposes of this discussion, we will call
all sources of HAP, other than operations within the source category at
the facility in question, ``background'' sources. If the affected
source is allowed to emit HAP such that its own impacts could result in
HI values of one, total exposures to threshold HAP in the vicinity of
the facility could be substantially greater than one due to background
sources, and this would not be protective of public health since only
HI values below one are considered to be without appreciable risk of
adverse health effects. Thus, setting the HI limit for the facility at
some default percentage of one will provide a buffer which would help
to ensure that total exposures to threshold HAP near the facility
(i.e., in combination with exposures due to background sources) will
generally not exceed one and can generally be considered to be without
appreciable risk of adverse health effects.
The EPA requests comment on using the ``default percentage''
approach and on setting the default HI limit at 0.2. The EPA is also
requesting comment on whether an alternative HI limit, in some multiple
of one, would be a more appropriate applicability cutoff.
A third option is to use available data (from scientific literature
or EPA studies, for example) to determine background concentrations of
HAP,
[[Page 78629]]
possibly on a national or regional basis. These data would be used to
estimate the exposures to HAP from activities other than automobile and
light-duty truck surface coating operations. For example, EPA's
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) \6\ and ATSDR's
Toxicological Profiles \7\ contain information about background
concentrations of some HAP in the atmosphere and other media. The
combined exposures from an affected source and from background
emissions (as determined from the literature or studies) would then not
be allowed to exceed a HI limit of 1.0. The EPA requests comment on the
appropriateness of setting the HI limit at one for such an analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata.
\7\ See http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fourth option is to allow facilities to estimate or measure their
own facility-specific background HAP concentrations for use in their
analysis. With regard to the third and fourth options, EPA requests
comment on how these analyses could be structured. Specifically, EPA
requests comment on how the analyses should take into account
background exposure levels from air, water, food, and soil encountered
by the individuals exposed to emissions from this source category. In
addition, we request comment on how such analyses should account for
potential increases in exposures due to the use of a new HAP or the
increased use of a previously emitted HAP, or the effect of other
nearby sources that release HAP.
The EPA requests comment on the feasibility and scientific validity
of each of these or other options. Finally, EPA requests comment on how
we should implement the section 112(d)(4) applicability cutoffs,
including appropriate mechanisms for applying cutoffs to individual
facilities. For example, would the title V permit process provide an
appropriate mechanism?
Tiered analytical approach for predicting exposure. Establishing
that a facility meets the cutoffs established under section 112(d)(4)
will necessarily involve combining estimates of pollutant emissions
with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. The EPA envisions
that we would promote a tiered analysis for these determinations. A
tiered analysis involves making successive refinements in modeling
methodologies and input data to derive successively less conservative,
more realistic estimates of pollutant concentrations in air and
estimates of risk.
As a first tier of analysis, EPA could develop a series of simple
look-up tables based on the results of air dispersion modeling
conducted using conservative input assumptions. By specifying a limited
number of input parameters, such as stack height, distance to property
line, and emission rate, a facility could use these look-up tables to
determine easily whether the emissions from their sources might cause a
HI limit to be exceeded.
A facility that does not pass this initial conservative screening
analysis could implement increasingly more site-specific and resource-
intensive tiers of analysis using EPA-approved modeling procedures in
an attempt to demonstrate that exposure to emissions from the facility
does not exceed the HI limit. Existing EPA guidance could provide the
basis for conducting such a tiered analysis.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``A Tiered Modeling Approach for Assessing the Risks due to
Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' EPA-450/4-92-001. David E.
Guinnup, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, March
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA requests comment on methods for constructing and
implementing a tiered analysis for determining applicability of the
section 112(d)(4) criteria to specific automobile and light-duty truck
surface coating sources. Ambient monitoring data could possibly be used
to supplement or supplant the tiered modeling analysis described above.
We envision that the appropriate monitoring to support such a
determination could be extensive. The EPA requests comment on the
appropriate use of monitoring in the determinations described above.
Accounting for dose-response relationships. In the past, EPA
routinely treated carcinogens as non-threshold pollutants. The EPA
recognizes that advances in risk assessment science and policy may
affect the way EPA differentiates between threshold and non-threshold
HAP. The EPA's draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment \9\
suggest that carcinogens be assigned non-linear dose-response
relationships where data warrant. Moreover, it is possible that dose-
response curves for some pollutants may reach zero risk at a dose
greater than zero, creating a threshold for carcinogenic effects. It is
possible that future evaluations of the carcinogens emitted by this
source category would determine that one or more of the carcinogens in
the category is a threshold carcinogen or is a carcinogen that exhibits
a non-linear dose-response relationship but does not have a threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.''
NCEA-F-0644. USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, July 1999. pp 3-9ff.
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/pdfs/cancer_gls.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dose-response assessment for formaldehyde is currently
undergoing revision by EPA. As part of this revision effort, EPA is
evaluating formaldehyde as a potential non-linear carcinogen. The
revised dose-response assessment will be subject to review by the EPA
Science Advisory Board, followed by full consensus review, before
adoption into the EPA's IRIS. At this time, EPA estimates that the
consensus review will be completed by the end of 2003. The revision of
the dose-response assessment could affect the potency factor of
formaldehyde, as well as its status as a threshold or non-threshold
pollutant. At this time, the outcome is not known. In addition to the
current reassessment by EPA, there have been several reassessments of
the toxicity and carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in recent years,
including work by the World Health Organization and the Canadian
Ministry of Health.
The EPA requests comment on how we should consider the state of the
science as it relates to the treatment of threshold pollutants when
making determinations under section 112(d)(4). In addition, EPA
requests comment on whether there is a level of emissions of a non-
threshold carcinogenic HAP at which it would be appropriate to allow a
facility to use the scenarios discussed under the section 112(d)(4)
approach.
Risk assessment results. The results of the human health risk
assessments described below are based on approaches for quantifying
exposure, risk, and cancer incidence that carry significant
assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations. For example, in conducting
these types of analyses, there are typically many uncertainties
regarding dose-response functions, levels of exposure, exposed
populations, air quality modeling applications, emission levels, and
control effectiveness. Because the estimates derived from the various
scoping approaches are necessarily rough, we are concerned that they
not convey a false sense of precision. Any point estimates of risk
reduction or benefits generated by these approaches should be
considered as part of a range of potential estimates.
If the final rule is implemented as proposed at all automobile and
light-duty truck surface coating facilities, the number of people
exposed to HI values equal to, or greater than, one was estimated to be
reduced from about 100 to about ten. The number of people exposed to HI
values of 0.2 or greater was predicted to decrease from about
[[Page 78630]]
3,500 to about 1,200. (Details of these analyses are available in the
docket.)
Based on the results of this rough assessment, if the section
112(d)(4) approach is applied only to threshold pollutants, EPA
estimates that none of the facilities in this source category could
obtain an exemption from regulation, since all, or nearly all,
facilities emit some amount of one or more non-threshold pollutants.
This application of the section 112(d)(4) approach is estimated to
produce minimal potential cost savings. If formaldehyde and EGBE are
determined to be threshold carcinogens, these estimates could change.
The second scenario under the section 112(d)(4) provision would
apply to both threshold and non-threshold pollutants. If this scenario
is selected, EPA estimates, using a HI limit of one and treating
10-6 as a cancer risk threshold, that as many as 54 of the
facilities in the source category may be exempt from the proposed rule.
The EPA estimates in this case that the annualized cost of the proposed
rule would be about $9 million per year, resulting in cost savings of
about $145 million per year (as compared to establishing a MACT
standard for all plants in the industry). Using a HI limit of 0.2 and
treating 10-6 as a cancer risk threshold, EPA estimates that
as many as 41 facilities may be exempt from the proposed rule. The EPA
estimates in this case that the annualized cost of the proposed rule
would be about $66 million per year, resulting in cost savings of about
$88 million per year (as compared to establishing a MACT standard for
all plants in the industry).
The EPA does not expect the third scenario, which would allow
emission point exemptions, to be applicable for the automobile and
light-duty truck surface coating source category because mixtures of
threshold and non-threshold pollutants are co-emitted, and the same
emission controls would apply to both.
The risk estimates from this rough assessment are based on typical
facility configurations (i.e., model plants) and, as such, they are
subject to significant uncertainties, such that the actual risks at any
one facility could be significantly higher or lower. Therefore, while
these risk estimates assist in providing a broad picture of impacts
across the source category, they should not be the basis for an
exemption from the requirements of the proposed rule. Rather, any such
exemption should be based on an estimate of the facility-specific risks
which would require site-specific data and a more refined analysis.
For either of the first two approaches described above, the actual
number of facilities that would qualify for an exemption would depend
upon site-specific risk assessments and the specified HI limit (see
earlier discussion of HI limit). If the section 112(d)(4) approach were
adopted, the requirements of the proposed rule would not apply to any
source that demonstrates, based on a tiered analysis that includes EPA-
approved modeling of the affected source's emissions, that the
anticipated HAP exposures do not exceed the specified HI limit.
3. Subcategory Delisting Under Section 112(c)(9)(B) of the CAA
The EPA is authorized to establish categories and subcategories of
sources, as appropriate, pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(1), in order to
facilitate the development of MACT standards consistent with section
112 of the CAA. Further, section 112(c)(9)(B) allows EPA to delete a
category (or subcategory) from the list of major sources for which MACT
standards are to be developed when the following can be demonstrated:
(1) In the case of carcinogenic pollutants, that ``* * * no source in
the category * * * emits (carcinogenic) air pollutants in quantities
which may cause a lifetime risk of cancer greater than 1 in 1 million
to the individual in the population who is most exposed to emissions of
such pollutants from the source * * *''; (2) in the case of pollutants
that cause adverse noncancer health effects, that ``* * * emissions
from no source in the category or subcategory * * * exceed a level
which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin of
safety * * *''; and (3) in the case of pollutants that cause adverse
environmental effects, that ``no adverse environmental effect will
result from emissions from any source. * * *''
Given these authorities and the suggestions from the white papers
prepared by industry representatives and discussed previously (see
docket A-2001-22), EPA is considering whether it would be possible to
establish a subcategory of facilities within the larger source category
that would meet the risk-based criteria for delisting. Such criteria
would likely include the same requirements as described previously for
the second scenario under the section 112(d)(4) approach, whereby a
facility would be in the low-risk subcategory if its emissions of
threshold pollutants do not result in exposures which exceed the HI
limits, and if its emissions of non-threshold pollutants do not result
in exposures which exceed a cancer risk level of 10-6. The
EPA requests comment on what an appropriate HI limit would be for a
determination that a facility be included in the low-risk subcategory.
Since each facility in such a subcategory would be a low-risk
facility (i.e., each would meet these criteria), the subcategory could
be delisted in accordance with section 112(c)(9), thereby limiting the
costs and impacts of the proposed MACT rule to only those facilities
that do not qualify for subcategorization and delisting. The EPA
estimates that the maximum potential of utilizing this approach would
be the same as that of applying the section 112(d)(4) approach for
threshold and non-threshold pollutants, though the actual impact is
likely to be less. For example, with a HI value limit of one and
treating 10-6 as a cancer risk threshold, as many as 54 of
the facilities may be exempted under this approach. Alternatively, with
a HI limit of 0.2 and treating 10-6 as a cancer risk
threshold, as many as 41 facilities may be exempted under this
approach.
Facilities seeking to be included in the delisted subcategory would
be responsible for providing all data required to determine whether
they are eligible for inclusion. Facilities that could not demonstrate
that they are eligible to be included in the low-risk subcategory would
be subject to MACT and possible future residual risk standards. The EPA
solicits comment on implementing a risk-based approach for establishing
subcategories of automobile and light-duty truck surface coating
facilities.
Establishing that a facility qualifies for the low-risk subcategory
under section 112(c)(9) will necessarily involve combining estimates of
pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures.
The EPA envisions that we would employ the same tiered analysis
described earlier in the section 112(d)(4) discussion for these
determinations.
One concern that EPA has with respect to the section 112(c)(9)
approach is the effect that it could have on the MACT floors. If many
of the facilities in the low-risk subcategory are well-controlled, that
could make the MACT floor less stringent for the remaining facilities.
One approach that has been suggested to mitigate this effect would be
to establish the MACT floor now based on controls in place for the
entire category and to allow facilities to become part of the low-risk
subcategory in the future, after the MACT standards are established.
This would allow low-risk facilities to use the section 112(c)(9)
exemption without affecting the MACT
[[Page 78631]]
floor calculation. The EPA requests comment on this suggested approach.
Another scenario under the section 112(c)(9) approach would be to
define a subcategory of facilities within the source category based
upon technological differences, such as differences in production rate,
emission vent flow rates, overall facility size, emissions
characteristics, processes, or air pollution control device viability.
The EPA requests comment on how we might establish subcategories based
on these, or other, source characteristics. If it could then be
determined that each source in this technologically-defined subcategory
presents a low risk to the surrounding community, the subcategory could
then be delisted in accordance with section 112(c)(9). The EPA requests
comment on the concept of identifying technologically-based
subcategories that may include only low-risk facilities within the
source category.
If a section 112(c)(9) approach were adopted, the requirements of
the proposed rule would not apply to any source that demonstrates that
it belongs in a subcategory which has been delisted under section
112(c)(9).
Consideration of criteria pollutants. Finally, EPA projects that
adoption of the MACT floor level of controls would result in increases
in nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. This pollutant is a
precursor in the formation of ozone and fine particulate matter (PM).
Ozone has been associated with a variety of adverse health effects such
as reduced lung function, respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough and chest
pain) and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for
respiratory causes. Fine PM has been associated with a variety of
adverse health effects such as premature mortality, chronic bronchitis,
and increased frequency of asthma attacks. The EPA requests comments on
the extent to which consideration should be given to the adverse
effects of the possible increase in NOX emissions from
applying MACT technology, in the context of implementing our authority
under section 112(c)(9) or other exemptions.
V. How Will the Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265,
Subparts BB of the Hazardous Waste Regulations Be Implemented in the
States?
A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States
Under section 3006 of the RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified State
to administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the State in
lieu of the Federal program and to issue and enforce permits in the
State. A State may receive authorization by following the approval
process described under 40 CFR 271.21. See 40 CFR part 271 for the
overall standards and requirements for authorization. The EPA continues
to have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA
sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. An authorized State also continues
to have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under State
law.
After a State receives initial authorization, new Federal
requirements promulgated under RCRA authority existing prior to the
1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that
State until the State adopts and receives authorization for equivalent
State requirements. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C.
6926(g)), new Federal requirements and prohibitions promulgated
pursuant to HSWA provisions take effect in authorized States at the
same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. As such, EPA
carries out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements,
until EPA authorizes the State to do so.
Authorized States are required to modify their programs when EPA
promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in
scope than existing Federal requirements. The RCRA section 3009 allows
the States to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal
program. (See also section 271.1(i)). Therefore, authorized States are
not required to adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, that
are considered less stringent than existing Federal requirements.
B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposed Amendments
Currently, the air emissions from the collection, transmission, and
storage of purged paint and solvent at automobile and light-duty truck
assembly plants are regulated under the authority of RCRA (see 40 CFR
parts 264 and 265, subparts BB). The proposed amendments would exempt
these wastes from regulation under RCRA and defer regulation to the CAA
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, which is also being
proposed today. This exemption is considered to be less stringent than
the existing RCRA regulations and, therefore, States are not required
to adopt and seek authorization for today's proposed exemption.
However, EPA will strongly encourage States to adopt today's proposed
RCRA provisions and seek authorization for them to prevent duplication
with the new NESHAP when final.
VI. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
We welcome comments from interested persons on any aspect of the
proposed standards and on any statement(s) in this preamble or in the
referenced supporting documents. In particular, we request comments on
how monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements can be
consolidated for sources that are subject to more than one rule. For
example, all automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants are
subject to VOC regulations and some may perform coating activities
which would be subject to the NESHAP for plastic parts coating or
miscellaneous metal parts coating, both currently under development.
Supporting data and detailed analyses should be submitted with
comments to allow us to make maximum use of the comments. All comments
should be directed to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Docket No. A-2001-22 (see ADDRESSES). Comments on the proposed
rule must be submitted on or before the date specified in DATES.
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined
[[Page 78632]]
that the proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' because
it could have an annual impact on the economy of over $100 million.
Consequently, this action was submitted to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12866. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.
As stipulated in Executive Order 12866, in deciding how or whether
to regulate, EPA is required to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not
regulating. To this end, EPA prepared a detailed benefit-cost analysis
in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Automobile and
Light-Duty Truck Coatings NESHAP,'' which is contained in the docket.
The following is a summary of the benefit-cost analysis:
It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the rule as
proposed, HAP emissions will be reduced from 10,000 tpy to 4,000 tpy.
This represents a 60 percent reduction (or 6,000 tpy) of toluene,
xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. Based on
scientific studies conducted over the past 20 years, the EPA has
classified ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE), one of the glycol
ethers, as a ``possible human carcinogen,'' while ethylbenzene, MEK,
toluene, and xylenes are considered by the EPA as ``not classifiable as
to human carcinogenicity.'' At this time, we are unable to provide a
comprehensive quantification and monetization of the HAP-related
benefits of this proposal.
Exposure to HAP can result in the incidence of respiratory
irritation, chest constriction, gastric irritation, eye, nose, and
throat irritation as well as neurological and blood effects.
