National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: September 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 179)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52957-52982]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17se07-18]
[[Page 52958]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0526; FRL-8466-6]
RIN 2060-AN21

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA proposes national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for area sources engaged in paint
stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operations. EPA has listed
``Paint Stripping,'' ``Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating),''
and ``Autobody Refinishing Paint Shops'' as area sources of hazardous
air pollutants (HAP) that contribute to the risk to public health in
urban areas under the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. These three
source categories are being combined into one set of standards for the
purposes of this rulemaking. Paint stripping operations subject to the
standards being proposed include the use of methylene chloride-
containing chemicals to remove paint and other coatings. Plastic parts
and products surface coating operations include the application of
coatings to miscellaneous parts and/or products made of metal or
plastic, or combinations of metal and plastic. Autobody refinishing
includes the application of coating to motor vehicles and mobile
equipment. These proposed standards, when final, would require all
methylene chloride (MeCl) containing paint stripping and miscellaneous
surface coating operations at area sources to comply with equipment
requirements and/or management practices that minimize specific HAP
emissions. The standards would also establish training requirements for
persons who spray apply coatings. These standards, when final, would
apply to all area sources that perform methylene chloride-containing
paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating activities, except
when other NESHAP apply.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 17,
2007. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information
collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on or before October 17, 2007.
Public Hearing: If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing concerning the proposed rule by September 27, 2007, we
will hold a public hearing on October 2, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0526, by one of the following methods.
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Fax: 202-566-1741.
Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of two copies. We request that a separate copy
also be sent to the contact person identified below see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments
on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Building, Room B-108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20014. Such deliveries are accepted only during the
Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0526. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be
CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment with a disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Do not send proprietary
information to the public docket to ensure that it is not inadvertently
placed in the docket. Instead, send proprietary information directly to
the following address: Attention: Mr. Roberto Morales, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS Document Control Officer, 109
T.W. Alexander Drive, Room C404-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent
allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA,
the information may be made available to the public without further
notice to the commenter.
Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone for the Air
and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Public Hearing: If you are interested in attending the public
hearing, contact Ms. Dorothy Apple at (919) 541-4487 to verify that a
hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
10 a.m. at EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research
Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed standards, contact Mr. Warren Johnson, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs

[[Page 52959]]

Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-5124, or e-mail at johnson.warren@epa.gov.
For technical information concerning the proposed surface coating
standards, contact Ms. Kim Teal, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and
Commerce Group (E143-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-5580,
or e-mail at teal.kim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How is this document organized?

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
A. How is this document organized?
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
A. What is the regulatory development background for the proposed
standards for paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operations?
B. Where in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) will these
standards be codified?
C. What criteria are used in the development of these NESHAP?
D. What are the sources of emissions and the HAP for which these
area source categories were listed?
E. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants
emitted by paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operations?
F. How has EPA regulated major sources in the same industrial
sectors (similar sources) and what has EPA learned about available
control technologies and management practices from regulating these
major sources?
III. Proposed NESHAP for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Coating
Operations at Area Sources
A. What are the affected area sources?
B. What are the HAP and primary sources of emissions for which
these source categories were listed?
C. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?
D. What emissions control requirements is EPA proposing?
E. What are the initial compliance requirements?
F. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. What area source categories are affected by this proposal?
B. How did we select the affected source?
C. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed
standards for new and existing sources?
D. How did we select the format of the proposed standards?
E. How did we select the initial compliance and testing requirements?
F. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
G. How did we select the compliance date?
H. How did we decide to exempt these area source categories from
the CAA title V permit requirements?
V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards
A. What are the air impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

B. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially affected by the proposed rule
are MeCl--containing paint stripping operations and miscellaneous
surface coating operations located at area sources. An area source is
defined in CAA section 112(a) as any stationary source of HAP that is
not a major source, and a major source is defined as 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,
considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) of any
single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. For the purposes of
this proposal, paint stripping operations are those that involve the
use of MeCl for the partial or complete removal of surface coatings
from wood, metal or plastic substrates at area sources as either (1) an
independent activity where paint stripping is the principle activity at
the source or (2) an activity incidental to the principle activity
(e.g., surface coating, inspection, maintenance, etc.) at the source.
We consider paint stripping activities that use less than 150 gallons
per year to be incidental to the principle activity and those using 150
gallons or more to be performing paint stripping as a principle
activity. Miscellaneous surface coating operations are those that
involve the application of coatings at area sources to (1)
miscellaneous parts and/or products made of metal or plastic, or
combinations of metal and plastic; or (2) motor vehicles and mobile
equipment (e.g., heavy duty-trucks, buses, construction equipment,
self-propelled vehicles and equipment that may be drawn and/or driven
on a roadway), hereinafter referred to as autobody refinishing. In
general, the facilities and entities potentially affected by the
proposed rule are covered under the North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) Codes listed in the following table.
However, facilities classified under other NAICS codes may be subject
to the proposed standards if they meet the applicability criteria.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category NAICS regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace Equipment............ 336413 Aircraft engines, aircraft
336414 parts, aerospace ground
336415 equipment.
54171

[[Page 52960]]

Automobiles and Automobile 335312 Engine parts, vehicle parts
Parts. 336111 and accessories, brakes,
336211 axles, etc. Motor vehicle
336312 body manufacturing and
33632 automobile assembly plants.
33633 New and used car dealers.
33634 Automotive body, paint, and
33637 interior repair and
336399 maintenance.
441110
441120
811121
Chemical Manufacturing and 325110 Petrochemicals, Industrial
Product Preparation. 325120 Gases, Inorganic Dyes and
325131 Pigments, Basic Inorganic
325188 and Organic Chemicals,
325192 Cyclic Crude and
325193 Intermediates, Ethyl
325199 Alcohol, Miscellaneous
325998 Chemical Production and
Preparation.
Extruded Aluminum.............. 331316 Extruded aluminum,
331524 architectural components,
332321 coils, rod, and tubes.
332323
Government..................... N/A Government entities, besides
Department of Defense, that
maintain vehicles, such as
school buses, police and
emergency vehicles, transit
buses, or highway
maintenance vehicles.
Heavy Equipment................ 33312 Tractors, earth moving
333611 machinery.
333618
Job Shops...................... 332312 Manufacturing industries not
332722 elsewhere classified (e.g.,
332813 bezels, consoles, panels,
332991 lenses).
332999
334119
336413
339999
Large Trucks and Buses......... 33612 Large trucks and buses.
336211
Metal Buildings................ 332311 Prefabricated metal
buildings, carports, docks,
dwellings, greenhouses,
panels for buildings.
Metal Containers............... 33242 Drums, kegs, pails, shipping
81131 containers.
322214
331513
332439
Metal Pipe and Foundry......... 331111 Plate, tube, rods, nails,
331513 etc.
33121
331221
331511
Rail Transportation............ 33651 Brakes, engines, freight
336611 cars, locomotives.
482111
Recreational Vehicles and Other 321991 Mobile Homes. Motorcycles,
Transportation Equipment. 3369 motor homes, semi trailers,
331316 truck trailers.
336991 Miscellaneous
336211 transportation related
336112 equipment and parts. Travel
336212 trailer and camper
336213 manufacturing.
336214
336399
336999
33635
56121
8111
56211