Specifically, exposure to EGBE may result in neurological and blood
effects, including fatigue, nausea, tremor, and anemia. Though no
reliable human epidemiological study is available to address the
potential carcinogenicity of EGBE, a draft report of a 2-year rodent
inhalation study reported equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity
in female rats and male mice. Exposure to MEK may lead to eye, nose,
and throat irritation while methanol may lead to blurred vision,
headache, dizziness, and nausea. Toluene may cause effects to the
central nervous system, such as fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and
nausea. In addition, chronic exposure to this HAP can lead to tremors,
decreased brain size, involuntary eye movements, and impairment of
speech, hearing, and vision. Xylenes, a mixture of three closely
related compounds, may cause nose and throat irritation, nausea,
vomiting, gastric irritation, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and
tremors.
The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from
automobile and light-duty truck coating operations are also expected to
reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, particularly VOC.
Specifically, the proposed rule achieves a 12,000 to 18,000 tpy
reduction in VOC. The VOC is a precursor to tropospheric (ground-level)
ozone and a small percentage also precipitate in the atmosphere to form
PM.
Although we have not estimated the monetary value associated with
VOC reductions, the benefits can be substantial. Health and welfare
effects from exposure to ground-level ozone are well documented.
Elevated concentrations of ground-level ozone primarily may result in
acute respiratory-related impacts such as coughing and difficulty
breathing. Chronic exposure to ground-level ozone may lead to
structural damage to the lungs, alterations in lung capacity and
breathing frequency, increased sensitivity of airways, eye, nose, and
throat irritation, malaise, and nausea. Adverse ozone welfare effects
include damage to agricultural crops, ornamental plants, and materials
damage. Though only a small fraction of VOC forms PM, exposure to PM
can result in human health and welfare effects including excess deaths,
morbidity, soiling and materials damage, as well as reduced visibility.
To the extent that reduced exposure to HAP and VOC reduces the
instances of the above described health effects, benefits from the
proposed rule are realized by society through an improvement in
environmental quality.
Benefit-cost comparison (net benefits) is a tool used to evaluate
the reallocation of society's resources used to address the pollution
externality created by the coatings operations at automobile and light-
duty truck plants. The additional costs of internalizing the pollution
produced at major sources of emissions from automobile and light-duty
truck manufacturing facilities can be compared to the improvement in
society's well-being from a cleaner and healthier environment.
Comparing benefits of the proposed rule to the costs imposed by the
alternative methods to control emissions optimally identifies a
strategy that results in the highest net benefit to society. In the
case of the proposed automobiles and light-duty trucks coating NESHAP,
we are proposing only one option, the minimum level of control mandated
by the CAA or the MACT floor.
Based on estimated compliance costs associated with this proposed
rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected
industry, the estimated social costs of this proposed rule are $161
million (1999 dollars).
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State
law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in
the process of developing the proposed regulation.
The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Pursuant to the terms of
Executive Order 13132, it has been determined that the proposed rule
does not have ``federalism implications'' because it does not meet the
necessary criteria. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order do not apply to the proposed rule. Although section 6
of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule, EPA did
consult with State and local officials to enable them to provide timely
input in the development of the proposed regulation.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
[[Page 78633]]
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own or operate automobile
and light-duty truck surface coating facilities. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to the proposed rule.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish
environmental standards based on an assessment of health or safety
risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative
technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a
reasonable cost.
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of
Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain
actions identified as ``significant energy actions.'' Section 4(b) of
Executive Order 13211 defines ``significant energy actions'' as ``any
action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that
promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule
or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of
proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.'' This proposed rule
is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
The proposed rule affects the automobile and light-duty truck
manufacturing industries. There is no crude oil, fuel, or coal
production from these industries, therefore there is no direct effect
on such energy production related to implementation of the rule as
proposed. In addition, the cost of energy distribution should not be
affected by this proposal at all since this proposed rule does not
affect energy distribution facilities.
The proposed rule is projected to trigger an increase in energy use
due to the installation and operation of additional pollution control
equipment. The estimated increase in energy consumption is 4.9 billion
standard cubic feet per year of natural gas and 180 million kilowatt
hours per year of electricity nationwide. The nationwide cost of this
increased energy consumption is estimated at $26 million per year.
The increase in energy costs does not reflect changes in energy
prices, but rather an increase in the quantity of electricity and
natural gas demanded. Given that the existing electricity generation
capacity in the United States was 785,990 megawatts in 1999 \10\ and
that 23,755 billion cubic feet of natural gas was produced domestically
in the same year,\11\ the proposed rule is not likely to have any
significant adverse impact on energy prices, distribution,
availability, or use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Electric Power Annual,
Volume I. Table A2: Industry Capability by Fuel Source and Industry
Sector, 1999 and 1998 (Megawatts).
\11\ U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Natural Gas Annual. Table
1: Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, 1995-
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
We have determined that the proposed rule contains a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any 1 year. Accordingly, we have prepared a written statement
(titled ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis for the Proposed
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Coating NESHAP'') under section 202
of the UMRA which is summarized below.
1. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this rulemaking is section 112 of the
CAA, enacted to reduce nationwide air toxic emissions. In compliance
with UMRA section 205(a), we identified and considered a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives. Additional information on the costs
and environmental impacts of these
[[Page 78634]]
regulatory alternatives is presented in the docket. The regulatory
alternative upon which the proposed rule is based represents the MACT
floor for automobile and light-duty truck coating operations and, as a
result, is the least costly and least burdensome alternative.
2. Social Costs and Benefits
The RIA prepared for the proposed rule, including EPA's assessment
of costs and benefits, is detailed in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis
for the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Coating NESHAP'' in the
docket. Based on the estimated compliance costs associated with the
proposed rule and the predicted changes in prices and production in the
affected industry, the estimated annual social costs of the proposed
rule is projected to be $161 million (1999 dollars).
It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the rule as
proposed, HAP will be reduced from 10,000 tpy to 4,000 tpy. This
represents a 60 percent reduction (6,000 tpy) of toluene, xylene,
glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. Based on
scientific studies conducted over the past 20 years, EPA has classified
EGBE as a ``possible human carcinogen,'' while ethylbenzene, MEK,
toluene, and xylenes are considered by the Agency as ``not classifiable
as to human carcinogenicity.'' The studies upon which these
classifications are based have worked toward the determination of a
relationship between exposure to these HAP and the onset of cancer.
However, there are several questions remaining on how cancers that may
result from exposure to these HAP can be quantified in terms of
dollars. Therefore, EPA is unable to provide a monetized estimate of
the benefits of HAP reduced by the proposed rule at this time. Exposure
to HAP can result in the incidence of respiratory irritation, chest
constriction, gastric irritation, eye, nose, and throat irritation, as
well as neurological and blood effects, including fatigue, nausea,
tremor, and anemia.
The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from
automobile and light-duty truck coating operations is also expected to
reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, particularly VOC.
Specifically, this proposed rule achieves a 12,000 to 18,000 tpy
reduction in VOC. The VOC is a precursor to tropospheric (ground-level)
ozone and a small percentage also precipitate in the atmosphere to form
PM.
Although we have not estimated the monetary value associated with
VOC reductions, the benefits can be substantial. Health and welfare
effects from exposure to ground-level ozone are well documented.
Elevated concentrations of ground-level ozone primarily may result in
acute respiratory-related impacts such as coughing and difficulty
breathing. Chronic exposure to ground-level ozone may lead to
structural damage to the lungs, alterations in lung capacity and
breathing frequency, increased sensitivity of airways, eye, nose, and
throat irritation, malaise, and nausea. Adverse ozone welfare effects
include damage to agricultural crops, ornamental plants, and materials
damage. Though only a small fraction of VOC forms PM, exposure to PM
can result in human health and welfare effects, including excess
deaths, morbidity, soiling and materials damage, as well as reduced
visibility.
To the extent that reduced exposure to HAP and VOC reduces the
instances of the above described health effects, benefits from the
proposed rule would be realized by society through an improvement in
environmental quality.
3. Future and Disproportionate Costs
The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is
reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the proposed
rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. We do not believe that
there will be any disproportionate budgetary effects of the proposed
rule on any particular areas of the country, State, or local
governments, types of communities (e.g., urban, rural), or particular
industry segments.
4. Effects on the National Economy
The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the proposed rule
on the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the
effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of
productive jobs, and international competitiveness of United States
goods and services if we determine that accurate estimates are
reasonably feasible and that such effect is relevant and material.
The nationwide economic impact of the proposed rule is presented in
the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Automobiles and Light-Duty
Trucks Coating NESHAP.'' That analysis provides estimates of the effect
of the proposed rule on some of the categories mentioned above.
The estimated direct cost to the automobile and light-duty truck
manufacturing industry of compliance with the proposed rule is
approximately $154 million (1999 dollars) annually. Indirect costs of
the proposed rule to industries other than the automobile and light-
duty truck manufacturing industry, governments, tribes, and other
affected entities are expected to be minor. The estimated annual costs
is minimal when compared to the nominal gross domestic product of
$9,255 billion reported for the Nation in 1999. The proposed rule is
expected to have little impact on domestic productivity, economic
growth, full employment, energy markets, creation of productive jobs,
and the international competitiveness of United States goods and
services.
5. Consultation With Government Officials
Although this proposed rule does not affect any State, local, or
tribal governments, EPA has consulted with State and local air
pollution control officials. The EPA has held meetings on the proposed
rule with many of the stakeholders from numerous individual companies,
environmental groups, consultants and vendors, and other interested
parties. The EPA has added materials to the docket to document these
meetings.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For the automobile and light-duty truck surface coating industry, a
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to Small
Business Administration size standards for companies identified by
NAICS codes 33611 (automobile manufacturing) and 33621 (light-duty
truck and utility vehicle manufacturing) with 1,000 or fewer employees;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district, or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. Based on the above definition, there are no
small entities presently engaged in automobile and light-duty truck
surface coating.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that the proposed
[[Page 78635]]
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This certification is based on the
observation that the proposed rule affects no small entities since none
are engaged in the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty
trucks.
H. 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 ICR document has been prepared by EPA (ICR
No. 2045.01) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the
U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by
email at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
The information collection requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The proposed standards would not require any notifications or
reports beyond those required by the General Provisions. The
recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed
to determine compliance.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the final rule) is estimated to be 33,436 labor hours per year at a
total annual cost of $982,742. This estimate includes a one-time
performance test and report (with repeat tests where needed) for those
affected sources that choose to comply through the installation of new
capture systems and control devices; one-time purchase and installation
of CPMS for those affected sources that choose to comply through the
installation of new capture systems and control devices; preparation
and submission of work practice plans; one-time submission of a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports for any
event when the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual
excess emission reports; maintenance inspections; notifications; and
recordkeeping. There are no additional capital/startup costs associated
with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR. The
monitoring related operation and maintenance costs over this same
period are estimated at $7,000.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments
on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA
(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; or by
courier, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection
Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Room 6143, Washington, DC 20460 ((202) 566-1700); and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after December 24, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 23, 2003. The
final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
The proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA cites
the following standards in the proposed rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A,
2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 24, 25, 25A, 204, 204A through F, and
311. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS
in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for
EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 204A through F, and 311. The search and
review results have been documented and are placed in the docket for
the proposed rule (docket A-2001-22).
The six VCS described below were identified as acceptable
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rule.
The VCS ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses,'' is cited in the proposed rule for its manual method for
measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of
exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10, is an acceptable
alternative to Method 3B.
The two VCS, ASTM D2697-86 (1998), ``Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings'' and ASTM
D6093-97, ``Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter
in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,'' are
cited in the proposed rule as acceptable alternatives to EPA Method 24
to determine the volume solids content of coatings. Currently, EPA
Method 24 does not have a procedure for determining the volume of
solids in coatings. The two VCS standards augment the procedures in
Method 24, which currently states that volume solids content be
calculated from the coating manufacturer's formulation.
[[Page 78636]]
The VCS ASTM D5066-91 (2001), ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions
for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-Weight Basis,'' is cited in
the proposed rule as an acceptable procedure to measure transfer
efficiency of spray coatings. Currently, no EPA method is available to
measure transfer efficiency.
The two VCS, ASTM D6266-00a, ``Test Method for Determining the
Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from Waterborne
Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device
(Abatement)'' and ASTM D5087-91 (1994), ``Standard Test Method for
Determining Amount of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Released from
Solventborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC
Control Device (Abatement),'' are cited in the proposed rule as
acceptable procedures to measure solvent loading (similar to capture
efficiency) for the heated flash zone for waterborne basecoats and for
bake ovens. Currently, no EPA method is available to measure solvent
release potential from automobile and light-duty truck coatings in
order to determine the potential solvent loading from the coatings
used.
Six VCS: ASTM D1475-90, ASTM D2369-95, ASTM D3792-91, ASTM D4017-
96a, ASTM D4457-85 (Reapproved 91), and ASTM D5403-93 are already
incorporated by reference in EPA Method 24. Five VCS: ASTM D1979-91,
ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS9-94 are
incorporated by reference in EPA Method 311.
In addition to the VCS EPA proposes to use, the search for
emissions measurement procedures identified 14 other VCS. The EPA
determined that 10 of these 14 standards identified for measuring
emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the
proposed rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the
purposes of the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt
these standards for this purpose. (See docket A-2001-22 for further
information on the methods.)
Four of the 14 VCS identified in this search were not available at
the time the review was conducted for the purposes of the proposed rule
because they are under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/
BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method
2 (and possibly 1); ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using
Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; ISO/
DIS 12039, ``Stationary Source Emissions-Determination of Carbon
Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' for EPA
Method 3A; and ISO/PWI 17895, ``Paints and Varnishes-Determination of
the Volatile Organic Compound Content of Water-based Emulsion Paints,''
for EPA Method 24.
Sections 63.3161 and 63.3166 to the proposed standards list the EPA
testing methods included in the proposed rule. Under Sec. 63.7(f) of
subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for
permission to use alternative test methods in place of any of the EPA
testing methods.
During the development of the proposed rulemaking, EPA searched for
VCS that might be applicable and included ASTM test methods as
appropriate for determination of volume fraction of coating solids.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 264
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste,
Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds.
40 CFR Part 265
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste,
Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds, Water supply.
Dated: November 26, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts
63, 264, and 265 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart IIII to read as follows:
Subpart IIII--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.3080 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.3081 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.3082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.3083 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations
63.3090 What emission limits must I meet for a new or reconstructed
affected source?
63.3091 What emission limits must I meet for an existing affected
source?
63.3092 How must I control emissions from my electrodeposition
primer system if I want to comply with the combined primer-surfacer,
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding
adhesive emission limit?
63.3093 What operating limits must I meet?
63.3094 What work practice standards must I meet?
General Compliance Requirements
63.3100 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
63.3101 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.3110 What notifications must I submit?
63.3120 What reports must I submit?
63.3130 What records must I keep?
63.3131 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
Compliance Requirements for Adhesive, Sealer, and Deadener
63.3150 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance
demonstration?
63.3151 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations?
63.3152 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations?
Compliance Requirements for the Combined Electrodeposition Primer,
Primer-Surfacer, Topcoat, Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass
Bonding Adhesive Emission Rates
63.3160 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.3161 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
63.3162 [Reserved]
63.3163 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations?
63.3164 What are the general requirements for performance tests?
63.3165 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency?
63.3166 How do I determine the add-on control device emission
destruction or removal efficiency?
[[Page 78637]]
63.3167 How do I establish the add-on control device operating
limits during the performance test?
63.3168 What are the requirements for continuous parameter
monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?
Compliance Requirements for the Combined Primer-Surfacer, Topcoat,
Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission
Rates and the Separate Electrodeposition Primer Emission Rates
63.3170 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.3171 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
63.3172 [Reserved]
63.3173 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations?
Other Requirements and Information
63.3175 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.3176 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart IIII of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart IIII of Part 63--Operating Limits for Capture
Systems and Add-On Control Devices
Table 2 to Subpart IIII of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart IIII of Part 63
Table 3 to Subpart IIII of Part 63--Default Organic HAP Mass
Fraction for Solvents and Solvent Blends
Table 4 to Subpart IIII of Part 63--Default Organic HAP Mass
Fraction for Petroleum Solvent Groups
Subpart IIII--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.3080 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for facilities which surface coat new
automobile or light-duty truck bodies or collections of body parts for
new automobiles or new light-duty trucks. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the
emission limitations.
Sec. 63.3081 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the source
category to which this subpart applies is automobile and light-duty
truck surface coating.
(b) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a new,
reconstructed, or existing affected source, as defined in Sec.
63.3082, that is located at a facility which surface coats new
automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or collections of body parts
for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks, and that is a major
source, is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). A major source of HAP
emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources
located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or
has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams
(Mg) (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of
22.68 Mg (25 tons) or more per year.
(c) This subpart does not apply to surface coating, surface
preparation, or cleaning activities that meet the criteria of paragraph
(c)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Surface coating subject to any other NESHAP in this part as of
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], including
plastic parts and products surface coating \1\ and miscellaneous metal
parts surface coating .\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proposed December 4, 2002 (67 FR 72275).
\2\ Proposed August 13, 2002 (67 FR 52780).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Surface coating that occurs at research or laboratory
facilities or that is part of janitorial, building, and facility
maintenance operations, including maintenance spray booths used for
painting production equipment, furniture, signage, etc., for use within
the plant.
Sec. 63.3082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, and existing
affected source.
(b) The affected source is the collection of all of the items
listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section that are used
for surface coating of new automobile or light-duty truck bodies or
collections of body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks:
(1) All coating operations as defined in Sec. 63.3176;
(2) All storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings,
thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed;
(3) All manual and automated equipment and containers used for
conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and
(4) All storage containers and all manual and automated equipment
and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a
coating operation.
(c) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced
its construction after December 24, 2002, and the construction is of a
completely new automobile and light-duty truck assembly plant where
previously no automobile and light-duty truck assembly plant had
existed, or a completely new automobile and light-duty truck paint shop
where previously no automobile and light-duty truck assembly plant had
existed.
(d) An affected source is reconstructed if it contains a paint shop
that has undergone replacement of components to such an extent that:
(1) The fixed capital cost of the new components exceeded 50
percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a
new paint shop; and
(2) It was technologically and economically feasible for the
reconstructed source to meet the relevant standards established by the
Administrator pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
(e) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.
Sec. 63.3083 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
The date by which you must comply with this subpart is called the
compliance date. The compliance date for each type of affected source
is specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. The
compliance date begins the initial compliance period during which you
conduct the initial compliance demonstrations described in Sec. Sec.
63.3150, 63.3160 and 63.3170.
(a) For a new or reconstructed affected source, the compliance date
is the applicable date in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section:
(1) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected
source is before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], the compliance date is [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected
source occurs after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], the compliance date is the date of initial startup of your
affected source.
(b) For an existing affected source, the compliance date is the
date 3 years after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(c) For an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP emissions,
the compliance date is specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) For any portion of the source that becomes a new or
reconstructed affected source subject to this subpart, the
[[Page 78638]]
compliance date is the date of initial startup of the affected source
or [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
whichever is later.
(2) For any portion of the source that becomes an existing affected
source subject to this subpart, the compliance date is the date 1 year
after the area source becomes a major source or 3 years after [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later.
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.3110
according to the dates specified in that section and in subpart A of
this part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before the
compliance dates described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section.
Emission Limitations
Sec. 63.3090 What emission limits must I meet for a new or
reconstructed affected source?
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, you must
limit combined organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from
electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass
bonding primer and glass bonding adhesive application to no more than
0.036 kilogram (kg)/liter (0.30 pound (lb)/gallon (gal)) of coating
solids deposited during each month, determined according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.3161.
(b) If you meet the operating limits of Sec. 63.3092(a) and (b),
you must either meet the emission limits of paragraph (a) of this
section or limit combined organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from
primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass
bonding adhesive application to no more than 0.060 kg/liter (0.50 lb/
gal) of applied coating solids used during each month, determined
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.3171. If you do not have an
electrodeposition primer system, you must limit combined organic HAP
emissions to the atmosphere from primer-surfacer, topcoat, final
repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application to
no more than 0.060 kg/liter (0.50 lb/gal) of applied coating solids
used during each month, determined according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.3171.
(c) You must limit average organic HAP emissions from all adhesive
and sealer materials other than materials used as components of glass
bonding systems to no more than 0.010 kg/kg (lb/lb) of adhesive and
sealer material used during each month.
(d) You must limit average organic HAP emissions from all deadener
materials to no more than 0.010 kg/kg (lb/lb) of deadener material used
during each month.
Sec. 63.3091 What emission limits must I meet for an existing
affected source?
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, you must
limit combined organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from
electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass
bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application to no more than
0.072 kg/liter 0.60 lb/gal) of coating solids deposited during each
month, determined according to the requirements in Sec. 63.3161.
(b) If you meet the operating limits of Sec. 63.3092(a) and (b),
you must either meet the emission limits of paragraph (a) of this
section or limit combined organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from
primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass
bonding adhesive application to no more than 0.132 kg/liter (1.10 lb/
gal) of coating solids deposited during each month, determined
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.3171. If you do not have an
electrodeposition primer system, you must limit combined organic HAP
emissions to the atmosphere from primer-surfacer, topcoat, final
repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application to
no more than 0.132 kg/liter (1.10 lb/gal) of coating solids deposited
during each month, determined according to the requirements in Sec.
63.3171.
(c) You must limit average organic HAP emissions from all adhesive
and sealer materials other than materials used as components of glass
bonding systems to no more than 0.010 kg/kg (lb/lb) of adhesive and
sealer material used during each month.
(d) You must limit average organic HAP emissions from all deadener
materials to no more than 0.010 kg/kg (lb/lb) of deadener material used
during each month.
Sec. 63.3092 How must I control emissions from my electrodeposition
primer system if I want to comply with the combined primer-surfacer,
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive
emission limit?
If your electrodeposition primer system meets the requirements of
either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you may choose to comply
with the emission limits of Sec. 63.3090(b) or Sec. 63.3091(b)
instead of the emission limits of Sec. 63.3090(a) or Sec. 63.3091(a).
(a) Each individual material added to the electrodeposition primer
system contains no more than:
(1) 1.0 percent by weight of any organic HAP; and
(2) 0.10 percent by weight of any organic HAP which is an
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)--defined
carcinogen as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4).
(b) Emissions from all bake ovens used to cure electrodeposition
primers must be captured and ducted to a control device having a
control efficiency of at least 95 percent.
Sec. 63.3093 What operating limits must I meet?
(a) You are not required to meet any operating limits for any
coating operation(s) without add-on controls.
(b) For any controlled coating operation(s), you must meet the
operating limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart. These operating
limits apply to the emission capture and add-on control systems on the
coating operation(s) for which you use this option, and you must
establish the operating limits during the performance test according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.3167. You must meet the operating limits
at all times after you establish them.
(c) If you choose to meet the emission limitations of Sec.
63.3092(b) and the emission limits of Sec. 63.3090(b) or Sec.
63.3091(b), then you must operate the capture system and add-on control
device used to capture and control emissions from your
electrodeposition primer bake oven(s) so that they meet the operating
limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart.
(d) If you use an add-on control device other than those listed in
Table 1 to this subpart, or wish to monitor an alternative parameter
and comply with a different operating limit, you must apply to the
Administrator for approval of alternative monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f).
Sec. 63.3094 What work practice standards must I meet?
(a) [Reserved]
(b) You must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize
organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials
generated by, all coating operations for which emission limits are
established under Sec. 63.3090(a) through (d) or Sec. 63.3091(a)
through (d). The plan must specify practices and procedures to ensure
that, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(5) of this section are implemented.
[[Page 78639]]
(1) All organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning
materials, and waste materials must be stored in closed containers.
(2) The risk of spills of organic-HAP-containing coatings,
thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized.
(3) Organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials,
and waste materials must be conveyed from one location to another in
closed containers or pipes.
(4) Mixing vessels, other than day tanks equipped with continuous
agitation systems, which contain organic-HAP-containing coatings and
other materials must be closed except when adding to, removing, or
mixing the contents.
(5) Emissions of organic HAP must be minimized during cleaning of
storage, mixing, and conveying equipment.
(c) You must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize
organic HAP emissions from cleaning and from purging of equipment
associated with all coating operations for which emission limits are
established under Sec. 63.3090(a) through (d) or Sec. 63.3091(a)
through (d).
(1) The plan shall, at a minimum, address each of the operations
listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section in which
you use organic HAP-containing materials or in which there is a
potential for emission of organic HAP.
(i) The plan must address vehicle body wipe emissions through one
or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) through (E)
of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Use of solvent-moistened wipes.
(B) Keeping solvent containers closed when not in use.
(C) Keeping wipe disposal/recovery containers closed when not in
use.
(D) Use of tack-wipes.
(E) Use of solvents containing less than 1 percent organic HAP by
weight.
(ii) The plan must address coating line purging emissions through
one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A)
through (D) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Air/solvent push-out.
(B) Capture and reclaim or recovery of purge materials (excluding
applicator nozzles/tips).
(C) Block painting to the maximum extent feasible.
(D) Use of low-HAP or no-HAP solvents for purge.
(iii) The plan must address emissions from flushing of coating
systems through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Keeping solvent tanks closed.
(B) Recovering and recycling solvents.
(C) Keeping recovered/recycled solvent tanks closed.
(D) Use of low-HAP or no-HAP solvents.
(iv) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth
grates through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(iv)(A) through (E) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Controlled burn-off.
(B) Rinsing with high-pressure water (in place).
(C) Rinsing with high-pressure water (off line).
(D) Use of spray-on masking or other type of liquid masking.
(E) Use of low-HAP or no-HAP content cleaners.
(v) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth
walls through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(v)(A) through (E) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Use of masking materials (contact paper, plastic sheet, or
other similar type of material).
(B) Use of spray-on masking.
(C) Use of rags and manual wipes instead of spray application when
cleaning walls.
(D) Use of low-HAP or no-HAP content cleaners.
(E) Controlled access to cleaning solvents.
(vi) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth
equipment through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(vi)(A) through (E) of this section, or an approved alternative.
(A) Use of covers on equipment (disposable or reusable).
(B) Use of parts cleaners (off-line submersion cleaning).
(C) Use of spray-on masking or other protective coatings.
(D) Use of low-HAP or no-HAP content cleaners.
(E) Controlled access to cleaning solvents.
(vii) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of external
spray booth areas through one or more of the techniques listed in
paragraphs (c)(1)(vii)(A) through (F) of this section, or an approved
alternative.
(A) Use of removable floor coverings (paper, foil, plastic, or
similar type of material).
(B) Use of manual and/or mechanical scrubbers, rags, or wipes
instead of spray application.
(C) Use of shoe cleaners to eliminate coating track-out from spray
booths.
(D) Use of booties or shoe wraps.
(E) Use of low-HAP or no-HAP content cleaners.
(F) Controlled access to cleaning solvents.
(viii) The plan must address emissions from housekeeping measures
not addressed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section
through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs
(c)(1)(viii)(A) through (C) of this section, or an approved
alternative.
(A) Keeping solvent-laden articles (cloths, paper, plastic, rags,
wipes, and similar items) in covered containers when not in use.
(B) Storing new and used solvents in closed containers.
(C) Transferring of solvents in a manner to minimize the risk of
spills.
(2) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (viii) of this section, if the type of coatings used in any
facility with surface coating operations subject to the requirements of
this section are of such a nature that the need for one or more of the
practices specified under paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (viii) is
eliminated, then the plan may include approved alternative or
equivalent measures that are applicable or necessary during cleaning of
storage, conveying, and application equipment.
(d) As provided in Sec. 63.6(g), we, EPA, may choose to grant you
permission to use an alternative to the work practice standards in this
section.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.3100 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations in
Sec. Sec. 63.3090 and 63.3091 at all times, as determined on a monthly
basis.
(b) The coating operations must be in compliance with the operating
limits for emission capture systems and add-on control devices required
by Sec. 63.3093 at all times except during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
(c) You must be in compliance with the work practice standards in
Sec. 63.3094 at all times.
(d) You must always operate and maintain your affected source
including all air pollution control and monitoring equipment you use
for purposes of complying with this subpart according to the provisions
in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(e) You must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance
of the emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and continuous
parameter monitors (CPM) during the period between the compliance date
specified for your affected source in Sec. 63.3083 and the date when
the initial
[[Page 78640]]
emission capture system and add-on control device performance tests
have been completed, as specified in Sec. 63.3160.
(f) If your affected source uses emission capture systems and add-
on control devices, you must develop and implement a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(3). The plan must address startup, shutdown, and corrective
actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission capture system or
the add-on control devices.
Sec. 63.3101 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 2 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.3110 What notifications must I submit?
(a) General. You must submit the notifications in Sec. Sec.
63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b) through (e) and (h) that apply
to you by the dates specified in those sections, except as provided in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) Initial notification. You must submit the Initial Notification
required by Sec. 63.9(b) for a new or reconstructed affected source no
later than 120 days after initial startup or 120 days after [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later.
For an existing affected source, you must submit the Initial
Notification no later than 1 year after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(c) Notification of compliance status. You must submit the
Notification of Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.9(h) no later
than 30 calendar days following the end of the initial compliance
period described in Sec. 63.3160 that applies to your affected source.
The Notification of Compliance Status must contain the information
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (12) of this section and in
Sec. 63.9(h).
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of the report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period. The reporting period is the initial compliance period
described in Sec. 63.3160 that applies to your affected source.
(4) Identification of the compliance option specified in Sec.
63.3090(a) or (b) or Sec. 63.3091(a) or (b) that you used for
electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass
bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application in the affected
source during the initial compliance period.
(5) Statement of whether or not the affected source achieved the
emission limitations for the initial compliance period.
(6) If you had a deviation, include the information in paragraphs
(c)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) A description and statement of the cause of the deviation.
(ii) If you failed to meet any of the applicable emission limits in
Sec. 63.3090 or Sec. 63.3091, include all the calculations you used
to determine the applicable emission rate or applicable average organic
HAP content for the emission limit(s) that you failed to meet. You do
not need to submit information provided by the materials suppliers or
manufacturers, or test reports.
(7) All data and calculations used to determine the monthly average
mass of organic HAP emitted per volume of applied coating solids from:
(i) The combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass
bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations if you were
eligible for and chose to comply with the emission limits of Sec.
63.3090(b) or Sec. 63.3091(b); or
(ii) The combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer,
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive
operations.
(8) All data and calculations used to determine compliance with the
separate limits for electrodeposition primer in Sec. 63.3092(a) or (b)
if you were eligible for and chose to comply with the emission limits
of Sec. 63.3090(b) or Sec. 63.3091(b).
(9) All data and calculations used to determine the monthly mass
average HAP content of materials subject to the emission limits of
Sec. 63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec. 63.3091(c) and (d).
(10) All data and calculations used to determine the transfer
efficiency for primer-surfacer and topcoat coatings.
(11) You must include the information specified in paragraphs
(c)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) For each emission capture system, a summary of the data and
copies of the calculations supporting the determination that the
emission capture system is a permanent total enclosure (PTE) or a
measurement of the emission capture system efficiency. Include a
description of the procedure followed for measuring capture efficiency,
summaries of any capture efficiency tests conducted, and any
calculations supporting the capture efficiency determination. If you
use the data quality objective (DQO) or lower confidence limit (LCL)
approach, you must also include the statistical calculations to show
you meet the DQO or LCL criteria in appendix A to subpart KK of this
part. You do not need to submit complete test reports.
(ii) A summary of the results of each add-on control device
performance test. You do not need to submit complete test reports
unless requested.
(iii) A list of each emission capture system's and add-on control
device's operating limits and a summary of the data used to calculate
those limits.
(12) A statement of whether or not you developed and implemented
the work practice plans required by Sec. 63.3094(b) and (c).
Sec. 63.3120 What reports must I submit?
(a) Semiannual compliance reports. You must submit semiannual
compliance reports for each affected source according to the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section. The
semiannual compliance reporting requirements may be satisfied by
reports required under other parts of the CAA, as specified in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(1) Dates. Unless the Administrator has approved a different
schedule for submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must
prepare and submit each semiannual compliance report according to the
dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) The first semiannual compliance report must cover the first
semiannual reporting period which begins the day after the end of the
initial compliance period described in Sec. 63.3160 that applies to
your affected source and ends on June 30 or December 31, whichever
occurs first following the end of the initial compliance period.
(ii) Each subsequent semiannual compliance report must cover the
subsequent semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30
or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(iii) Each semiannual compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(iv) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
[[Page 78641]]
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of according to the date specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of
this section.
(2) Inclusion with title V report. If you have obtained a title V
operating permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must
report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual
monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a semiannual compliance report
pursuant to this section along with, or as part of, the semiannual
monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the semiannual compliance report includes all
required information concerning deviations from any emission limit,
operating limit, or work practice in this subpart, its submission shall
be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in
the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a semiannual
compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation you may
have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting
authority.
(3) General requirements. The semiannual compliance report must
contain the information specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv)
of this section, and the information specified in paragraphs (a)(4)
through (9) and (c)(1) of this section that are applicable to your
affected source.
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period. The reporting period is the 6-month period ending on
June 30 or December 31.
(iv) Identification of the compliance option specified in Sec.
63.3090(b) or Sec. 63.3091(b) that you used for electrodeposition
primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer,
and glass bonding adhesive application in the affected source during
the initial compliance period.
(4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission
limitations, operating limits, or work practices in Sec. Sec. 63.3090,
63.3091, 63.3092, 63.3093, and 63.3094 that apply to you, the
semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were
no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting
period. If you used control devices to comply with the emission limits,
and there were no periods during which the continuous parameter
monitoring systems (CPMS) were out of control as specified in Sec.
63.8(c)(7), the semiannual compliance report must include a statement
that there were no periods during which the CPMS were out of control
during the reporting period.
(5) Deviations: adhesive, sealer, and deadener. If there was a
deviation from the applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.3090(c) and
(d) or Sec. 63.3091(c) and (d), the semiannual compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) The beginning and ending dates of each month during which the
monthly average organic HAP content exceeded the applicable emission
limit in Sec. 63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec. 63.3091(c) and (d).
(ii) The volume and organic HAP content of each material used that
is subject to the applicable organic HAP content limit.
(iii) The calculation used to determine the average monthly organic
HAP content for the month in which the deviation occurred.
(iv) The reason for the deviation.
(6) Deviations: combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer,
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer and glass bonding adhesive,
or combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding
primer, and glass bonding adhesive. If there was a deviation from the
applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.3090(a) or (b) or Sec.
63.3091(a) or (b), the semiannual compliance report must contain the
information in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (xiv) of this section.
(i) The beginning and ending dates of each month during which the
monthly organic HAP emission rate from combined electrodeposition
primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer,
and glass bonding adhesive exceeded the applicable emission limit in
Sec. 63.3090(a) or Sec. 63.3091(a); or the monthly organic HAP
emission rate from combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair,
glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive exceeded the
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3090(b) or Sec. 63.3091(b).