[[Page 52961]]

Rubber-to-Metal Products....... 326291 Engine mounts, rubberized
326299 tank tread, harmonic
balancers.
Structural Steel............... 332311 Joists, railway bridge
332312 sections, highway bridge
sections.
Waste Treatment, Disposal, and 562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment
Materials Recovery. 562212 and Disposal, Solid Waste
562213 Landfill, Solid Waste
562219 Combustors and
562920 Incinerators, Other
Nonhazardous Waste
Treatment and Disposal,
Materials Recovery.
Other Industrial and Commercial 211112 Natural Gas Liquid
Extraction.
311942 Spices and Extracts.
331311 Alumina Refining.
337214 Office furniture, except
811420 wood.
Reupholstery and Furniture
Repair.
325211 Plastics Material Synthetic
Resins, and Nonvulcanizable
Elastomers.
325510 Paint and Coating
Manufacturing.
32614, Plastic foam products (e.g.,
32615 pool floats, wrestling
mats, life jackets).
326199 Plastic products not
elsewhere classified (e.g.,
name plates, coin holders,
storage boxes, license
plate housings, cosmetic
caps, cup holders).
333313 Office machines.
33422 Radio and television
broadcasting and
communications equipment
(e.g., cellular
telephones).
339111, Medical equipment and
339112 supplies.
33992 Sporting and athletic goods.
33995 Signs and advertising
specialties.
336612 Boat building.
713930 Marinas, including boat
repair yards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
proposed rule. Many types of entities that perform stripping and/or
coating that are not listed in this table would be potentially affected
by the proposed rule. To determine whether your facility, company,
business, organization, etc., is subject to this action, you should
examine the applicability criteria in section 63.11170 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.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register proposal
publication date and reference page number(s)).
2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
provide substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the specified comment
period deadline.

II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What is the regulatory development background for the proposed
standards for paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operations?

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to develop
NESHAP for both major and area sources that are listed for regulation
under CAA section 112(c). As stated earlier, a major source is defined
in CAA section 112(a) as 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, considering controls, in the
aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any
combination of HAP. An area source is any stationary source that is not
a major source. Thus, area sources are those sources of HAP that do not
emit nor have the potential to emit HAP at or above the 10 or 25 tpy
thresholds.
CAA section 112(k)(3)(B) requires EPA to develop a list of at least
30 HAP which, as a result of area source emissions, pose the greatest
threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. We refer
to these HAP as the ``urban HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) of the CAA directs
EPA to identify source categories or subcategories of area

[[Page 52962]]

sources that represent 90 percent of the emissions of the urban HAP.
On July 19, 1999, EPA published its Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy, which included both the list of urban HAP and the initial
list of area source categories (64 FR 38706). The initial list of area
source categories included ``Paint Stripping Operations''. On June 26,
2002 and November 22, 2002, EPA added ``Autobody Refinishing Paint
Shops (67 FR 43112)'' and ``Plastic Parts and Products (Surface
Coating) (67 FR 70427)'', respectively, to the list of area source
categories. A primary goal of the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy
is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer incidence attributable
to HAP emitted from stationary sources in urban areas.
Sierra Club sued EPA, alleging a failure to complete standards for
the area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3)and
(k)(3)(B) within the timeframe specified by the statute. See Sierra
Club v. Johnson, No. 01-1537, (D.D.C.). On March 31, 2006, the court
issued an order requiring EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section
112(d) for those area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section
112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). Among other things, the order requires that,
by December 15, 2007, EPA complete standards for certain area source
categories.
In this action, EPA is proposing standards for the following area
source categories: Paint stripping, plastic parts and products (surface
coating), and autobody refinishing. In developing this proposed rule,
we fully analyzed these three listed source categories and found that
it is both reasonable and technically feasible to regulate emissions
from these three source categories by a single set of emission
standards. The processes, emission points, emission characteristics,
and emission controls for plastic parts and products surface coating
and autobody refinishing are very similar. Additionally, paint
stripping is often performed as part of the surface preparation for
both plastic parts and autobody refinishing which, by regulating within
the scope of a single set of standards, reduces the burden of complying
with multiple standards on the sources performing both the paint
stripping and subsequent coating. This single set of emission standards
that addresses all three categories also minimizes the cost of
developing, permitting, and enforcing the standards. For purposes of
this preamble and proposed rule, the term ``paint stripping and
miscellaneous surface coating'' is used to indicate that the three area
source categories of paint stripping, plastic parts and products
(surface coating), and autobody refinishing have been treated as a
single source category for purposes of developing this rule.
Early in the development of standards to implement EPA's Integrated
Urban Strategy, the States expressed concern over the burden and
resources that would be required for the States to take delegation for
the implementation of the area source rules listed as part of the
strategy. Specifically, States were concerned that implementing Federal
requirements, in lieu of established State programs, would be overly
burdensome with little or no additional emission reductions for certain
source categories. In these discussions, the States acknowledged the
provisions in CAA section 112(l) as a route for providing them this
reduction of burden and flexibility in accepting delegation of some of
the area source standards. Guidance on the provisions of CAA section
112(l) are presented in 40 CFR 63 Subpart E which provides certain
administrative (i.e., monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting)
criteria for an alternative program to be considered equivalent. This
guidance provides States with information regarding the necessary
components for their program to be considered equivalent. EPA believes
some States may have programs that address the emissions from the
surface coating of motor vehicles and mobile equipment that are at
least as effective as the proposed standards and encourages States to
consider utilizing these provisions in lieu of implementing the
proposed standards.
The EPA is seeking comment on (1) whether or not the States are
interested in utilizing the Section 112(l) alternative program
approach, and (2) what technical assistance the States may need to
develop equivalency determinations.