(ii) The calculation used to determine the monthly organic HAP
emission rate in accordance with Sec. 63.3161 or Sec. 63.3171. You do
not need to submit the background data supporting these calculations,
for example information provided by materials suppliers or
manufacturers, or test reports.
(iii) The date and time that any malfunctions of the capture system
or add-on control devices used to control emissions from these
operations started and stopped.
(iv) A brief description of the CPMS.
(v) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit.
(vi) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(vii) The date and time period that each CPMS was out of control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(viii) The date and time period of each deviation from an operating
limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and time period of each bypass
of an add-on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during
a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(ix) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total
source operating time of the deviations from each operating limit in
Table 1 to this subpart and the bypass of each add-on control device
during the semiannual reporting period.
(x) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from each
operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of each add-on
control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that
were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(xi) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total
source operating time of the downtime for each CPMS during the
semiannual reporting period.
(xii) A description of any changes in the CPMS, coating operation,
emission capture system, or add-on control devices since the last
semiannual reporting period.
(xiii) For each deviation from the work practice standards, a
description of the deviation, the date and time period of the
deviation, and the actions you took to correct the deviation.
(xiv) A statement of the cause of each deviation.
(7) Deviations: separate electrodeposition primer organic HAP
content limit. If you used the separate electrodeposition primer
organic HAP content limits in Sec. 63.3092(a), and there was a
deviation from these limits, the semiannual compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Identification of each material used that deviated from the
emission limit,
[[Page 78642]]
and the dates and time periods each was used.
(ii) The determination of mass fraction of each organic HAP for
each material identified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section. You do
not need to submit background data supporting this calculation, for
example, information provided by material suppliers or manufacturers,
or test reports.
(iii) A statement of the cause of each deviation.
(8) Deviations: separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture
and control limitations. If you used the separate electrodeposition
primer bake oven capture and control limitations in Sec. 63.3092(b),
and there was a deviation from these limitations, the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)(8)(i)
through (xii) of this section.
(i) The beginning and ending dates of each month during which there
was a deviation from the separate electrodeposition primer bake oven
capture and control limitations in Sec. 63.3092(b).
(ii) The date and time that any malfunctions of the capture systems
or control devices used to control emissions from the electrodeposition
primer bake oven started and stopped.
(iii) A brief description of the CPMS.
(iv) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit.
(v) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(vi) The date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out of
control, including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(vii) The date and time period of each deviation from an operating
limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and time period of each bypass
of an add-on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during
a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(viii) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total
source operating time of the deviations from each operating limit in
Table 1 to this subpart and the bypasses of each add-on control device
during the semiannual reporting period.
(ix) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from each
operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of each add-on
control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that
were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(x) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total
source operating time of the downtime for each CPMS during the
semiannual reporting period.
(xi) A description of any changes in the CPMS, coating operation,
emission capture system, or add-on control devices since the last
semiannual reporting period.
(xii) A statement of the cause of each deviation.
(9) Deviations: work practice plans. If there was a deviation from
an applicable work practice plan developed in accordance with Sec.
63.3094(b) or (c), the semiannual compliance report must contain the
information in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The time period during which each deviation occurred.
(ii) The nature of each deviation.
(iii) The corrective action(s) taken to bring the applicable work
practices into compliance with the work practice plan.
(b) Performance test reports. If you use add-on control devices,
you must submit reports of performance test results for emission
capture systems and add-on control devices no later than 60 days after
completing the tests as specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
(c) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. If you used add-on
control devices and you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during
the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports specified
in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) If your actions were consistent with your startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan, you must include the information specified in
Sec. 63.10(d) in the semiannual compliance report required by
paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) If your actions were not consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup,
shutdown, and malfunction report as described in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
and (ii) of this section.
(i) You must describe the actions taken during the event in a
report delivered by facsimile, telephone, or other means to the
Administrator within 2 working days after starting actions that are
inconsistent with the plan.
(ii) You must submit a letter to the Administrator within 7 working
days after the end of the event, unless you have made alternative
arrangements with the Administrator as specified in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii). The letter must contain the information specified in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
Sec. 63.3130 What records must I keep?
You must collect and keep records of the data and information
specified in this section. Failure to collect and keep these records is
a deviation from the applicable standard.
(a) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, and the documentation supporting each
notification and report.
(b) A current copy of information provided by materials suppliers
or manufacturers, such as manufacturer's formulation data, or test data
used to determine the mass fraction of organic HAP, the density and the
volume fraction of coating solids for each coating, the mass fraction
of organic HAP and the density for each thinner, and the mass fraction
of organic HAP for each cleaning material. If you conducted testing to
determine mass fraction of organic HAP, density, or volume fraction of
coating solids, you must keep a copy of the complete test report. If
you use information provided to you by the manufacturer or supplier of
the material that was based on testing, you must keep the summary sheet
of results provided to you by the manufacturer or supplier. If you use
the results of an analysis conducted by an outside testing lab, you
must keep a copy of the test report. You are not required to obtain the
test report or other supporting documentation from the manufacturer or
supplier.
(c) For each month, the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (5) of this section.
(1) For each coating material used for electrodeposition primer,
primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass
bonding adhesive operations, a record of the volume used in each month,
the mass fraction organic HAP content, the density, and the volume
fraction of solids.
(2) For each coating material used for deadener, sealer, or
adhesive, a record of the mass used in each month and the mass organic
HAP content.
(3) A record of the calculation of the organic HAP emission rate
for electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair,
glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive for each month if
subject to the emission rate limit of Sec. 63.3090(a) or Sec.
63.3091(a).
(4) A record of the calculation of the organic HAP emission rate
for primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and
glass bonding adhesive for each month if subject to the emission rate
limit of Sec. 63.3090(b) or Sec. 63.3091(b), and a record of the
weight fraction of each organic HAP in each material added to the
electrodeposition primer system if subject to the limitations of Sec.
63.3092(a).
[[Page 78643]]
(5) A record, for each month, of the calculation of the average
monthly mass organic HAP content of:
(i) Sealers and adhesives; and
(ii) Deadeners.
(d) A record of the name and volume of each cleaning material used
during each month.
(e) A record of the mass fraction of organic HAP for each cleaning
material used during each month.
(f) A record of the density for each cleaning material used during
each month.
(g) A record of the date, time, and duration of each deviation, and
for each deviation, a record of whether the deviation occurred during a
period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
(h) The records required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v)
related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) For each capture system that is a PTE, the data and
documentation you used to support a determination that the capture
system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51
for a PTE and has a capture efficiency of 100 percent.
(j) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and
documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the
requirements specified in Sec. 63.3164, including the records
specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this section that apply
to you.
(1) Records for a liquid-to-uncaptured-gas protocol using a
temporary total enclosure or building enclosure. Records of the mass of
total volatile hydrocarbon (TVH), as measured by Method 204A or F of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, for each material used in the coating
operation, and the total TVH for all materials used during each capture
efficiency test run, including a copy of the test report. Records of
the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the capture system that
exited the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each
capture efficiency test run, as measured by Method 204D or E of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, including a copy of the test report.
Records documenting that the enclosure used for the capture efficiency
test met the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for
either a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure.
(2) Records for a gas-to-gas protocol using a temporary total
enclosure or a building enclosure. Records of the mass of TVH emissions
captured by the emission capture system, as measured by Method 204B or
C of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, at the inlet to the add-on control
device, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of TVH
emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary
total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency
test run, as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part
51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the
enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in
Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total
enclosure or a building enclosure.
(3) Records for panel tests. Records needed to document a capture
efficiency determination using a panel test as described in Sec.
63.3165(e), including a copy of the test report and calculations
performed to convert the panel test results to percent capture
efficiency values.
(4) Records for an alternative protocol. Records needed to document
a capture efficiency determination using an alternative method or
protocol, if applicable.
(k) The records specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this
section for each add-on control device organic HAP destruction or
removal efficiency determination as specified in Sec. 63.3166.
(1) Records of each add-on control device performance test
conducted according to Sec. Sec. 63.3164 and 63.3166.
(2) Records of the coating operation conditions during the add-on
control device performance test showing that the performance test was
conducted under representative operating conditions.
(l) Records of the data and calculations you used to establish the
emission capture and add-on control device operating limits as
specified in Sec. 63.3167 and to document compliance with the
operating limits as specified in Table 1 to this subpart.
(m) Records of the data and calculations you used to determine the
transfer efficiency for primer-surfacer and topcoat application.
(n) A record of the work practice plans required by Sec.
63.3094(b) and (c) and documentation that you are implementing the plan
on a continuous basis.
Sec. 63.3131 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). Where
appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets
or as a database.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You may keep
the records off site for the remaining 3 years.
Compliance Requirements for Adhesive, Sealer, and Deadener
Sec. 63.3150 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance
demonstration?
You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the
initial compliance period according to the requirements of Sec.
63.3151. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.3083 and ends on the last day of
the month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs
on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial
compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next
month. You must determine the mass average organic HAP content of the
materials used each month for each group of materials for which an
emission limitation is established in Sec. 63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec.
63.3091(c) and (d). The initial compliance demonstration includes the
calculations according to Sec. 63.3151 and supporting documentation
showing that during the initial compliance period, the mass average
organic HAP content for each group of materials was equal to or less
than the applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.3090(c) and (d) or
Sec. 63.3091(c) and (d).
Sec. 63.3151 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?
You must separately calculate the mass average organic HAP content
of the materials used during the initial compliance period for each
group of materials for which an emission limit is established in Sec.
63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec. 63.3091(c) and (d). If every individual
material used within a group of materials meets the emission limit for
that group of materials, you may demonstrate compliance with that
emission limit by documenting the name and the organic HAP content of
each material used during the initial compliance period. If any
individual material used within a group of materials exceeds the
emission limit for that group of materials, you must determine the mass
average organic HAP content according to the procedures of paragraphs
(d) and (e) of this section.
(a) Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each material
used.
[[Page 78644]]
You must determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each material
used during the compliance period by using one of the options in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 63). You may use Method
311 for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP. Use the
procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section
when performing a Method 311 test.
(i) Count each organic HAP that is measured to be present at 0.1
percent by mass or more for OSHA-defined carcinogens, as specified in
29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4), and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other
compounds. For example, if toluene (not an OSHA carcinogen) is measured
to be 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it.
Express the mass fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value
truncated to four places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791).
(ii) Calculate the total mass fraction of organic HAP in the test
material by adding up the individual organic HAP mass fractions and
truncating the result to three places after the decimal point (e.g.,
0.7638 truncates to 0.763).
(2) Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you may
use Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile
matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic
HAP.
(3) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for
determining the mass fraction of organic HAP once the Administrator has
approved it. You must follow the procedure in Sec. 63.7(f) to submit
an alternative test method for approval.
(4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material.
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section,
such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic
HAP that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for OSHA-defined
carcinogens, as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4), and at 1.0 percent
by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not an
OSHA carcinogen) is 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not
have to count it. If there is a disagreement between such information
and results of a test conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3) of this section, then the test method results will take precedence.
(5) Solvent blends. Solvent blends may be listed as single
components for some materials in data provided by manufacturers or
suppliers. Solvent blends may contain organic HAP which must be counted
toward the total organic HAP mass fraction of the materials. When
neither test data nor manufacturer's data for solvent blends are
available, you may use the default values for the mass fraction of
organic HAP in the solvent blends listed in Table 3 or 4 to this
subpart. If you use the tables, you must use the values in Table 3 for
all solvent blends that match Table 3 entries, and you may only use
Table 4 if the solvent blends in the materials you use do not match any
of the solvent blends in Table 3 and you only know whether the blend is
aliphatic or aromatic. However, if the results of a Method 311 test
indicate higher values than those listed on Table 3 or 4 to this
subpart, the Method 311 results will take precedence.
(b) Determine the density of each material used. Determine the
density of each material used during the compliance period from test
results using ASTM Method D1475-98 or information from the supplier or
manufacturer of the material. If there is disagreement between ASTM
Method D1475-98 test results and the supplier's or manufacturer's
information, the test results will take precedence.
(c) Determine the volume of each material used. Determine the
volume (liters) of each material used during each month by measurement
or usage records.
(d) Determine the mass average organic HAP content for each group
of materials. Determine the mass average organic HAP content of the
materials used during the initial compliance period for each group of
materials for which an emission limit is established in Sec.
63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec. 63.3091(c) and (d), using Equations 1 and 2
of this section.
(1) Calculate the mass average organic HAP content of adhesive and
sealer materials other than components of the glass bonding system used
in the initial compliance period using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.006
Where:
Cavg,as = mass average organic HAP content of adhesives and
sealers used, kg/kg.
Volas,j = volume of adhesive or sealer j used, liters.
Das,j = Density of adhesive or sealer j used, kg per liter.
Was,j = mass fraction of organic HAP in adhesive or sealer,
j, kg/kg.
r = number of adhesives and sealers used.
(2) Calculate the mass average organic HAP content of deadener used
in the initial compliance period using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.007
Where:
Cavg,d = mass average organic HAP content of deadener used,
kg/kg.
Vold,m = volume of deadener, m, used, liters.
[[Page 78645]]
Dd,m = density of deadener, m, used, kg per liter.
Wd,m = mass fraction of organic HAP in deadener, m, kg/kg.
s = number of deadener materials used.
(e) Compliance demonstration. The mass average organic HAP content
for the compliance period must be less than or equal to the applicable
emission limit in Sec. 63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec. 63.3091(c) and (d).
You must keep all records as required by Sec. Sec. 63.3130 and
63.3131. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.3110, you must submit a statement that the coating operations
were in compliance with the emission limitations during the initial
compliance period because the mass average organic HAP content was less
than or equal to the applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.3090(c) and
(d) or Sec. 63.3091(c) and (d), determined according to this section.
Sec. 63.3152 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?
(a) To demonstrate continuous compliance, the mass average organic
HAP content for each compliance period, determined according to Sec.
63.3151(a) through (c), must be less than or equal to the applicable
emission limit in Sec. 63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec. 63.3091(c) and (d).
A compliance period consists of 1 month. Each month after the end of
the initial compliance period described in Sec. 63.3150 is a
compliance period consisting of that month.
(b) If the mass average organic HAP emission content for any
compliance period exceeds the applicable emission limit in Sec.
63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec. 63.3091(c) and (d), this is a deviation
from the emission limitations for that compliance period and must be
reported as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.3110(c)(6) and 63.3120(a)(5).
(c) You must maintain records as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.3130
and 63.3131.
Compliance Requirements for the Combined Electrodeposition Primer,
Primer-Surfacer, Topcoat, Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass
Bonding Adhesive Emission Rates
Sec. 63.3160 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other
initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) New and reconstructed affected sources. For a new or
reconstructed affected source, you must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance
date specified in Sec. 63.3083. You must conduct a performance test of
each capture system and add-on control device according to Sec. Sec.
63.3164 and 63.3166 and establish the operating limits required by
Sec. 63.3093 no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance
date specified in Sec. 63.3083.
(2) You must develop and begin implementing the work practice plans
required by Sec. 63.3094(b), (c), and (e) no later than the compliance
date specified in Sec. 63.3083.
(3) You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the
initial compliance period according to the requirements of Sec.
63.3161. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.3083 and ends on the last day of
the month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs
on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial
compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next
month. You must determine the mass of organic HAP emissions and volume
of coating solids deposited in the initial compliance period. The
initial compliance demonstration includes the results of emission
capture system and add-on control device performance tests conducted
according to Sec. Sec. 63.3164 and 63.3166; supporting documentation
showing that during the initial compliance period the organic HAP
emission rate was equal to or less than the emission limit in Sec.
63.3090(a); the operating limits established during the performance
tests and the results of the continuous parameter monitoring required
by Sec. 63.3168; and documentation of whether you developed and
implemented the work practice plans required by Sec. 63.3094(b), (c),
and (e).
(4) You do not need to comply with the operating limits for the
emission capture system and add-on control device required by Sec.
63.3093 until after you have completed the performance tests specified
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log
detailing the operation and maintenance of the emission capture system,
add-on control device, and CPM during the period between the compliance
date and the performance test. You must begin complying with the
operating limits for your affected source on the date you complete the
performance tests specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) Existing affected sources. For an existing affected source, you
must meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) All emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and CPMS
must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance
date specified in Sec. 63.3083. You must conduct a performance test of
each capture system and add-on control device according to the
procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.3164 and 63.3166 and establish the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.3093 no later than the compliance
date specified in Sec. 63.3083.
(2) You must develop and begin implementing the work practice plans
required by Sec. 63.3094(b), (c), and (e) no later than the compliance
date specified in Sec. 63.3083.
(3) You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the
initial compliance period according to the requirements of Sec.
63.3161. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.3083 and ends on the last day of
the month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs
on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial
compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next
month. You must determine the mass of organic HAP emissions and volume
of coating solids deposited during the initial compliance period. The
initial compliance demonstration includes the results of emission
capture system and add-on control device performance tests conducted
according to Sec. Sec. 63.3164 and 63.3166; supporting documentation
showing that during the initial compliance period the organic HAP
emission rate was equal to or less than the emission limits in Sec.
63.3091(a); the operating limits established during the performance
tests and the results of the continuous parameter monitoring required
by Sec. 63.3168; and documentation of whether you developed and
implemented the work practice plans required by Sec. 63.3094(b), (c),
and (e).
Sec. 63.3161 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
(a) You must meet all of the requirements of this section to
demonstrate initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance, the
organic HAP emissions from the combined electrodeposition primer,
primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass
bonding adhesive operations must meet the applicable emission
limitation in Sec. 63.3090(a) or Sec. 63.3091(a).
(b) Compliance with operating limits. Except as provided in Sec.
63.3160(a)(4), you must establish and demonstrate continuous compliance
during the initial compliance period with the operating limits required
by Sec. 63.3093,
[[Page 78646]]
using the procedures specified in Sec. Sec. 63.3167 and 63.3168.
(c) Compliance with work practice requirements. You must develop,
implement, and document your implementation of the work practice plans
required by Sec. 63.3094(b) and (c) during the initial compliance
period, as specified in Sec. 63.3130.
(d) Compliance with emission limits. You must follow the procedures
in paragraphs (e) through (o) of this section to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3090(a) or Sec.
63.3091(a). You may also use the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for
Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile
and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (docket A-
2001-22) in making this demonstration.
(e) Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP, density and volume
used. Follow the procedures specified in Sec. 63.3151(a) through (c)
to determine the mass fraction of organic HAP and the density and
volume of each coating and thinner used during each month.
(f) Determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each
coating. You must determine the volume fraction of coating solids
(liter of coating solids per liter of coating) for each coating used
during the compliance period by a test or by information provided by
the supplier or the manufacturer of the material, as specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. If test results obtained
according to paragraph (f)(1) of this section do not agree with the
information obtained under paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the test
results will take precedence.
(1) ASTM Method D2697-86(1998) or D6093-97. You may use ASTM Method
D2697-86(1998) or D6093-97 to determine the volume fraction of coating
solids for each coating. Divide the nonvolatile volume percent obtained
with the methods by 100 to calculate volume fraction of coating solids.
(2) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material.
You may obtain the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating
from the supplier or manufacturer.
(g) Determine the transfer efficiency for each coating. You must
determine the transfer efficiency for each primer-surfacer and topcoat
coating using ASTM Method D5066-91(2001) or the guidelines presented in
``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/
3-88-018 (docket A-2001-22). Those guidelines include provisions for
testing representative coatings instead of testing every coating. You
may assume 100 percent transfer efficiency for electrodeposition primer
coatings, glass bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives. For final
repair coatings, you may assume 40 percent transfer efficiency for air
atomized spray and 55 percent transfer efficiency for electrostatic
spray and high volume, low pressure spray.
(h) Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions before add-on
controls. Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions before
consideration of add-on controls from all coatings and thinners used
during each month in the combined electrodeposition primer, primer-
surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass
bonding adhesive operations using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.008
Where:
HBC = total mass of organic HAP emissions before
consideration of add-on controls during the month, kg.
A = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the month,
kg, as calculated in Equation 1A of this section.
B = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used during the month,
kg, as calculated in Equation 1B of this section.
(1) Calculate the kg organic HAP in the coatings used during the
month using Equation 1A of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.009
Where:
A = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the month,
kg.
Volc,i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month,
liters.
Dc,i = density of coating, i, kg coating per liter coating.
Wc,i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, kg
organic HAP per kg coating.
m = number of different coatings used during the month.
(2) Calculate the kg of organic HAP in the thinners used during the
month using Equation 1B of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.010
Where:
B = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used during the month,
kg.
Volt,j = total volume of thinner, j, used during the month,
liters.
Dt,j = density of thinner, j, kg per liter.
Wt,j = mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner, j, kg
organic HAP per kg thinner.
n = number of different thinners used during the month.
(i) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each
controlled coating operation. Determine the mass of organic HAP
emissions reduced for each controlled coating operation during each
month. The emission reduction determination quantifies the total
organic HAP emissions captured by the emission capture system and
destroyed or removed by the add-on control device. Use the procedures
in paragraph (j) of this section to calculate the mass of organic HAP
emission reduction for each controlled coating operation using an
emission capture system and add-on control device other than a solvent
recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances.
For each controlled coating operation using a solvent recovery system
for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, use the
procedures in paragraph (k) of this section to calculate the organic
HAP emission reduction.
(j) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each
controlled coating operation not using liquid-liquid material balances.
For each controlled coating operation using an emission capture system
and add-on control device other than a solvent recovery system for
which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances, calculate the mass
of organic HAP emission reduction for the controlled coating operation
during the month using Equation 2 of this section. The calculation of
mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the controlled coating
operation during the month applies the emission capture system
efficiency and add-on control device efficiency to the mass of organic
HAP contained in the coatings and thinners that are used in the coating
operation served by the emission capture system and add-on control
device during each month. For any period of time a deviation specified
in Sec. 63.3163(c) or (d) occurs in the controlled coating operation,
including a deviation during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, you must assume zero efficiency for the emission capture
system and add-on control device. Equation 2 of this section treats the
materials used during such a deviation as if they were used on an
uncontrolled coating operation for the time period of the deviation.
[[Page 78647]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.011
Where:
HC = mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the
controlled coating operation during the month, kg.
AC = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the
controlled coating operation during the month, kg, as calculated in
Equation 2A of this section.
BC = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the
controlled coating operation during the month, kg, as calculated in
Equation 2B of this section.
Hunc = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings and
thinners used during all deviations specified in Sec. 63.3163(c) and
(d) that occurred during the month in the controlled coating operation,
kg, as calculated in Equation 2C of this section.
CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the
add-on control device, percent. Use the test methods and procedures
specified in Sec. Sec. 63.3164 and 63.3165 to measure and record
capture efficiency.
DRE = organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency of the add-on
control device, percent. Use the test methods and procedures in
Sec. Sec. 63.3164 and 63.3166 to measure and record the organic HAP
destruction or removal efficiency.
(1) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the
controlled coating operation, kg, using Equation 2A of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.012
Where:
AC = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the
controlled coating operation during the month, kg.
Volc,i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month,
liters.
Dc,i = density of coating, i, kg per liter.
Wc,i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, kg per
kg.
m = number of different coatings used.
(2) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the
controlled coating operation, kg, using Equation 2B of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.013
Where:
BC = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the
controlled coating operation during the month, kg.
Volt,j = total volume of thinner, j, used during the month,
liters.
Dt,j = density of thinner, j, kg per liter.
Wt,j = mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner, j, kg per
kg.
n = number of different thinners used.
(3) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the coatings and thinners
used in the controlled coating operation during deviations specified in
Sec. 63.3163(c) and (d), using Equation 2C of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.014
Where:
Hunc = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings and
thinners used during all deviations specified in Sec. 63.3163(c) and
(d) that occurred during the month in the controlled coating operation,
kg.
Volh = total volume of coating or thinner, h, used in the
controlled coating operation during deviations, liters.
Dh = density of coating or thinner, h, kg per liter.
Wh = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating or thinner, h,
kg organic HAP per kg coating.
q = number of different coatings or thinners.
(k) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each
controlled coating operation using liquid-liquid material balances. For
each controlled coating operation using a solvent recovery system for
which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances, calculate the mass
of organic HAP emission reduction for the coating operation controlled
by the solvent recovery system using a liquid-liquid material balance
during the month by applying the volatile organic matter collection and
recovery efficiency to the mass of organic HAP contained in the
coatings and thinners used in the coating operation controlled by the
solvent recovery system during each month. Perform a liquid-liquid
material balance for each month as specified in paragraphs (k)(1)
through (6) of this section. Calculate the mass of organic HAP emission
reduction by the solvent recovery system as specified in paragraph
(k)(7) of this section.
(1) For each solvent recovery system, install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications, a device
that indicates the cumulative amount of volatile organic matter
recovered by the solvent recovery system each month. The device must be
initially certified by the manufacturer to be accurate to within +/-
2.0 percent of the mass of volatile organic matter recovered.
(2) For each solvent recovery system, determine the mass of
volatile organic matter recovered for the month, kg, based on
measurement with the device required in paragraph (k)(1) of this
section.
(3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each
coating and thinner used in the coating operation controlled by the
solvent recovery system during the month, kg volatile organic matter
per kg coating. You may determine the volatile organic matter mass
fraction using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or an EPA
approved alternative method, or you may use information provided by the
manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In the event of any
inconsistency between information provided by the manufacturer or
supplier and the results of Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or
an approved alternative method, the test method results will govern.
(4) Determine the density of each coating and thinner used in the
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the
month, kg per liter, according to Sec. 63.3151(b).
(5) Measure the volume of each coating and thinner used in the
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the
month, liters.
(6) Each month, calculate the solvent recovery system's volatile
organic matter collection and recovery efficiency, using Equation 3 of
this section:
[[Page 78648]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.015
Where:
RV = volatile organic matter collection and recovery
efficiency of the solvent recovery system during the month, percent.
MVR = mass of volatile organic matter recovered by the
solvent recovery system during the month, kg.
Voli = volume of coating, i, used in the coating operation
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, liters.
Di = density of coating, i, kg per liter.
WVc,i = mass fraction of volatile organic matter for
coating, i, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating.
Volj = volume of thinner, j, used in the coating operation
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, liters.
Dj = density of thinner, j, kg per liter.
WVt,j = mass fraction of volatile organic matter for
thinner, j, kg volatile organic matter per kg thinner.
m = number of different coatings used in the coating operation
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month.
n = number of different thinners used in the coating operation
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month.
(7) Calculate the mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the
month, using Equation 4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.016
Where:
HCSR = mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system using a
liquid-liquid material balance during the month, kg.
ACSR = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, kg,
calculated using Equation 4A of this section.
BCSR = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, kg,
calculated using Equation 4B of this section.
RV = volatile organic matter collection and recovery
efficiency of the solvent recovery system, percent, from Equation 3 of
this section.
(i) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, kg, using
Equation 4A of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.017
Where:
ACSR = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the
month, kg.
Volc,i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month
in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system,
liters.
Dc,i = density of coating, i, kg per liter.
Wc,i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, kg per
kg.
m = number of different coatings used.
(2) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, kg, using
Equation 4B of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.018
Where:
BCSR = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the
month, kg.
Volt,j = total volume of thinner, j, used during the month
in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system,
liters.
Dt,j = density of thinner, j, kg per liter.
Wt,j = mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner, j, kg per
kg.
n = number of different thinners used.
(l) Calculate the total volume of coating solids deposited.
Determine the total volume of coating solids deposited, liters, in the
combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final
repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations
using Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.019
Where:
Vsdep = total volume of coating solids deposited during the
month, liters.
Volc,i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month,
liters.
Vs,i = volume fraction of coating solids for coating, i,
liter solids per liter coating, determined according to Sec.
63.3161(f).
TEc,i = transfer efficiency of coating, i, determined
according to Sec. 63.3161(g).
m = number of coatings used during the month.
(m) Calculate the mass of organic HAP emissions for each month.
Determine the mass of organic HAP emissions, kg, during each month,
using Equation 6 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.020
Where:
HHAP = total mass of organic HAP emissions for the month,
kg.
HBC = total mass of organic HAP emissions before add-on
controls
[[Page 78649]]
from all the coatings and thinners used during the month, kg,
determined according to paragraph (h) of this section.
HC,i = total mass of organic HAP emission reduction for
controlled coating operation, i, not using a liquid-liquid material
balance, during the month, kg, from Equation 2 of this section.
HCSR,j = total mass of organic HAP emission reduction for
coating operation, j, controlled by a solvent recovery system using a
liquid-liquid material balance, during the month, kg, from Equation 4
of this section.
q = number of controlled coating operations not using a liquid-liquid
material balance.
r = number of coating operations controlled by a solvent recovery
system using a liquid-liquid material balance.
(n) Calculate the organic HAP emission rate for the month.
Determine the organic HAP emission rate for the month compliance
period, kg organic HAP per liter coating solids deposited, using
Equation 7 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.021
Where:
Hrate = organic HAP emission rate for the month compliance
period, kg organic HAP per liter coating solids deposited.
HHAP = mass of organic HAP emissions for the month, kg,
determined according to Equation 6 of this section.
Vsdep = total volume of coating solids deposited during the
month, liters, from Equation 5 of this section.
(o) Compliance demonstration. To demonstrate initial compliance,
the organic HAP emissions from the combined electrodeposition primer,
primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass
bonding adhesive operations must meet the applicable emission
limitation in Sec. 63.3090(a) or Sec. 63.3091(a). You must keep all
records as required by Sec. Sec. 63.3130 and 63.3131. As part of the
Notification of Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.3110, you must
submit a statement that the coating operation(s) was (were) in
compliance with the emission limitations during the initial compliance
period because the organic HAP emission rate was less than or equal to
the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3090(a) or Sec. 63.3091(a)
and you achieved the operating limits required by Sec. 63.3093 and the
work practice standards required by Sec. 63.3094.
Sec. 63.3162 [Reserved]
Sec. 63.3163 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?
(a) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable
emission limit in Sec. 63.3090(a) or Sec. 63.3091(a), the organic HAP
emission rate for each compliance period, determined according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.3161, must be equal to or less than the
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3090(a) or Sec. 63.3091(a). A
compliance period consists of 1 month. Each month after the end of the
initial compliance period described in Sec. 63.3160 is a compliance
period consisting of that month. You must perform the calculations in
Sec. 63.3161 on a monthly basis.
(b) If the organic HAP emission rate for any 1 month compliance
period exceeded the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3090(a) or
Sec. 63.3091(a), this is a deviation from the emission limitation for
that compliance period and must be reported as specified in Sec. Sec.
63.3110(c)(6) and 63.3120(a)(6).
(c) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating
limit required by Sec. 63.3093 that applies to you, as specified in
Table 1 to this subpart.
(1) If an operating parameter is out of the allowed range specified
in Table 1 to this subpart, this is a deviation from the operating
limit that must be reported as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.3110(c)(6)
and 63.3120(a)(6).
(2) If an operating parameter deviates from the operating limit
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, then you must assume that the
emission capture system and add-on control device were achieving zero
efficiency during the time period of the deviation.
(d) You must meet the requirements for bypass lines in Sec.
63.3168(b) for control devices other than solvent recovery systems for
which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances. If any bypass line
is opened and emissions are diverted to the atmosphere when the coating
operation is running, this is a deviation that must be reported as
specified in Sec. 63.3110(c)(6) and 63.3120(a)(6). For the purposes of
completing the compliance calculations specified in Sec. 63.3161(k),
you must assume that the emission capture system and add-on control
device were achieving zero efficiency during the time period of the
deviation.
(e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the work
practice standards in Sec. 63.3094. If you did not develop a work
practice plan, if you did not implement the plan, or if you did not
keep the records required by Sec. 63.3130(n), this is a deviation from
the work practice standards that must be reported as specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.3110(c)(6) and 63.3120(a)(6).
(f) If there were no deviations from the emission limitations,
submit a statement as part of the semiannual compliance report that you
were in compliance with the emission rate limitations during the
reporting period because the organic HAP emission rate for each
compliance period was less than or equal to the applicable emission
limit in Sec. 63.3090(a) or Sec. 63.3091(a), and you achieved the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.3093 and the work practice
standards required by Sec. 63.3094 during each compliance period.
(g) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the
emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation
that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency, you must
operate in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan
required by Sec. 63.3100(f).
(h) Consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the
emission capture system, add-on control device, or coating operation
that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan. The Administrator will determine whether deviations
that occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are violations according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e).
(i) [Reserved]
(j) You must maintain records as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.3130
and 63.3131.
Sec. 63.3164 What are the general requirements for performance tests?
(a) You must conduct each performance test required by Sec.
63.3160 according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the
conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the
performance test according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(h).
(1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, and during periods of nonoperation do not
constitute representative conditions. You must record the process
information that is necessary to document operating
[[Page 78650]]
conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent
normal operation.
(2) Representative emission capture system and add-on control
device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when
the emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at
a representative flow rate, and the add-on control device is operating
at a representative inlet concentration. You must record information
that is necessary to document emission capture system and add-on
control device operating conditions during the test and explain why the
conditions represent normal operation.
(b) You must conduct each performance test of an emission capture
system according to the requirements in Sec. 63.3165. You must conduct
each performance test of an add-on control device according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.3166.
Sec. 63.3165 How do I determine the emission capture system
efficiency?
You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to
determine capture efficiency as part of the performance test required
by Sec. 63.3160.
(a) Assuming 100 percent capture efficiency. You may assume the
capture system efficiency is 100 percent if both of the conditions in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section are met:
(1) The capture system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix
M to 40 CFR part 51 for a PTE and directs all the exhaust gases from
the enclosure to an add-on control device.
(2) All coatings and thinners used in the coating operation are
applied within the capture system, and coating solvent flash-off and
coating curing and drying occurs within the capture system. For
example, this criterion is not met if parts enter the open shop
environment when being moved between a spray booth and a curing oven.
(b) Measuring capture efficiency. If the capture system does not
meet both of the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section,
then you must use one of the four procedures described in paragraphs
(c) through (f) of this section to measure capture efficiency. The
capture efficiency measurements use TVH capture efficiency as a
surrogate for organic HAP capture efficiency. For the protocols in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the capture efficiency
measurement must consist of three test runs. Each test run must be at
least 3 hours duration or the length of a production run, whichever is
longer, up to 8 hours. For the purposes of this test, a production run
means the time required for a single part to go from the beginning to
the end of production, which includes surface preparation activities
and drying or curing time.
(c) Liquid-to-uncaptured-gas protocol using a temporary total
enclosure or building enclosure. The liquid-to-uncaptured-gas protocol
compares the mass of liquid TVH in materials used in the coating
operation to the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the emission
capture system. Use a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure
and the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section to
measure emission capture system efficiency using the liquid-to-
uncaptured-gas protocol.