B. Where in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) will these standards
be codified?

The CFR is a codification of the general and permanent rules
published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments and
agencies of the Federal Government. The code is divided into 50 titles
that represent broad areas subject to Federal Regulation. When final,
these proposed standards will be published in Title 40, Protection of
the Environment, part 63, subpart HHHHHH: National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations.

C. What criteria are used in the development of these NESHAP?

CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to issue alternative emission
standards for area sources in lieu of the authorities provided in CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and 112(f). Specifically, section 112(d)(5), which
is entitled ``Alternative Standard for Area Sources,'' provides:

With respect only to categories and subcategories of area
sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the
Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph
(2) and subsection (f) of this section, elect to promulgate
standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories
or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available
control technologies or management practices by such sources to
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

Thus, CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to promulgate standards
under section 112(d)(5) that provide for the use of generally available
control technologies or management practices (GACT), instead of issuing
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does not set any condition
precedent for issuing standards under CAA section 112(d)(5) other than
that the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that
EPA listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3), which is the case in this
proposal.
When setting a GACT standard for an area source category as opposed
to a MACT standard, EPA must ensure that the GACT standard is
consistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(5) and have a
reasonable basis for its GACT determination. Thus, in developing
standards for area sources of HAP emissions, EPA evaluates the control
technologies and management practices that reduce HAP emissions that
are generally available for each area source category, and, in
determining GACT, may establish standards on either (or both) generally
available control technologies or (and) management practices that
reduce the emission of HAP. EPA's analysis supporting the proposed GACT
requirements is discussed in detail in section IV of this preamble.

D. What are the sources of emissions and the HAP for which these area
source categories were listed?

EPA listed the area source paint stripping category pursuant to CAA
section 112(c)(3) based on emissions of MeCl contained in paint
stripper formulations. The emissions of MeCl comes from evaporative
losses during the use or storage of MeCl. EPA listed

[[Page 52963]]

the area source miscellaneous coating operations category pursuant to
section 112(c)(3) based on emissions of cadmium, chromium, lead
compounds (lead), manganese and nickel compounds that are in the
coatings, as part of the pigment in topcoats or for the corrosion
protection in primers. For purposes of this proposal we will refer to
these HAP as the ``target HAP.''
The anticipated national impacts of these proposed standards is
summarized in section V of this preamble.

E. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants emitted
by paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operations?

Emissions data collected in the development of this proposed rule
shows that HAP emitted from paint stripping and miscellaneous surface
coating operations are associated with a variety of adverse health
effects. These adverse health effects include chronic health disorders
(e.g., central nervous system effects, blood disorders, cancer) and
acute health disorders (e.g., irritation of eyes, nose and throat, with
long-term impairment of lung function possible at high acute
exposures). The proposed rule protects air quality and promotes the
public health by reducing the emissions of the HAP for which the three
source categories at issue in this proposed rule were listed.

F. How has EPA regulated major sources in the same industrial sectors
(similar sources) and what has EPA learned about available control
technologies and management practices from regulating these major sources?

Major sources performing paint stripping and surface coating of
miscellaneous parts and/or products made of metal or plastic, or
combinations of metal and plastic; or motor vehicles and mobile
equipment (e.g., heavy duty-trucks, buses, construction equipment,
self-propelled vehicles and equipment that may be drawn and/or driven
on a roadway), were addressed in different surface coating NESHAP
requiring MACT level of control, of which the last NESHAP was
promulgated in 2004. Major sources must currently be in compliance with
those surface coating NESHAP.
Paint stripping was a separately listed major source category under
CAA section 112 (c)(1), however, during the data gathering phase EPA
determined that there were no major source paint stripping operations
conducted independent of surface coating. Therefore, all paint
stripping operations were covered in each surface coating NESHAP, as
part of the cleaning material used for surface preparation activities.
Each NESHAP assumed that the initial emission control technology would
be reduction of the usage of HAP cleaners or implementation of
management practices to reduce the evaporative losses from these
cleaning activities.
The data gathering for the major source categories revealed that
when the coatings are spray-applied, it was common practice to perform
application of the coatings within the confines of a spray booth to
minimize worker exposure. This limited the dispersion of the HAP to the
parts being coated as solids in the dry coating film, deposition onto
the walls, floor, and grates of the spray booths in which they are
applied, or some of the HAP particles would be entrained in the spray
booth exhaust air. We have learned, as part of the data gathering phase
of this area source proposal that although most, if not all, sources
are spray applying these coatings in a spray booth, not all of the
spray booths are capable of capturing and controlling the target HAP
(the HAP for which the area source categories at issue here were listed
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3).

III. Proposed NESHAP for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Coating
Operations at Area Sources

A. What are the affected area sources?

The sources that would be affected by the proposed standards are
area sources engaged in paint stripping using MeCl, and/or engaged in
coating of miscellaneous parts and/or products made of metal or
plastic, or combinations of metal and plastic, or autobody refinishing.
The proposed standards would not apply to any of these operations that
are specifically covered under another area source NESHAP (e.g., the
NESHAP for Defense Land Systems and Miscellaneous Equipment currently
under development). While these sources are not currently listed
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) or 112(k)(3)(b), we intend to list
them under these provisions of the act.

B. What are the HAP and primary sources of emissions for which these
source categories were listed?

Paint Stripping Operations
The primary source of emissions from paint stripping operations and
the HAP for which this source category was listed pursuant to CAA
section 112(c)(3) (the ``target HAP'') is the MeCl contained in paint
stripper formulations. The primary source of the MeCl emissions in this
source category comes from evaporative losses during the use or storage
of MeCl.
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
The primary sources of emissions from miscellaneous coating
operations are the metal pigments that are in the coatings and/or
refinish material. The target HAP for which these source categories
were listed are the heavy metals including cadmium, chromium, lead,
manganese and nickel compounds. The primary source of emissions of
these HAP are the spray application of the coatings and curing process.
The heavy metals are contained primarily in the coatings (e.g.,
primers and the pigments in topcoats) and include compounds of lead
(Pb), trivalent chromium (Cr-III), or hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI), plus
compounds of other metals that are considered HAP, such as cadmium,
manganese, and nickel. The metal HAP compounds are emitted as the
coatings are atomized during spray application. A substantial fraction
of coating that is atomized does not reach the part and becomes what is
termed ``overspray.'' The fraction that becomes overspray depends on
many variables, but two of the most important are the type of equipment
and the skill of the painter. Some overspray lands on surfaces of the
spray booth and the masking paper that is usually placed around the
surface being sprayed, but the rest of the overspray is drawn into the
spray booth exhaust system. If the spray booth has filters, most of the
overspray is captured by the filters; otherwise, it is exhausted to the
atmosphere.
After coating application, the spray gun must be cleaned to remove
the remaining coating before it cures and to prepare it for the next
coating job. Solvents used for equipment cleaning may contain the same
HAP as the coatings they remove. Spray guns are usually cleaned in a
device, commonly referred to as an enclosed spray gun washer, that
consists of a solvent reservoir and a covered enclosure that dispenses
solvent for gun cleaning. The enclosure may hold the gun for automated
gun cleaning. During gun cleaning, HAP from the cleaning solvent and
the coating may be emitted as the cleaning solvent is sprayed through
the gun during cleaning from the equipment that stores and dispenses
the cleaning solvent while it is opened.

C. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?

The area source requirements specified in the proposed rule would
apply to your source if your source (or

[[Page 52964]]

facility) is an area source that performs (1) paint stripping using
MeCl-containing chemicals or (2) surface coating using spray equipment.
The area source requirements specified in the proposed rule would
not apply if your paint stripping or surface coating operations meet
any of the following:
• Paint stripping or surface coating performed on-site at
installations owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the United
States (including the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such
State), or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because
these activities will be subject to the area source NESHAP for military
operations which is in development.
• Paint stripping or surface coating of military munitions
manufactured by or for the Armed Forces of the United States (including
the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such State) or equipment
directly and exclusively used for the purposes of transporting
munitions manufactured by or for the Armed Forces of the United States
(including the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such State)
because these activities will be subject to the area source NESHAP for
military operations which is in development.

D. What emissions control requirements is EPA proposing?

This section describes the proposed emissions control requirements
for paint stripping and miscellaneous coating operations. The basis for
these proposed requirements is discussed in section IV, below.
Paint Stripping Operations
All sources conducting paint stripping involving the use of MeCl
must implement management practice standards that reduce emissions of
MeCl by minimizing evaporative losses of MeCl.
In addition to the management practices, sources that use 150 gal
or more of paint stripper containing MeCl, per year would need to
develop and implement a MeCl minimization plan consisting of a written
plan with the criteria to evaluate the necessity of MeCl in the
stripping operations and management techniques to minimize MeCl
emissions when it is needed in the paint stripping operation.
The MeCl minimization plan evaluation criteria would involve only
using a MeCl-containing paint stripper when an alternative on-site
stripping method or material is incapable of accomplishing the work as
determined by the operator. Alternative methods to reduce MeCl usage
may include: (1) Non-MeCl-containing chemical strippers; (2) mechanical
stripping; (3) blasting (including dry or wet media); or (4) thermal
and cryogenic decomposition.
The management practices that would be required to be contained in
the plan include optimizing stripper application conditions, reducing
exposure of stripper to the air, and practicing proper storage and
disposal of materials containing MeCl. Sources would be required to
submit the plan either to EPA or to the delegated state permit
authority, keep a written copy of the plan on site and post a placard
or sign outlining the evaluation criteria and management techniques in
each area where MeCl-containing paint stripping operations occur.
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
All sources conducting surface coating operations involving spray-
applied coatings would need to apply the coatings with a high volume,
low pressure (HVLP) spray gun, electrostatic spray gun, or a gun
demonstrated to be equal in transfer efficiency to an HVLP spray gun.
All spray-applied coatings would need to be applied in a prep station
or spray booth, with a full roof and at least three complete walls or
complete side curtains, ventilated so that air is drawn into the booth.
The exhaust from the prep station or spray booth would need to be
fitted with fiberglass or polyester fiber filters or some other filter
technology demonstrated to achieve at least 98 percent capture
efficiency of paint overspray. As explained further below, we are
proposing that the combination of these technologies are GACT for the
miscellaneous surface coating operations.
Additionally, sources would be required to comply with the
management practices by demonstrating that (1) all painters that spray-
apply coatings are certified and (2) that all spray gun cleaning
performed by spraying HAP solvent through the gun is performed in an
enclosed spray gun cleaner or by cleaning the disassembled gun parts by
hand (i.e., spraying HAP solvent through a gun outside of a gun cleaner
would be prohibited). The painter would need to be certified as having
completed classroom and hands-on training in the proper selection,
mixing, and application of coatings. Refresher training would need to
be repeated at least once every 5 years. The initial and refresher
training would need to address the following topics:
• Surface preparation (prep).
• Spray gun set up and operation and spray technique for
different types of coatings to improve transfer efficiency and minimize
coating usage and overspray.
• Routine spray booth and filter maintenance.
• Paint mixing, matching, and applying.
• Resolving paint application problems.
• Finish defects causes and cures.
• Safety precautions.
• Environmental compliance.

E. What are the initial compliance requirements?

If your facility is a new source (one that began construction or
reconstruction after the date this rule is proposed) and you use MeCl
in your paint stripping operations or you spray apply coatings, you
would be required to comply with all of the requirements established in
this subpart as of the date of promulgation of the final rule or upon
startup, whichever is later.
If your facility is an existing source (one that began construction
or reconstruction before the date this rule is proposed), you would be
required to comply with the requirements no later than 2 years after
the date the final rule is published. In addition, each painter would
need to comply with the training requirements of the rule no later than
60 days after hiring. Painters would be allowed to use training that
was completed within 5 years prior to the date training is required to
meet this requirement. All painters would need to receive refresher
training and be re-certified every 5 years.
To demonstrate initial compliance for paint stripping operations,
you would need to:
• Certify that you have implemented a best management
practices plan, and
• If you are a source that uses 150 gal or more of paint
stripper containing MeCl, per year, certify that you have developed and
implemented a MeCl minimization plan consisting of a written plan with
the criteria to evaluate the necessity of MeCl in the stripping
operations and management techniques to minimize MeCl emissions when it
is needed in the paint stripping operation.
To demonstrate initial compliance for miscellaneous surface coating
operations, you would need to:
• Certify that all coatings are sprayed in booths or prep
stations that are fitted with filters.
• Certify that all spray guns are HVLP or an equivalent.
• Certify that all painters that apply coatings using a spray gun
have completed the training described in section III.D. of this preamble.