(1) Either use a building enclosure or construct an enclosure
around the coating operation where coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials are applied, and all areas where emissions from these applied
coatings and materials subsequently occur, such as flash-off, curing,
and drying areas. The areas of the coating operation where capture
devices collect emissions for routing to an add-on control device, such
as the entrance and exit areas of an oven or spray booth, must also be
inside the enclosure. The enclosure must meet the applicable definition
of a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure in Method 204 of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51.
(2) Use Method 204A or F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to
determine the mass fraction of TVH liquid input from each coating,
thinner, and cleaning material used in the coating operation during
each capture efficiency test run. To make the determination, substitute
TVH for each occurrence of the term volatile organic compounds (VOC) in
the methods.
(3) Use Equation 1 of this section to calculate the total mass of
TVH liquid input from all the coatings and thinners used in the coating
operation during each capture efficiency test run.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.022
Where:
TVHi = mass fraction of TVH in coating or thinner, i, used
in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, kg TVH
per kg material.
Voli = total volume of coating or thinner, i, used in the
coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, liters.
Di = density of coating or thinner, i, kg material per liter
material.
n = number of different coatings and thinners used in the coating
operation during the capture efficiency test run.
(4) Use Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure
the total mass, kg, of TVH emissions that are not captured by the
emission capture system; they are measured as they exit the temporary
total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency
test run.
To make the measurement, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the
term VOC in the methods.
(i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure is a temporary total
enclosure.
(ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure is a building enclosure.
During the capture efficiency measurement, all organic compound
emitting operations inside the building enclosure, other than the
coating operation for which capture efficiency is being determined,
must be shut down, but all fans and blowers must be operating normally.
(5) For each capture efficiency test run, determine the percent
capture efficiency of the emission capture system using Equation 2 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.023
[[Page 78651]]
Where:
CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the
add-on control device, percent.
TVHused = total mass of TVH liquid input used in the coating
operation during the capture efficiency test run, kg.
TVHuncaptured = total mass of TVH that is not captured by
the emission capture system and that exits from the temporary total
enclosure or building enclosure during the capture efficiency test run,
kg.
(6) Determine the capture efficiency of the emission capture system
as the average of the capture efficiencies measured in the three test
runs.
(d) Gas-to-gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or a
building enclosure. The gas-to-gas protocol compares the mass of TVH
emissions captured by the emission capture system to the mass of TVH
emissions not captured. Use a temporary total enclosure or a building
enclosure and the procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this
section to measure emission capture system efficiency using the gas-to-
gas protocol.
(1) Either use a building enclosure or construct an enclosure
around the coating operation where coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials are applied, and all areas where emissions from these applied
coatings and materials subsequently occur, such as flash-off, curing,
and drying areas. The areas of the coating operation where capture
devices collect emissions generated by the coating operation for
routing to an add-on control device, such as the entrance and exit
areas of an oven or a spray booth, must also be inside the enclosure.
The enclosure must meet the applicable definition of a temporary total
enclosure or building enclosure in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR
part 51.
(2) Use Method 204B or C of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure
the total mass, kg, of TVH emissions captured by the emission capture
system during each capture efficiency test run as measured at the inlet
to the add-on control device. To make the measurement, substitute TVH
for each occurrence of the term VOC in the methods.
(i) The sampling points for the Method 204B or C measurement must
be upstream from the add-on control device and must represent total
emissions routed from the capture system and entering the add-on
control device.
(ii) If multiple emission streams from the capture system enter the
add-on control device without a single common duct, then the emissions
entering the add-on control device must be simultaneously measured in
each duct, and the total emissions entering the add-on control device
must be determined.
(3) Use Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure
the total mass, kg, of TVH emissions that are not captured by the
emission capture system; they are measured as they exit the temporary
total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency
test run. To make the measurement, substitute TVH for each occurrence
of the term VOC in the methods.
(i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure is a temporary total
enclosure.
(ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure is a building enclosure.
During the capture efficiency measurement, all organic compound
emitting operations inside the building enclosure, other than the
coating operation for which capture efficiency is being determined,
must be shut down, but all fans and blowers must be operating normally.
(4) For each capture efficiency test run, determine the percent
capture efficiency of the emission capture system using Equation 3 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.024
Where:
CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the
add-on control device, percent.
TVHcaptured = total mass of TVH captured by the emission
capture system as measured at the inlet to the add-on control device
during the emission capture efficiency test run, kg.
TVHuncaptured = total mass of TVH that is not captured by
the emission capture system and that exits from the temporary total
enclosure or building enclosure during the capture efficiency test run,
kg.
(5) Determine the capture efficiency of the emission capture system
as the average of the capture efficiencies measured in the three test
runs.
(e) Panel testing to determine the capture efficiency of flash-off
or bake oven emissions. You may determine the capture efficiency of
flash-off or bake oven emissions using ASTM Method D5087-91(1994), ASTM
Method D6266-00a, or the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for
Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile
and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (docket A-
2001-22). The results of these panel testing procedures are in units of
mass of VOC per volume of coating solids deposited. These results must
be converted to percent capture efficiency values using Equation 4 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.025
Where:
CEi = capture efficiency for coating i for the flash-off
area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted, percent.
Pi = panel test result for coating i, kg of VOC per liter of
coating solids deposited.
Vsdep,i = total volume of coating solids deposited for
coating i during the month in the spray booth(s) for the flash-off area
or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted, liters, from
Equation 5 of this section.
VOCi = total mass of VOC in coating i used during the month
in the spray booth(s) for the flash-off area or bake oven for which the
panel test is conducted, kg, from Equation 6 of this section.
(1) Calculate the total volume of coating solids deposited for each
coating used during the month in the spray booth(s) for the flash-off
area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted using equation
5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.026
Where:
Vsdep,i = total volume of coating solids deposited for
coating i during the month in the spray booth(s) for the flash-off area
or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted, liters.
Volc,i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month
in the spray booth(s) for the flash-off area or bake oven for which the
panel test is conducted, liters.
[[Page 78652]]
Vs,i = volume fraction of coating solids for coating, i,
liter solids per liter coating, determined according to Sec.
63.3161(f).
TEc,i = transfer efficiency of coating, i, in the spray
booth(s) for the flash-off area or bake oven for which the panel test
is conducted determined according to Sec. 63.3161(g).
(2) Calculate the total mass of VOC in each coating used during the
month in the spray booth(s) for the flash-off area or bake oven for
which the panel test is conducted, kg, using Equation 6 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.027
Where:
VOCi = total mass of VOC in coating i used during the month
in the spray booth(s) for the flash-off area or bake oven for which the
panel test is conducted, kg.
Volc,i = total volume of coating i used during the month in
the spray booth(s) for the flash-off area or bake oven for which the
panel test is conducted, liters.
DC = density of coating i, kg coating per liter coating, determined
according to Sec. 63.3151(b).
Wvocc,i = mass fraction of VOC in coating i, kg organic HAP
per kg coating, determined by Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60)
or the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for Determining Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (docket A-2001-22).
(f) Alternative capture efficiency procedure. As an alternative to
the procedures specified in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section,
you may determine capture efficiency using any other capture efficiency
protocol and test methods that satisfy the criteria of either the DQO
or LCL approach as described in appendix A to subpart KK of this part.
Sec. 63.3166 How do I determine the add-on control device emission
destruction or removal efficiency?
You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to
determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal
efficiency as part of the performance test required by Sec. 63.3160.
You must conduct three test runs as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3), and
each test run must last at least 1 hour.
(a) For all types of add-on control devices, use the test methods
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Use Method 1 or 1A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as
appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points.
(2) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of appendix A to 40 CFR
part 60, as appropriate, to measure gas volumetric flow rate.
(3) Use Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as
appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. The
ASME PTC 19.10-1981 may be used as an alternative to Method 3B.
(4) Use Method 4 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 to determine stack
gas moisture.
(5) Methods for determining gas volumetric flow rate, dry molecular
weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as applicable, during
each test run.
(b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using
either Method 25 or 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as specified
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. You must use the same
method for both the inlet and outlet measurements.
(1) Use Method 25 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer and
you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be more
than 50 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at the control device
outlet.
(2) Use Method 25A if the add-on control device is an oxidizer and
you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 50
ppmv or less at the control device outlet.
(3) Use Method 25A if the add-control device is not an oxidizer.
(c) If two or more add-on control devices are used for the same
emission stream, then you must measure emissions at the outlet of each
device. For example, if one add-on control device is a concentrator
with an outlet for the high-volume, dilute stream that has been treated
by the concentrator, and a second add-on control device is an oxidizer
with an outlet for the low-volume, concentrated stream that is treated
with the oxidizer, you must measure emissions at the outlet of the
oxidizer and the high volume dilute stream outlet of the concentrator.
(d) For each test run, determine the total gaseous organic
emissions mass flow rates for the inlet and the outlet of the add-on
control device, using Equation 1 of this section. If there is more than
one inlet or outlet to the add-on control device, you must calculate
the total gaseous organic mass flow rate using Equation 1 of this
section for each inlet and each outlet and then total all of the inlet
emissions and total all of the outlet emissions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.028
Where:
Mf = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate, kg/per
hour (h).
Cc = concentration of organic compounds as carbon in the
vent gas, as determined by Method 25 or Method 25A, ppmv, dry basis.
Qsd = volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting the
add-on control device, as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or
2G, dry standard cubic meters/hour (dscm/h).
0.0416 = conversion factor for molar volume, kg-moles per cubic meter
(mol/m3) (@ 293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury
(mmHg)).
(e) For each test run, determine the add-on control device organic
emissions destruction or removal efficiency using Equation 2 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.029
Where:
DRE = organic emissions destruction or removal efficiency of the add-on
control device, percent.
Mfi = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate at the
inlet(s) to the add-on control device, using Equation 1 of this
section, kg/h.
Mfo = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate at the
outlet(s) of the add-on control device, using Equation 1 of this
section, kg/h.
(f) Determine the emission destruction or removal efficiency of the
add-on control device as the average of the efficiencies determined in
the three test runs and calculated in Equation 2 of this section.
Sec. 63.3167 How do I establish the add-on control device operating
limits during the performance test?
During the performance test required by Sec. 63.3160 and described
in Sec. Sec. 63.3164 and 63.3166, you must establish the operating
limits required by Sec. 63.3193 according to this section, unless you
have received approval for alternative monitoring and operating limits
under Sec. 63.8(f) as specified in Sec. 63.3193.
(a) Thermal oxidizers. If your add-on control device is a thermal
oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs (a)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
combustion temperature at least once
[[Page 78653]]
every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. You must monitor
the temperature in the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or immediately
downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
(2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate
and record the average combustion temperature maintained during the
performance test. This average combustion temperature is the minimum
operating limit for your thermal oxidizer.
(b) Catalytic oxidizers. If your add-on control device is a
catalytic oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to either
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) or paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section.
(1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference
across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of
the three test runs.
(2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate
and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the
average temperature difference across the catalyst bed maintained
during the performance test. These are the minimum operating limits for
your catalytic oxidizer.
(3) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference
across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet
to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and
maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section. During the performance test, you must monitor
and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed at least once
every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. Use the data
collected during the performance test to calculate and record the
average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance
test. This is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer.
(4) You must develop and implement an inspection and maintenance
plan for your catalytic oxidizer(s) for which you elect to monitor
according to paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The plan must address,
at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) Annual sampling and analysis of the catalyst activity (i.e.,
conversion efficiency) following the oxidizer manufacturer's or
catalyst supplier's recommended procedures.
(ii) Monthly inspection of the oxidizer system, including the
burner assembly and fuel supply lines for problems and, as necessary,
adjustment of the equipment to assure proper air-to-fuel mixtures.
(iii) Annual internal and monthly external visual inspection of the
catalyst bed to check for channeling, abrasion, and settling. If
problems are found, you must replace the catalyst bed and conduct a new
performance test to determine destruction efficiency according to Sec.
63.3166.
(c) Carbon adsorbers. If your add-on control device is a carbon
adsorber, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) You must monitor and record the total regeneration desorbing
gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle and
the carbon bed temperature after each carbon bed regeneration and
cooling cycle for the regeneration cycle either immediately preceding
or immediately following the performance test.
(2) The operating limits for your carbon adsorber are the minimum
total desorbing gas mass flow recorded during the regeneration cycle
and the maximum carbon bed temperature recorded after the cooling
cycle.
(d) Condensers. If your add-on control device is a condenser,
establish the operating limits according to paragraphs (d)(1) and (2)
of this section.
(1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15
minutes during each of the three test runs.
(2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate
and record the average condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature
maintained during the performance test. This average condenser outlet
gas temperature is the maximum operating limit for your condenser.
(e) Concentrators. If your add-on control device includes a
concentrator, you must establish operating limits for the concentrator
according to paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
desorption concentrate stream gas temperature at least once every 15
minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test.
(2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate
and record the average temperature. This is the minimum operating limit
for the desorption concentrate gas stream temperature.
(3) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator at least
once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance
test.
(4) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate
and record the average pressure drop. This is the maximum operating
limit for the dilute stream across the concentrator.
(f) Emission capture systems. For each capture device that is not
part of a PTE that meets the criteria of Sec. 63.3165(a), establish an
operating limit for either the gas volumetric flow rate or duct static
pressure, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
The operating limit for a PTE is specified in Table 1 to this subpart.
(1) During the capture efficiency determination required by Sec.
63.3160 and described in Sec. Sec. 63.3164 and 63.3165, you must
monitor and record either the gas volumetric flow rate or the duct
static pressure for each separate capture device in your emission
capture system at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three
test runs at a point in the duct between the capture device and the
add-on control device inlet.
(2) Calculate and record the average gas volumetric flow rate or
duct static pressure for the three test runs for each capture device.
This average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure is the
minimum operating limit for that specific capture device.
Sec. 63.3168 What are the requirements for continuous parameter
monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?
(a) General. You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS
specified in paragraphs (c), (e), (f), and (g) of this section
according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section. You must
install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraphs (b)
and (d) of this section according to paragraphs (a)(3) through (5) of
this section.
(1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four
equally spaced successive cycles of CPMS operation in 1 hour.
(2) You must determine the average of all recorded readings for
each successive 3-hour period of the emission capture system and add-on
control device operation.
(3) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration,
and validation check of the CPMS.
(4) You must maintain the CPMS at all times and have available
necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.
(5) You must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system
and add-on control device parameter data at
[[Page 78654]]
all times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except
during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required
quality assurance or control activities (including, if applicable,
calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments).
(6) You must not use emission capture system or add-on control
device parameter data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality
assurance or control activities when calculating data averages. You
must use all the data collected during all other periods in calculating
the data averages for determining compliance with the emission capture
system and add-on control device operating limits.
(7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data.
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or
careless operation are not malfunctions. Any period for which the
monitoring system is out of control and data are not available for
required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring requirements.
(b) Capture system bypass line. You must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section for each emission capture
system that contains bypass lines that could divert emissions away from
the add-on control device to the atmosphere.
(1) You must monitor or secure the valve or closure mechanism
controlling the bypass line in a nondiverting position in such a way
that the valve or closure mechanism cannot be opened without creating a
record that the valve was opened. The method used to monitor or secure
the valve or closure mechanism must meet one of the requirements
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Flow control position indicator. Install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications a flow
control position indicator that takes a reading at least once every 15
minutes and provides a record indicating whether the emissions are
directed to the add-on control device or diverted from the add-on
control device. The time of occurrence and flow control position must
be recorded, as well as every time the flow direction is changed. The
flow control position indicator must be installed at the entrance to
any bypass line that could divert the emissions away from the add-on
control device to the atmosphere.
(ii) Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures. Secure any bypass
line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key
type configuration. You must visually inspect the seal or closure
mechanism at least once every month to ensure that the valve is
maintained in the closed position, and the emissions are not diverted
away from the add-on control device to the atmosphere.
(iii) Valve closure monitoring. Ensure that any bypass line valve
is in the closed (nondiverting) position through monitoring of valve
position at least once every 15 minutes. You must inspect the
monitoring system at least once every month to verify that the monitor
will indicate valve position.
(iv) Automatic shutdown system. Use an automatic shutdown system in
which the coating operation is stopped when flow is diverted by the
bypass line away from the add-on control device to the atmosphere when
the coating operation is running. You must inspect the automatic
shutdown system at least once every month to verify that it will detect
diversions of flow and shut down the coating operation.
(2) If any bypass line is opened, you must include a description of
why the bypass line was opened and the length of time it remained open
in the semiannual compliance reports required in Sec. 63.3120.
(c) Thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers. If you are using a
thermal oxidizer or catalytic oxidizer as an add-on control device
(including those used to treat desorbed concentrate streams from
concentrators or carbon adsorbers), you must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) For a thermal oxidizer, install a gas temperature monitor in
the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or in the duct immediately
downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
(2) For a catalytic oxidizer, install gas temperature monitors both
upstream and downstream of the catalyst bed. The temperature monitors
must be in the gas stream immediately before and after the catalyst bed
to measure the temperature difference across the bed.
(3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (c)(3)(i)
through (vii) of this section for each gas temperature monitoring
device.
(i) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(ii) Use a temperature sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 4
degrees Fahrenheit or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever
is larger.
(iii) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical contaminants.
(iv) If a gas temperature chart recorder is used, it must have a
measurement sensitivity in the minor division of at least 20 degrees
Fahrenheit.
(v) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual.
Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature
sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature
sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a
reading within 30 degrees Fahrenheit of the process temperature sensor
reading.