[[Page 52965]]

• Certify that all gun cleaning is performed in enclosed gun
cleaners or by hand.
After the compliance date for your source, you would have 120 days
if you are a new source, and 30 days if you are an existing source, to
submit a notification of compliance status to the EPA or a delegated
State or local air pollution control agency.
You would also be required to submit an initial notification to the
EPA or the delegated agency that you are subject to the standard. You
would have 120 days after startup or publication of the final rule
(whichever is later) to submit the initial notification if you are a
new source. If you are an existing source, you would have 1 year after
publication of the final rule to submit the initial notification.
If your facility is an existing source, you would be required to
comply with the requirements no later than 2 years after the date the
final rule is published. In addition, each painter would need to comply
with the training requirements of the rule no later than 60 days after
hiring. Painters would be allowed to use training that was completed
within 5 years prior to the date training is required to meet this
requirement. All painters would need to receive refresher training and
be re-certified every 5 years.

F. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

To demonstrate continuous compliance, you would need to continually
maintain the emission control requirements (i.e., management practices
and equipment requirements) that are described in section III.D. of
this preamble.

G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?

You would be required to submit an initial notification to the EPA
or the delegated agency that you are subject to the standard. If you
are a new source, you would have 120 days after startup or publication
of the final rule (whichever is later) to submit the initial
notification. If you are an existing source, you would have 1 year
after publication of the final rule to submit the initial notification.
After the compliance date for your source, you would have 120 days
if you are a new source and 30 days if you are an existing source to
submit a notification of compliance status to the EPA or a delegated
State or local air pollution control agency.
Paint Stripping Operations
For paint stripping operations, you would need to maintain records
demonstrating the following:
• Annual usage of MeCl in paint strippers is below 150 gallons (if
you are a source qualifying for the best management practices, only); or
• You have complied with the MeCl minimization plan.
If you are required to have a MeCl minimization plan, you would
also be required to submit annual compliance reports in which you
certify that the source is in compliance, or report the date, duration,
and description of any deviations from the MeCl minimization plan that
occurred and the corrective actions taken.
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
For miscellaneous coating operations, you would need to maintain
records demonstrating the following:
• All spray painters are trained and certified;
• Any spray booth filters or particulate controls that are
not fiberglass or polyester fiber filters achieve at least 98 percent
efficiency; and
• Any spray guns that do not meet the definition of HVLP or
electrostatic spray gun have been demonstrated to achieve comparable
transfer efficiency.
• Spray gun cleaning is being performed manually or in an
enclosed gun cleaner when solvent is being atomized through the gun as
part of the cleaning process.
You would also be required to submit annual compliance reports in
which you certify that the source is in compliance, or report the date,
duration, and description of any deviations from the specified control
requirements that occurred and the corrective actions taken.

IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. What area source categories are affected by this proposal?

As discussed above, this rulemaking covers facilities engaged in
MeCl paint stripping and spray applied surface coating of parts and/or
products made of metal or plastic, or combinations of metal and
plastic; and refinishing of motor vehicles and mobile equipment which
are a source of emissions of MeCl, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese
and nickel compounds which are the target HAP described above.

B. How did we select the affected source?

In selecting the affected source for emission standards, our
primary goal is to ensure that all emission points responsible for the
emissions of the target HAP (i.e., MeCl & the heavy metals) in each
listed source category are controlled as specified in CAA section
112(d)(5), described previously in Section II.C. The affected source
also serves to establish when new source standards should be applied.
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 part 63.2) and provide that new
source standards apply when construction or reconstruction of an
affected source occurs.
The affected source for this proposed rule is broadly defined to
include all operations associated with the removal of paint from a
substrate using MeCl and the spray application of coatings. These
operations include the use of MeCl-containing paint strippers by
immersion, brushing on, and/or spraying on to remove a coating to
change the color of the item or because the life of the coating has
been exceeded, or to remove paint for inspection purposes or during
repair; storage and mixing of coatings and other materials; surface
preparation; coating application and flash-off; drying and curing of
applied coatings; cleaning operations; and waste handling operations.
Each of the equipment items subject to regulation (e.g., containers
of paint or stripper, spray booths, spray guns, gun cleaners) is either
a relatively low cost item, or could be easily moved about inside a
paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operation, hence, for
this proposal, a broad definition of affected source that encompasses
the entire paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operation
was selected. This approach would subject the entire operation to the
same compliance date. Had we proposed a narrow definition for an
affected source, replacement or purchase of a single item could cause
that item to be considered a new source, resulting in different
compliance dates and additional reporting. Furthermore, for the most
part, new and existing affected sources are subject to the same
emission standards, so the same environmental benefit will be realized
regardless of whether the source is considered new or existing.
Defining the affected source narrowly could result in

[[Page 52966]]

a paint stripping or miscellaneous surface coating operation having
several affected sources that could be subject to different compliance
dates, but the same standards, imposing additional burdens on the
source without any environmental benefit.

C. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed standards
for new and existing sources?

As previously stated above, CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to
establish emission standards for area sources that provide for the use
of generally available control technologies or management practices
that reduce emissions of HAP (GACT). Determining what constitutes GACT
involves considering the control technologies and management practices
that are generally available to the area sources in the source
category. We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in
the same industrial sector to determine if the control technologies and
management practices are transferable and generally available to area
sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider
technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar
categories to determine whether such technologies and practices could
be considered generally available for the area source category at
issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT for a particular
area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of
available control technologies and management practices on that category.
We began the rule development process by identifying other
standards developed for these specific processes. As discussed in
section II.E., above, we evaluated the emission control technology at
major sources for the types of operations found in these area source
categories to determine whether or not they were reasonable, feasible,
and cost-effective for the area sources. Based on the findings of the
major source NESHAP data gathering, the technology considered to be
appropriate for the target HAP, and the availability of the technology,
we considered whether or not these same emission controls were
technically feasible and generally available for the area source categories.
Next, we met with industry associations and discussed their current
processes and the feasibility of adopting the emission control
technology specified as appropriate for the major sources. We learned
that, in fact, similar technology (i.e., spray booths, painter
training, HVLP guns, enclosed gun cleaners, and management practices to
reduce HAP usage) were already being employed at many of the area
sources. Therefore, it was determined that, given the availability and
cost-effectiveness of these emission control technologies, they
represent GACT for the targeted HAP from each source category (i.e.,
paint stripping, autobody refinishing, and plastic parts surface
coating). As previously stated, the target HAP emissions for which
these source categories were listed are MeCl from paint stripping
operations and cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese and nickel compounds
from the coatings operations. The resulting proposed GACT standards are
a combination of technology and management practices that control the
target HAP, and have a co-benefit of reducing other associated
emissions \1\ from these operations. The co-benefit is realized due to
the fact that the same technology applied to control the target HAP
emissions are also the best techniques for reducing some other
emissions associated with these operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The baseline emissions from the surface coating operations
are estimated to be about 38,000 tpy of HAP, including 12.4 tpy of
inorganic HAP (e.g.; Pb and Cr-VI compounds), 123,500 tpy of
criteria pollutants including 3,100 tpy of particulate matter (PM)
from paint overspray and 120,400 tpy of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) from coating and solvent evaporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the development of these proposed emission standards, EPA
visited numerous paint stripping and coating operations, collected data
from various databases, and compiled information received during
previous data collection activities. We also met with facility owners
and other representatives of these industries. These site visits, data
review and contacts with industry provided the technical basis for the
proposed standards and are included in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
Paint Stripping
MeCl is the most common solvent and the target HAP for this source
category. Since MeCl is the target HAP, our analysis in determining
GACT began with understanding alternative stripping technologies and
best management practices to minimize MeCl emissions at existing major
and area sources. In selecting GACT for affected area sources that
perform paint stripping operations, we determined that best management
practices to minimize evaporative losses (fugitive emissions) from MeCl
in paint stripper formulations was not only a practice that many in the
industry use, but also was generally cost effective for all sources in
this category.
As part of the GACT analysis, we considered whether there were
differences in processes, sizes, or other factors affecting emissions,
control technologies or management practices that would warrant
subcategorization. Under CAA section 112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ``may
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within a source category or
subcategory in establishing such standard.'' In looking to other means
by which MeCl emissions could be reduced from these operations, we did
recognize that some sources utilized alternative stripping technologies
(e.g., blasting) to accomplish much of their work. These sources,
distinguishable from the rest of the category by having other available
on site methods to strip paint not involving MeCl, could reasonably
route work away from paint stripping operations that involved MeCl as a
means of control. Pursuant to section 112(d)(1), we have subcategorized
these sources with alternative stripping methods by class. As mentioned
earlier, these different paint stripping methods include (1) non-MeCl--
containing chemical strippers; (2) mechanical stripping; (3) blasting
(including dry or wet media); and (4) thermal or cryogenic
decomposition. We also recognized that this subcategory represented the
30 percent (approximately) of the source category with the highest MeCl
emissions. We determined that sources that used 150 gallons or more per
year of paint stripper containing MeCl was the best approximation
criteria for defining this subcategory for three reasons.
First, based on our findings from: (1) A study of paint stripping
facilities (referenced in a Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (Environmental Defense Fund) document entitled ``Source
Reduction and Recycling of Halogenated Solvents in Paint Stripping--
Technical Support Document''), (2) our understanding of the affected
facilities, and (3) our analysis of the model plants, for facilities
using 150 gallons of MeCl or more per year, we believe it is reasonable
to expect cost savings from the process of routing work away from paint
stripping operations involving MeCl to other means of stripping. The
study of paint stripping facilities highlighted to us that a good
portion of paint stripping at these facilities (as high as 90 percent
at one facility) was not really necessary. In being conservative, we
believe that 5 percent of paint stripping is not necessary. An example
of paint stripping that may be found as not necessary includes the

[[Page 52967]]