(vi) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature
range or install a new temperature sensor.
(vii) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity and
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
(d) Carbon adsorbers. If you are using a carbon adsorber as an add-
on control device, you must monitor the total regeneration desorbing
gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle,
the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and cooling cycle,
and comply with paragraphs (a)(3) through (5) and (d)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) The regeneration desorbing gas mass flow monitor must be an
integrating device having a measurement sensitivity of plus or minus 10
percent, capable of recording the total regeneration desorbing gas mass
flow for each regeneration cycle.
(2) The carbon bed temperature monitor must have a measurement
sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature (as expressed in degrees
Fahrenheit) recorded or 1 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater, and
must be capable of recording the temperature within 15 minutes of
completing any carbon bed cooling cycle.
(e) Condensers. If you are using a condenser, you must monitor the
condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature and comply with
paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The gas temperature monitor must have a measurement sensitivity
of 1 percent of the temperature (expressed in degrees Fahrenheit)
recorded or 1 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater.
(2) The temperature monitor must provide a gas temperature record
at least once every 15 minutes.
(f) Concentrators. If you are using a concentrator, such as a
zeolite wheel or
[[Page 78655]]
rotary carbon bed concentrator, you must comply with the requirements
in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You must install a temperature monitor in the desorption gas
stream. The temperature monitor must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (c)(3) of this section.
(2) You must install a device to monitor pressure drop across the
zeolite wheel or rotary carbon bed. The pressure monitoring device must
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (f)(2)(i)
through (vii) of this section.
(i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure.
(ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(iii) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or
a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure
range.
(iv) Check the pressure tap daily.
(v) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(vi) Conduct calibration checks anytime the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
(vii) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity,
electrical connections for continuity, and mechanical connections for
leakage.
(g) Emission capture systems. The capture system monitoring system
must comply with the applicable requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (g)(1)(i) through
(iv) of this section.
(i) Locate a flow sensor in a position that provides a
representative flow measurement in the duct from each capture device in
the emission capture system to the add-on control device.
(ii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to
upstream and downstream disturbances.
(iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least
semiannually.
(iv) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity, electrical
connections for continuity, and mechanical connections for leakage.
(2) For each pressure drop measurement device, you must comply with
the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (g)(2)(i) through
(vi) of this section.
(i) Locate the pressure tap(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure drop across each opening you
are monitoring.
(ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(iii) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(iv) Using an inclined manometer with a measurement sensitivity of
0.0002 inch water, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer
calibration monthly.
(v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
(vi) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity, electrical
connections for continuity, and mechanical connections for leakage.
Compliance Requirements for the Combined Primer Surfacer, Topcoat,
Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission
Rates and the Separate Electrodeposition Primer Emission Rates
Sec. 63.3170 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other
initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) New and reconstructed affected sources. For a new or
reconstructed affected source, you must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of Sec. 63.3160.
(b) Existing affected sources. For an existing affected source, you
must meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of Sec.
63.3160.
Sec. 63.3171 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
(a) You must meet all of the requirements of this section to
demonstrate initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance, the
organic HAP emissions from the combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final
repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations
must meet the applicable emission limitation in Sec. 63.3090(b) or
Sec. 63.3091(b); and the organic HAP emissions from the
electrodeposition primer operation must meet the applicable emissions
limitations in Sec. 63.3092(a) or (b).
(b) Compliance with operating limits. Except as provided in Sec.
63.3160(a)(4), you must establish and demonstrate continuous compliance
during the initial compliance period with the operating limits required
by Sec. 63.3093, using the procedures specified in Sec. Sec. 63.3167
and 63.3168.
(c) Compliance with work practice requirements. You must develop,
implement, and document your implementation of the work practice plans
required by Sec. 63.3094(b) and (c) during the initial compliance
period, as specified in Sec. 63.3130.
(d) Compliance with emission limits. You must follow the procedures
in Sec. 63.3161(e) through (n), excluding materials used in
electrodeposition primer operations, to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3090(b) or Sec. 63.3091(b). You
must follow the procedures in paragraph (e) of this section to
demonstrate compliance with the emission limit in Sec. 63.3092(a), or
paragraphs (f) through (g) of this section to demonstrate compliance
with the emission limitations in Sec. 63.3092(b).
(e) Determine the mass fraction of each organic HAP in each
material used in the electrodeposition primer operation. You must
determine the mass fraction of each organic HAP for each material used
in the electrodeposition primer operation during the compliance period
by using one of the options in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 63). You may use Method
311 for determining the mass fraction of each organic HAP.
(2) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for
determining the mass fraction of organic HAP once the Administrator has
approved it. You must follow the procedure in Sec. 63.7(f) to submit
an alternative test method for approval.
(3) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material.
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test
methods specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section, such as
manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic HAP that
is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for OSHA-defined carcinogens,
as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4), and at 1.0 percent by mass or
more for other compounds. If there is a disagreement between such
information and results of a test conducted according to paragraph
(e)(1) or (2) of this section, then the test method results will take
precedence.
(f) Capture of electrodeposition bake oven emissions. You must show
that the electrodeposition bake oven meets the criteria in sections 5.3
through 5.5 of Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 and directs
all of the exhaust gases from the bake oven to an add-on control
device.
(g) Control of electrodeposition bake oven emissions. Determine the
efficiency of each control device on each electrodeposition bake oven
using the procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.3164 and 63.3166.
[[Page 78656]]
(h) Compliance demonstration. To demonstrate initial compliance,
the organic HAP emissions from the combined primer-surfacer, topcoat,
final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive
operations must meet the applicable emission limitation in Sec.
63.3090(b) or Sec. 63.3091(b); the organic HAP emissions from the
electrodeposition primer operation must meet the applicable emissions
limitations in Sec. 63.3092(a) or (b). You must keep all records as
required by Sec. Sec. 63.3130 and 63.3131. As part of the Notification
of Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.3110, you must submit a
statement that the coating operation(s) was (were) in compliance with
the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because
the organic HAP emission rate from the combined primer-surfacer,
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive
operations was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in
Sec. 63.3090(b) or Sec. 63.3091(b), and the organic HAP emissions
from the electrodeposition primer operation met the applicable
emissions limitations in Sec. 63.3092(a) or (b), and you achieved the
operating limits required by Sec. 63.3093 and the work practice
standards required by Sec. 63.3094.
Sec. 63.3172 [Reserved]
Sec. 63.3173 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?
(a) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable
emission limit in Sec. 63.3090(b) or Sec. 63.3091(b), the organic HAP
emission rate for each compliance period determined according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.3171 must be equal to or less than the
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3090(b) or Sec. 63.3091(b). A
compliance period consists of 1 month. Each month after the end of the
initial compliance period described in Sec. 63.3170 is a compliance
period consisting of that month. You must perform the calculations in
Sec. 63.3171 on a monthly basis.
(b) If the organic HAP emission rate for any 1 month compliance
period exceeded the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3090(b) or
Sec. 63.3091(b), this is a deviation from the emission limitation for
that compliance period and must be reported as specified in Sec. Sec.
63.3110(c)(6) and 63.3120(a)(6).
(c) You must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.3163(c) through (j).
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.3175 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, EPA, or a
delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal
agency, then that agency (as well as EPA) has the authority to
implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA
Regional Office to find out if implementation and enforcement of this
subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are
retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the State,
local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section:
(1) Approval of alternatives to the work practice standards in
Sec. 63.3094 under Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.3176 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in 40 CFR 63.2,
the General Provisions of this part, and in this section as follows:
Add-on control device means an air pollution control device, such
as a thermal oxidizer or carbon adsorber, that reduces pollution in an
air stream by destruction or removal before discharge to the
atmosphere.
Add-on control device efficiency means the ratio of the emissions
collected or destroyed by an add-on air pollution control device to the
total emissions that are introduced into the control device, expressed
as a percentage.
Adhesive means any chemical substance that is applied for the
purpose of bonding two surfaces together.
Anti-chip coating means a specialty type of coating designed to
reduce stone chipping damage. It is applied on selected vehicle
surfaces that are exposed to impingement by stones and other road
debris. It is typically applied after the electrodeposition primer and
before the topcoat coating materials (may be used as a type of primer-
surfacer). Anti-chip coatings are included in the primer-surfacer
operation.
As applied means the condition of a coating material after any
dilution as it is being applied to the substrate.
As supplied means the condition of the coating material as provided
by the manufacturer to the user, either before or after reducing for
application.
Automobile means a motor vehicle designed to carry up to eight
passengers, excluding vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor vehicles
designed primarily to transport light loads of property. See also
Light-duty truck.
Automobile and/or light-duty truck assembly plant means facilities
involved primarily in assembly of automobiles and light-duty trucks,
including coating facilities and processes.
Basecoat/clearcoat means a topcoat system applied to exterior and
selected interior vehicle surfaces primarily to provide an
aesthetically pleasing appearance and acceptable durability
performance. It consists of a layer of pigmented basecoat color
coating, followed directly by a layer of a clear or semitransparent
coating. It may include multiple layers of color coats or tinted clear
materials.
Blackout coating means a type of specialty coating applied on
selected vehicle surfaces (including areas of the engine compartment
visible through the grill, and window and pillar trim) to provide a
cosmetic appearance. Typically black or dark gray color. Blackout
coating may be included in either the primer-surfacer or topcoat
operations.
Capture device means a hood, enclosure, room, floor sweep, or other
means of containing or collecting emissions and directing those
emissions into an add-on air pollution control device.
Capture efficiency or capture system efficiency means the portion
(expressed as a percentage) of the pollutants from an emission source
that is delivered to an add-on control device.
Capture system means one or more capture devices intended to
collect emissions generated by a coating operation in the use of
coatings, both at the point of application and at subsequent points
where emissions from the coatings occur, such as flash-off, drying, or
curing. As used in this subpart, multiple capture devices that collect
emissions generated by a coating operation are considered a single
capture system.
[[Page 78657]]
Catalytic oxidizer means a device for oxidizing pollutants or waste
materials via flame and heat incorporating a catalyst to aid the
combustion at lower operating temperature.
Cleaning material means a solvent used to remove contaminants and
other materials such as dirt, grease, oil, and dried (e.g., depainting)
or wet coating from a substrate before or after coating application; or
from equipment associated with a coating operation, such as spray
booths, spray guns, tanks, and hangers. Thus, it includes any cleaning
material used on substrates or equipment or both.
Coating means a material applied to a substrate for decorative,
protective, or functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not
limited to, paints, sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, primers,
deadeners, and maskants. Decorative, protective, or functional
materials that consist only of protective oils for metal, acids, bases,
or any combination of these substances are not considered coatings for
the purposes of this subpart.
Coating operation means equipment used to apply coating to a
substrate (coating application) and to dry or cure the coating after
application. A single coating operation always includes at least the
point at which a coating is applied and all subsequent points in the
affected source where organic HAP emissions from that coating occur.
There may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating
application with hand-held nonrefillable aerosol containers, touchup
markers, marking pens, or pinstriping equipment is not a coating
operation for the purposes of this subpart.
Coating solids means the nonvolatile portion of the coating that
makes up the dry film.
Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) means the total
equipment that may be required to meet the data acquisition and
availability requirements of this subpart; used to sample, condition
(if applicable), analyze, and provide a record of coating operation, or
capture system, or add-on control device parameters.
Controlled coating operation means a coating operation from which
some or all of the organic HAP emissions are routed through an emission
capture system and add-on control device.
Day tank means tank with agitation and pumping system used for
mixing and continuous circulation of coatings from the paint storage
area to the spray booth area of the paintshop.
Deadener means a specialty coating applied to selected vehicle
underbody surfaces for the purpose of reducing the sound of road noise
in the passenger compartment.
Deposited solids means the solids component of the coating remains
on the substrate or object being painted.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard; or
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limit or operating limit or work
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart.
Electrodeposition primer or electrocoating primer means a process
of applying a protective, corrosion-resistant waterborne primer on
exterior and interior surfaces that provides thorough coverage of
recessed areas.
It is a dip coating method that uses an electrical field to apply
or deposit the conductive coating material onto the part. The object
being painted acts as an electrode that is oppositely charged from the
particles of paint in the dip tank. Also referred to as E-Coat, Uni-
Prime, and ELPO Primer.
Emission limitation means an emission limit, operating limit, or
work practice standard.
Final repair means the operations performed and coating(s) applied
outside of the paint shop to completely-assembled motor vehicles or in
low-bake off-line operations within the paint shop to correct damage or
imperfections in the coating.
Flash-off area means the portion of a coating process between the
coating application station and the next coating application station or
drying oven where solvent begins to evaporate from the coated vehicle.
Glass bonding adhesive means an adhesive used to bond windshield or
other glass to an automobile or light-duty truck body.
Glass bonding primer means a primer applied to windshield or other
glass, or to body openings to prepare the glass or body openings for
the application of glass bonding adhesive, or the installation of
adhesive bonded glass.
Guide coat means Primer-surfacer.
In-line repair operation means the process of surface preparation
and application of coatings on the paint line in the paint shop to
correct damage or imperfections in the coating finish. Also referred to
as high bake repair or high bake reprocess.
Light-duty truck means vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor
vehicles designed primarily to transport light loads of property with
gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 lbs or less.
Manufacturer's formulation data means data on a material (such as a
coating) that are supplied by the material manufacturer based on
knowledge of the ingredients used to manufacture that material, rather
than based on testing of the material with the test methods specified
in Sec. Sec. 63.3151 and 63.3161. Manufacturer's formulation data may
include, but are not limited to, information on density, organic HAP
content, volatile organic matter content, and coating solids content.
Mass fraction of organic HAP means the ratio of the mass of organic
HAP to the mass of a material in which it is contained, expressed as kg
of organic HAP per kg of material.
Month means a calendar month or a pre-specified period of 28 days
to 35 days to allow for flexibility in recordkeeping when data are
based on a business accounting period.
Organic HAP content means the mass of organic HAP per mass of
coating material.
Paint shop means that area of an automobile assembly plant in which
vehicle bodies are cleaned, phosphated, and coatings (including
electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, and deadener) are
applied.
Permanent total enclosure (PTE) means a permanently installed
enclosure that meets the criteria of Method 204 of appendix M, 40 CFR
part 51, for a PTE and that directs all the exhaust gases from the
enclosure to an add-on control device.
Primer-surfacer means an intermediate protective coating applied on
the electrodeposition primer and under the topcoat. It provides
adhesion, protection, and appearance properties to the total finish.
Also called a guide coat or surfacer.
Purge/clean operation means the process of flushing paint out and
cleaning the spray lines when changing colors or to remove undesired
material. It includes use of air and solvents to clean the lines.
Purge capture means the capture of purge solvent and materials into
a closed collection system immediately after purging the system. It is
used to
[[Page 78658]]
prevent the release of organic HAP emissions and includes the disposal
of the captured purge material.
Purge material means the coating and associated cleaning solvent
materials expelled from the spray system during the process of cleaning
the spray lines and applicators when color-changing or to maintain the
cleanliness of the spray system.
Protective oil means an organic material that is applied to metal
for the purpose of providing lubrication or protection from corrosion
without forming a solid film. This definition of protective oil
includes, but is not limited to, lubricating oils, evaporative oils
(including those that evaporate completely), and extrusion oils.
Research or laboratory facility means a facility whose primary
purpose is for research and development of new processes and products,
that is conducted under the close supervision of technically trained
personnel, and is not engaged in the manufacture of final or
intermediate products for commercial purposes, except in a de minimis
manner.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Spraybooth means a ventilated structure housing automatic and/or
manual spray application equipment for coating operations. Includes
facilities for the capture and entrapment of particulate overspray.
Startup, initial means the first time equipment is brought online
in a facility.
Surface preparation means use of a cleaning material on a portion
of or all of a substrate. This includes use of a cleaning material to
remove dried coating, which is sometimes called ``depainting.''
Surfacer means Primer-surfacer.
Tack-wipe means solvent impregnated cloth used to remove dust from
surfaces prior to application of coatings.
Temporary total enclosure means an enclosure constructed for the
purpose of measuring the capture efficiency of pollutants emitted from
a given source as defined in Method 204 of appendix M, 40 CFR part 51.
Thermal oxidizer means a device for oxidizing air pollutants or
waste materials via flame and heat.
Thinner means an organic solvent that is added to a coating after
the coating is received from the supplier.
Topcoat means the final coating system applied to provide the final
color and/or a protective finish. May be a Monocoat color or Basecoat/
Clearcoat system.
Total volatile hydrocarbon (TVH) means the total amount of
nonaqueous volatile organic matter determined according to Methods 204
and 204A through F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 and substituting the
term TVH each place in the methods where the term VOC is used. The TVH
includes both VOC and non-VOC.
Transfer efficiency means the ratio of the amount of coating solids
deposited onto the surface of the object to the total amount of coating
solids sprayed while applying the coating to the object.
Uncontrolled coating operation means a coating operation from which
none of the organic HAP emissions are routed through an emission
capture system and add-on control device.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any compound defined as VOC
in 40 CFR 51.100(s).
Volume fraction of coating solids means the ratio of the volume of
coating solids (also known as volume of nonvolatiles) to the volume of
coating; liters of coating solids per liter of coating.
Tables to Subpart IIII of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart IIII of Part 63.--Operating Limits for Capture
Systems and Add-On Control Devices
[If you are required to comply with operating limits by Sec. 63.3093,
you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the following
table]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you must
You must meet the demonstrate
For the following device . . following operating continuous
. limit . . . compliance with the
operating limit by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. thermal oxidizer......... a. the average i. collecting the
combustion combustion
temperature in any temperature data
3-hour period must according to Sec.
not fall below the 63.3168(c);
combustion ii. reducing the
temperature limit data to 3-hour
established block averages; and
according to Sec. iii. maintaining the
63.3167(a). 3-hour average
combustion
temperature at or
above the
temperature limit.