refinishing of personal oxygen gas cylinder surfaces (that often
automatically get stripped of paint for cosmetic purposes during
recycling) when they actually need no refinishing for serviceability.
In addition, we believe that there is a slight cost savings associated
with routing work away from paint stripping involving MeCl to a media
blasting technique, when the media involved is recycled. Second, our
analysis of model plants suggested that most facilities using 150
gallons of MeCl or more per year had other methods of stripping
available on site (e.g., blasting or thermal) to which work could be
easily routed. Finally, we recognized that the 150 gallon threshold
reasonably coincides with exposure levels at which Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements (29 CFR 1910.123-
1910.126) are to be implemented. OSHA provided specific dip tank size
criteria to characterize which size tanks must follow specific worker
safety requirements. We calculated, based on the sizes provided by
OSHA, the volume of stripper that the minimum tank would hold and used
this volume for our size criteria. For these reasons we are proposing
that facilities using 150 gallons of MeCl or more per year must, in
addition to the best management practices to minimize evaporative losses,
develop and implement the MeCl minimization plan mentioned earlier.
We recognize that given the wide range of paint stripping
operations and techniques, there is no single substitute that could
completely eliminate the need for MeCl-containing paint strippers,
particularly on confined and hard to reach surfaces where other methods
tend not to remove paint as well. We do, however, believe that given
the existing management practices currently exercised by much of this
industry, it is not unreasonable to incorporate management practices
that minimize or eliminate MeCl emissions from many of the applications
where MeCl-containing paint strippers are used. Therefore, we are
proposing standards that require operators to employ management
practices to reduce the emissions of MeCl through alternative paint
stripping techniques when possible, and, for sources that use 150
gallons of MeCl or more per year to develop and implement a minimization
plan to reduce MeCl-containing paint stripper use when it is not needed.
Miscellaneous Surface Coating
The emissions from these operations come primarily from the spray
application of coatings. Although most of the HAP are deposited as part
of the paint film, some of the HAP becomes airborne in the paint
overspray. The volume of coating deposited as part of the paint film as
a fraction of the volume of paint sprayed is referred to as the
transfer efficiency (i.e., 60 percent of the coating sprayed is
deposited as paint film then the transfer efficiency is 60 percent).
Our analysis of operations that involve the spray application of
coatings has determined that GACT for these coating operations is a
combination of: (1) Confining all spray coating operations to a spray
booth or equivalent ventilated and filtered enclosure, (2) using only
spray equipment that is designed to achieve a high rate of transfer
efficiency (HVLP or equivalent spray technology), and (3) having the
spray equipment operator trained and certified in the techniques needed
to properly set up and operate high transfer efficiency spray equipment
in order to optimize the transfer efficiency.
Based on the site visits, data review, and contacts with industry,
for which documentation is provided in the public docket for this
rulemaking, we have determined that the standard practice among the
majority of facilities in the miscellaneous surface coating industry is
to perform nearly all spray painting inside a spray booth or ventilated
prep station enclosed by curtains. The only exceptions are priming
small areas, or performing spot repairs with an air brush. At many
facilities, all spray painting is performed in a spray booth or
ventilated prep station to reduce contaminants that would compromise
the final finish and to maintain a clean work area. In addition, it is
standard practice to filter the exhaust from the booth or prep station
to capture paint overspray so that it is not deposited on ventilation
equipment or surrounding property. Therefore, based on the availability
and cost-effectiveness, we have determined that a filtered spray booth
or prep station is GACT for all miscellaneous surface coating
operations to control HAP emissions. The proposed standards would
require all spray painting that is not done with an airbrush or hand-
held non-refillable aerosol cans to be done in a filtered spray booth
or prep station. We also conclude that the above proposed control
requirements can be achieved without additional burden to affected
sources because filtered spray booths or prep stations are already
required in order to comply with OSHA standards for spray finishing
operations (29 CFR 1910.94(c)).
At the majority of facilities that were visited, the spray booths
were fitted with either fiberglass or polyester fiber filters on the
spray booth and prep station exhaust. One facility had a water-wash
spray booth filter and another had expanded polystyrene foam baffle
filters. An EPA study entitled ``Comparative Study of Spray Booth
Filter System Efficiency'', which is provided in the public docket for
this rulemaking, determined that fiberglass and polyester fiber filters
had superior performance, relative to other filter types, such as
polystyrene foam and cardboard baffle filters, in controlling the heavy
metals found in paint overspray and which are the target HAP for these
source categories. Therefore, based on our findings during the site
visits, information provided by the industry on the most commonly used
filters, and the EPA study on filter effectiveness and the cost-
effectiveness we have determined that these fiberglass and polyester
fiber filters represent GACT for controlling the heavy metals present
in paint overspray.
The proposed rule would allow for the use of other types of paint
overspray filters, but they would be required to achieve 98-percent
filter efficiency. This alternative was included since the EPA did not
test all types of filters used in spray booths; therefore the market
may already provide for filters that are as equally efficient which
were not available or not tested in the EPA study, but nevertheless
representative of GACT. The EPA study on filter effectiveness and
filter efficiency data provided by filter vendors formed the basis for
the 98-percent filter efficiency The limit represents a performance
level that separates the fiberglass and polyester fiber filters from
baffle type filters. The baffle type filters were shown in the EPA
study to have poor performance in controlling fine particulate that can
contain heavy metals.
The proposed standards would not prohibit the use of coatings that
contain the heavy metals or target HAP for these source categories.
Although California has prohibited the use of automotive refinish
coatings that contain Cr-VI and cadmium (Cd), a nationwide prohibition
would impose unreasonable burden on the industry, and could force
facilities out of business due to a lack of alternative materials that
could address the performance criteria (e.g., corrosion protection)
that may be used in all environments across the United States. The
proposed standards would specifically require spray equipment that is
designed to achieve a high rate of transfer efficiency (HVLP or equivalent
spray technology) in order to reduce the overall amount of coating

[[Page 52968]]