2. catalytic oxidizer....... a. the average i. collecting the
temperature temperature data
measured just according to Sec.
before the catalyst 63.3168(c);
bed in any 3-hour ii. reducing the
period must not data to 3-hour
fall below the block averages; and
limit established iii. maintaining the
according to Sec. 3-hour average
63.3167(b); and temperature before
either. the catalyst bed at
or above the
temperature limit.
b. ensure that the i. collecting the
average temperature temperature data
difference across according to Sec.
the catalyst bed in 63.3168(c);
any 3-hour period ii. reducing the
does not fall below data to 3-hour
the temperature block averages; and
difference limit iii. maintaining the
established 3-hour average
according to Sec. temperature
63.3167(b)(2); or. difference at or
above the
temperature
difference limit;
or
c. develop and i. maintaining an up-
implement an to-date inspection
inspection and and maintenance
maintenance plan plan, records of
according to Sec. annual catalyst
63.3167(b)(4). activity checks,
records of monthly
inspections of the
oxidizer system,
and records of the
annual internal
inspections of the
catalyst bed. If a
problem is
discovered during a
monthly or annual
inspection required
by Sec.
63.3167(b)(4), you
must take
corrective action
as soon as
practicable
consistent with the
manufacturer's
recommendations.
[[Page 78659]]
3. carbon adsorber.......... a. the total i. measuring the
regeneration total regeneration
desorbing gas desorbing gas
(e.g., steam or (e.g., steam or
nitrogen) mass flow nitrogen) mass flow
for each carbon bed for each
regeneration cycle regeneration cycle
must not fall below according to Sec.
the total 63.3168(d); and
regeneration ii. maintaining the
desorbing gas mass total regeneration
flow limit desorbing gas mass
established flow at or above
according to Sec. the mass flow
63.3167(c). limit.
b. the temperature i. measuring the
of the carbon bed temperature of the
after completing carbon bed after
each regeneration completing each
and any cooling regeneration and
cycle must not any cooling cycle
exceed the carbon according to Sec.
bed temperature 63.3168(d); and
limit established ii. operating the
according to Sec. carbon beds such
63.3167(c). that each carbon
bed is not returned
to service until
completing each
regeneration and
any cooling cycle
until the recorded
temperature of the
carbon bed is at or
below the
temperature limit.
4. condenser................ a. the average i. collecting the
condenser outlet condenser outlet
(product side) gas (product side) gas
temperature in any temperature
3-hour period must according to Sec.
not exceed the 63.3168(e);
temperature limit ii. reducing the
established data to 3-hour
according to Sec. block averages; and
63.3167(d). iii. maintaining the
3-hour average gas
temperature at the
outlet at or below
the temperature
limit.
5. concentrators, including a. the average gas i. collecting the
zeolite wheels and rotary temperature of the temperature data
carbon adsorbers. desorption according to Sec.
concentrate stream 63.3168(f);
in any 3-hour ii. reducing the
period must not data to 3-hour
fall below the block averages; and
limit established iii. maintaining the
according to Sec. 3-hour average
63.3167(e). temperature at or
above the
temperature limit.
b. the average i. collecting the
pressure drop of pressure drop data
the dilute stream according to Sec.
across the 63.3168(f); and
concentrator in any ii. reducing the
3-hour period must pressure drop data
not fall below the to 3-hour block
limit established averages; and
according to Sec. iii. maintaining the
63.3167(e). 3-hour average
pressure drop at or
above the pressure
drop limit.
6. emission capture system a. the direction of i. collecting the
that is a PTE. the air flow at all direction of air
times must be into flow, and either
the enclosure; and the facial velocity
either. of air through all
natural draft
openings according
to Sec.
63.3168(g)(1) or
the pressure drop
across the
enclosure according
to Sec.
63.3168(g)(2); and
ii. maintaining the
facial velocity of
air flow through
all natural draft
openings or the
pressure drop at or
above the facial
velocity limit or
pressure drop
limit, and
maintaining the
direction of air
flow into the
enclosure at all
times.
b. the average i. collecting the
facial velocity of direction of air
air through all flow, and either
natural draft the facial velocity
openings in the of air through all
enclosure must be natural draft
at least 200 feet openings according
per minute; or. to Sec.
63.3168(g)(1) or
the pressure drop
across the
enclosure according
to Sec.
63.3168(g)(2); and
ii. maintaining the
facial velocity of
air flow through
all natural draft
openings or the
pressure drop at or
above the facial
velocity limit or
pressure drop
limit, and
maintaining the
direction of air
flow into the
enclosure at all
times.
c. the pressure drop i. collecting the
across the direction of air
enclosure must be flow, and either
at least 0.007 inch the facial velocity
water, as of air through all
established in natural draft
Method 204 of openings according
appendix M to 40 to Sec.
CFR part 51. 63.3168(g)(1) or
the pressure drop
across the
enclosure according
to Sec.
63.3168(g)(2); and
ii. maintaining the
facial velocity of
air flow through
all natural draft
openings or the
pressure drop at or
above the facial
velocity limit or
pressure drop
limit, and
maintaining the
direction of air
flow into the
enclosure at all
times.
7. emission capture system a. the average gas i. collecting the
that is not a PTE. volumetric flow gas volumetric flow
rate or duct static rate or duct static
pressure in each pressure for each
duct between a capture device
capture device and according to Sec.
add-on control 63.3168(g);
device inlet in any ii. reducing the
3-hour period must data to 3-hour
not fall below the block averages; and
average volumetric iii. maintaining the
flow rate or duct 3-hour average gas
static pressure volumetric flow
limit established rate or duct static
for that capture pressure for each
device according to capture device at
Sec. 63.3167(f). or above the gas
volumetric flow
rate or duct static
pressure limit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78660]]
Table 2 to Subpart IIII of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart IIII of Part 63
[You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Citation Subject to subpart Explanation
IIII
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(14) General Applicability..... Yes
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)-(3) Initial Applicability Yes Applicability to subpart
Determination. IIII is also specified in
Sec. 63.3181.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1) Applicability After Yes
Standard Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)-(3) Applicability of Permit No Area sources are not
Program for Area Sources. subject to or subpart
IIII.
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)-(5) Extensions and Yes
Notifications.
Sec. 63.1(e) Applicability of Permit Yes
Program Before Relevant
Standard is Set.
Sec. 63.2 Definitions............... Yes Additional definitions are
specified in Sec.
63.3176.
Sec. 63.3(a)-(c) Units and Abbreviations... Yes
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(5) Prohibited Activities..... Yes
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c) Circumvention/Severability Yes
Sec. 63.5(a) Construction/ Yes
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)-(6) Requirements for Existing, Yes
Newly Constructed, and
Reconstructed Sources.
Sec. 63.5(d) Application for Approval Yes
of Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e) Approval of Construction/ Yes
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f) Approval of Construction/ Yes
Reconstruction Based on
Prior State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a) Compliance With Standards Yes
and Maintenance
Requirements--Applicabili
ty.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(7) Compliance Dates for New Yes Sec. 63.3083 specifies
and Reconstructed Sources. the compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(5) Compliance Dates for Yes Sec. 63.3083 specifies
Existing Sources. the compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2) Operation and Maintenance. Yes
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) Startup, Shutdown, and Yes Only sources using an add-
Malfunction Plan. on control device to
comply with the standard
must complete startup,
shutdown, and malfunction
plans.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1) Compliance Except During Yes Applies only to sources
Startup, Shutdown, and using an add-on control
Malfunction. device to comply with the
standards.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3) Methods for Determining Yes
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3) Use of an Alternative Yes
Standard.
Sec. 63.6(h) Compliance With Opacity/ No Subpart IIII does not
Visible Emission establish opacity
Standards. standards and does not
require continuous
opacity monitoring
systems (COMS).
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(16) Extension of Compliance... Yes
Sec. 63.6(j) Presidential Compliance Yes
Exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1) Performance Test Yes Applies to all affected
Requirements--Applicabili sources. Additional
ty. requirements for
performance testing are
specified in Sec. Sec.
63.3164 and 63.3166.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2) Performance Test Yes Applies only to
Requirements--Dates. performance tests for
capture system and
control device efficiency
at sources using these to
comply with the
standards. Sec. 63.3160
specifies the schedule
for performance test
requirements that are
earlier than those
specified in Sec.
63.7(a)(2).
Sec. 63.7(a)(3) Performance Tests Required Yes
By the Administrator.
Sec. 63.7(b)-(e) Performance Test Yes Applies only to
Requirements--Notificatio performance tests for
n, Quality Assurance, capture system and add-on
Facilities Necessary for control device efficiency
Safe Testing Conditions at sources using these to
During Test. comply with the
standards.
Sec. 63.7(f) Performance Test Yes Applies to alltest methods
Requirements--Use of except those used to
Alternative Test Method. determine capture system
efficiency.
Sec. 63.7(g)-(h) Performance Test Yes Applies only to
Requirements--Data performance tests for
Analysis, Recordkeeping, capture system and add-on
Reporting, Waiver of Test. control device efficiency
at sources using these to
comply with the
standards.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(3) Monitoring Requirements-- Yes Applies only to monitoring
Applicability. of capture system and add-
on control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standards.
Additional requirements
for monitoring are
specified in Sec.
63.3168.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4) Additional Monitoring No Subpart IIII does not have
Requirements. monitoring requirements
for flares.
Sec. 63.8(b) Conduct of Monitoring..... Yes ..........................
[[Page 78661]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)-(3) Continuous Monitoring Yes Applies only to monitoring
Systems (CMS) Operation of capture system and add-
and Maintenance. on control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standards.
Additional requirements
for CMS operations and
maintenance are specified
in Sec. 63.3168.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4) CMS....................... No Sec. 63.3168 specifies
the requirements for the
operation of CMS for
capture systems and add-
on control devices at
sources using these to
comply with the
standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5) COMS...................... No Subpart IIII does not have
opacity or visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6) CMS Requirements.......... No Sec. 63.3168 specifies
the requirements for
monitoring systems for
capture systems and add-
on control devices at
sources using these to
comply with the
standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7) CMS Out-of-Control Periods No ..........................
Sec. 63.8(c)(8) CMS Out-of-Control Periods No Sec. 63.3120 requires
Reporting. reporting of CMS out-of-
control periods.
Sec. 63.8(d)-(e) Quality Control Program No Subpart IIII does not
and CMS Performance require the use of
Evaluation. continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5) Use of an Alternative Yes ..........................
Monitoring Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6) Alternative to Relative No Subpart IIII does not
Accuracy Test. require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)- Data Reduction............ No Sec. Sec. 63.3167 and
(5) 63.3168 specify
monitoring data
reduction.
Sec. 63.9(a)-(d) Notification Requirements. Yes ..........................
Sec. 63.9(e) Notification of Yes Applies only to capture
Performance Test. system and add-on control
device performance tests
at sources using these to
comply with the
standards.
Sec. 63.9(f) Notification of Visible No Subpart IIII does not have
Emissions/ Opacity Test. opacity or visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)-(3) Additional Notifications No Subpart IIII does not
When Using CMS. require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.9(h) Notification of Compliance Yes Sec. 63.3110 specifies
Status. the dates for submitting
the notification of
compliance status.
Sec. 63.9(i) Adjustment of Submittal Yes ..........................
Deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j) Change in Previous Yes ..........................
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a) Recordkeeping/Reporting -- Yes ..........................
Applicability and General
Information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1) General Recordkeeping Yes Additional are
Requirements. requirements specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.3130 and
63.3131.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v) Recordkeeping Relevant to Yes Requirements for startup,
Startup, Shutdown, and shutdown, and malfunction
Malfunction Periods and records only apply to
CMS. capture systems and add-
on control devices used
to comply with the
standards.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi) .......................... Yes ..........................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii) Records................... Yes ..........................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) .......................... No Subpart IIII does not
require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) .......................... Yes ..........................
Sec. 63.10(b)(3) Recordkeeping Requirements Yes ..........................
for Applicability
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6) Additional Recordkeeping Yes ..........................
Requirements for Sources
with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-8) .......................... No The same records are
required in Sec.
63.3120(a)(6).
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)-(15) .......................... Yes ..........................
Sec. 63.10(d)(1) General Reporting Yes Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
63.3120.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2) Report of Performance Test Yes Additional requirements
Results. are specified in Sec.
63.3120(b).
Sec. 63.10(d)(3) Reporting Opacity or No Subpart IIII does not
Visible Emissions require opacity or
Observations. visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4) Progress Reports for Yes ..........................
Sources With Compliance
Extensions.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5) Startup, Shutdown, and Yes Applies only to capture
Malfunction Reports. systems and add-on
control devices used to
comply with the
standards.
[[Page 78662]]
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2) Additional CMS Reports.... No Subpart IIII does not
require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) Excess Emissions/CMS No Sec. 63.3120(b)
Performance Reports. specifies the contents of
periodic compliance
reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4) COMS Data Reports......... No Subpart IIII does not
specify requirements for
opacity or COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f) Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes ..........................
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11 Control Device No Subpart IIII does not
Requirements/Flares. specify use of flares for
compliance.
Sec. 63.12 State Authority and Yes ..........................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13 Addresses................. ............ Yes
Sec. 63.14 Incorporation by Reference Yes ..........................
Sec. 63.15 Availability of Yes ..........................
Information/
Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Subpart IIII of Part 63.--Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Solvents and Solvent Blends
[You may use the mass fraction values in the following table for solvent blends for which you do not have test
data or manufacturer's formulation data]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
organic HAP
Solvent/Solvent blend CAS. No. mass Typical organic HAP, percent by mass
fraction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Toluene................................... 108-88-3 1.0 Toluene.
2. Xylene(s)................................. 1330-20-7 1.0 Xylenes, ethylbenzene.
3. Hexane.................................... 110-54-3 0.5 n-hexane.
4. n-Hexane.................................. 110-54-3 1.0 n-hexane.
5. Ethylbenzene.............................. 100-41-4 1.0 Ethylbenzene.
6. Aliphatic 140............................. ............ 0 None.
7. Aromatic 100.............................. ............ 0.02 1% xylene, 1% cumene.
8. Aromatic 150.............................. ............ 0.09 Naphthalene.
9. Aromatic naphtha.......................... 64742-95-6 0.02 1% xylene, 1% cumene.
10. Aromatic solvent......................... 64742-94-5 0.1 Naphthalene.
11. Exempt mineral spirits................... 8032-32-4 0 None.
12. Ligroines (VM & P)....................... 8032-32-4 0 None.
13. Lactol spirits........................... 64742-89-6 0.15 Toluene.
14. Low aromatic white spirit................ 64742-82-1 0 None.
15. Mineral spirits.......................... 64742-88-7 0.01 Xylenes.
16. Hydrotreated naphtha..................... 64742-48-9 0 None.
17. Hydrotreated light distillate............ 64742-47-8 0.001 Toluene.
18. Stoddard solvent......................... 8052-41-3 0.01 Xylenes.
19. Super high-flash naphtha................. 64742-95-6 0.05 Xylenes.
20. Varsol[reg] solvent...................... 8052-49-3 0.01 0.5% xylenes, 0.5% ethylbenzene.
21. VM & P naphtha........................... 64742-89-8 0.06 3% toluene, 3% xylene.
22. Petroleum distillate mixture............. 68477-31-6 0.08 4% naphthalene, 4% biphenyl.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Subpart IIII of Part 63.--Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Petroleum Solvent Groups a
[You may use the mass fraction values in the following table for solvent blends for which you do not have test
data or manufacturer's formulation data]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
organic HAP
Solvent type mass Typical organic HAP, percent by mass
fraction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aliphatic b................................................ 0.03 1% Xylene, 1% Toluene, and 1%
Ethylbenzene.
Aromatic c................................................. 0.06 4% Xylene, 1% Toluene, and 1%
Ethylbenzene.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Use this table only if the solvent blend does not match any of the solvent blends in Table 3 to this subpart,
and you only know whether the blend is aliphatic or aromatic.
b e.g., Mineral Spirits 135, Mineral Spirits 150 EC, Naphtha, Mixed Hydrocarbon, Aliphatic Hydrocarbon,
Aliphatic Naphtha, Naphthol Spirits, Petroleum Spirits, Petroleum Oil, Petroleum Naphtha, Solvent Naphtha,
Solvent Blend.
c e.g., Medium-flash Naphtha, High-flash Naphtha, Aromatic Naphtha, Light Aromatic Naphtha, Light Aromatic
Hydrocarbons, Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Light Aromatic Solvent.
[[Page 78663]]
PART 264--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, 6925, 6927, 6928(h),
and 6974.
2. Section 264.1050 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 264.1050 Applicability.
* * * * *
(h) Purged coatings and solvents from automobile and light-duty
truck, separate non-body plastic parts, and separate non-body metal
parts surface coating operations at facilities subject to the national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part
63, subpart IIII, are not subject to the requirements of this subpart.
* * * * *
PART 265--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925,
6935, 6936, and 6937, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 265.1050 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 265.1050 Applicability.
* * * * *
(g) Purged coatings and solvents from automobile and light-duty
truck, separate non-body plastic parts, and separate non-body metal
parts surface coating operations at facilities subject to the national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part
63, subpart IIII, are not subject to the requirements of this subpart.
[FR Doc. 02-31420 Filed 12-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P