required to complete each coating job. Reducing the amount of coating
required for each job directly correlates to significant reductions in
the overall emissions from these coating operations. Conventional high-
pressure air-atomized spray guns have a typical transfer efficiency of
about 30 percent. That means that for every gallon of coating sprayed,
only 0.30 gallon reaches the part being coated. The remaining 0.70
gallon misses the part and either lands on the booth walls and floor or
is pulled into the spray booth filters and exhaust system. To get one
gallon on the part, a conventional spray gun needs to use 3\1/3\
gallons of coating. HVLP and other types of high-efficiency spray guns
use lower air pressures and achieve transfer efficiencies of about 50
percent, or greater, with appropriate operator training. To get one
gallon on the part, a high efficiency spray gun needs to use only 2
gallons of coating. This increased transfer efficiency represents a 40
percent decrease in coating consumption and in resultant emissions
compared to conventional spray guns. For these reasons, many surface
coating operations have already switched to HVLP and other types of
high efficiency spray guns.
All of the autobody refinishing facilities visited by EPA and about
80 percent of the other miscellaneous surface coating facilities for
which EPA has data used HVLP or equivalent spray guns for coating
application. About half these sources were not required to do so by
regulations and have switched in order to reduce coating costs through
reduced consumption. Regulations for autobody refinishing in 10 States
require the use of HVLP spray guns or their equivalent statewide, and
they are required in ozone non-attainment areas in 12 States without a
statewide requirement. Given the cost-effectiveness and the use of HVLP
or equivalent spray guns has been adopted at the facilities visited by
EPA and is required in many States and ozone non-attainment areas, we
have determined that these types of spray guns are GACT for spray-
applied coatings.
The purpose of requiring the spray equipment operator to be trained
and certified is to ensure that the operator is skilled in the
techniques needed to achieve a high rate of transfer efficiency. We
have concluded, based on the findings of the Spray Technique Analysis
and Research (STAR®) program study presented in the following
paragraph, and included in the public docket for this rulemaking, that
even when spray operations are confined within a spray booth and
appropriate spray technology is used, they are not as effective if the
painter is not properly trained. We therefore have determined that GACT
requires implementation of the above requirements by a trained painter.
The training would include measures intended to increase transfer
efficiency and reduce overspray and coating usage. Most, if not all of
the measures are currently offered in training provided by coating
manufacturers on an annual basis. In addition to manufacturer-sponsored
training, the STAR® program, which originated at the University
of Northern Iowa Waste Reduction Center, has now been adopted at 37
locations (primarily community colleges) throughout the United States.
Coating manufacturers currently provide this training to their clients
as part of the service benefits of contracting with them and as a
component in the warranty agreement. Data from the STAR® program
demonstrate that spray operator training can increase transfer
efficiency for those using high efficiency spray equipment from an
average of about 50 percent to 60 percent, or more, representing a 20
percent reduction in coating usage compared to untrained operators.
This 20 percent reduction in coating usage would translate into a 20
percent reduction in emissions of organic HAP that are contained in
those coatings. It would also reduce emissions of the heavy metals that
are in the coatings.
It is important to note that these ``untrained'' operators are not
inexperienced painters. They often have many years of experience before
they enter these training programs. However, they have not been
specifically trained in how to best set up and operate high efficiency
spray equipment and to optimize their technique to maximize transfer
efficiency and minimize coating consumption.
About 3,500 painters have already completed STAR® training
and at least one company operating multiple collision repair shops has
established a STAR®-based in-house training program. Since many
painters already attend regular training sponsored by coating companies
and trade organizations, we determined that the specified painter training,
or a comparable training program, is GACT for these source categories.
Our analysis has determined that the proper training and
certification for spray coating operators should be comparable to
existing programs such as those offered by The Inter-Industry
Conference on Auto Collision Repair (I-CAR) and the STAR®-based
programs offered in various states. The essential elements of training
and certification, for the purposes of achieving compliance with the
requirements of the proposed standard, should at a minimum, train,
examine and certify each spray equipment operator in the proper
techniques in: (1) Coating material handling, including spills and
clean up, (2) substrate preparations that minimize over spray, (3)
proper equipment selection and set-up to optimize transfer efficiency,
(4) coating application and spray technique that minimizes over spray,
(5) spray equipment cleaning and maintenance, and (6) operating and
maintaining a spray booth.
However, EPA does not believe that I-CAR and STAR® are the
only programs that contain these essential elements for operator
instruction and certification in the skills needed to achieve a high
rate of transfer efficiency with proper equipment. The proposed rule
does not limit training and certification to only these two programs,
since the critical elements are the training components. We are open to
and request comment regarding viable training and certification
alternatives that are available to spray coating operators that should
be considered that would achieve the same or comparable results. These
alternatives could include, but not be limited to, state, community
college, or industry sponsored training and certification programs,
either on the job or through classroom, hands-on, or on-line instruction.
The proposed rule would require that all spray gun cleaning be done
in enclosed spray gun cleaners, or the disassembled spray gun could be
cleaned by hand without the benefit of atomization. Spraying of
cleaning solvent through spray guns outside of an enclosed gun washer
would be prohibited. All of the facilities visited by EPA had enclosed
gun washers and other contacts with industry members indicate that this
is standard practice among well-controlled facilities. Therefore, we
have determined that an enclosed spray gun cleaner or hand cleaning is
GACT for these source categories to reduce emissions from spray gun
cleaning. We believe the measures in the proposed rule would effectively
control emissions of the target HAP for these sources categories.

D. How did we select the format of the proposed standards?

The proposed standards are in the form of management practice
standards and equipment standards. These include reducing the need for
MeCl-containing paint strippers, painter training and the use of
filtered booths or prep stations, HVLP spray guns, and

[[Page 52969]]

enclosed spray gun cleaners. This format was selected since these
standards are the most universally applicable and effective for these
source categories, they reflect the types of controls that are already
in place at well-controlled facilities, and they would have the minimum
burden for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting compared to other
formats. Facilities applying coatings can use filters other than the
specified types if the filters are demonstrated to achieve 98 percent
filter efficiency. They may also use spray guns other than HVLP spray
guns if the manufacturer has demonstrated to the EPA that they are
equivalent in transfer efficiency.
The proposed standards do not include numerical emission limits.
After considerable review of industry-supplied data for paint stripping
and coatings, and consultation with the industry, we have determined
that numerical emission limits are not feasible given the variability
in the operational parameters (e.g., substrate (i.e., metal, plastic or
wood), performance specifications, production rate, etc.) and the
variety of work being performed, as many of the sources in these source
categories are job shops. Given this variability for these sources EPA
believes it is important to provide the greatest flexibility for these
sources without compromising emission reductions.

E. How did we select the initial compliance and testing requirements?

The proposed rule includes the minimum requirements needed to
demonstrate initial compliance. You would demonstrate initial
compliance by implementing all of the requirements in the proposed rule
by the dates specified in the rule, and certifying in the initial
compliance notification that your source is in compliance.
This proposed rule is comprised of management practices and
equipment requirements, of which sources have the option of
substituting the specified equipment with alternative equipment that
would achieve equivalent or better emissions reductions than that
specified, provided they obtain approval from the Administrator as
required in section 63.11173(e) of the proposed rule. However, test
methods are needed in order to demonstrate equivalent performance of
alternative equipment. For this reason, the proposed rule includes
separate testing methods that would need to be followed to measure
paint overspray filter efficiency when a source does not use fiberglass
or polyester fiber filters, and to demonstrate that a paint spray gun
is equivalent to an HVLP spray gun in transfer efficiency. The proposed
methods represent those methods that are already in use to measure
filter efficiency and equivalency to HVLP spray guns based on transfer
efficiency. It is expected that the filter or spray gun supplier would
complete these measurements and provide copies of the results to the
purchaser so they could document compliance. We do not expect the owner
of the surface coating operation to perform the measurements.

F. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?

The proposed rule includes the minimum requirements needed to
demonstrate continuous compliance. You would demonstrate continuous
compliance by ensuring that you follow the prescribed best management
practices for paint stripping operations. Further, if you use more than
150 gal per year of paint stripper containing MeCl, you must
demonstrate compliance by implementing and following your MeCl
Minimization Plan. For surface coating operations you would ensure that
all painters maintain their training and certification, all spray-
applied coating is done in a filtered spray booth or prep station, the
filters are of the proper type or efficiency, all spray guns are HVLP
or equivalent, and all gun cleaning is done in an enclosed spray gun
cleaner or by hand. You would also need to maintain records that all
painters are trained and certified, and that filters and spray guns
meet the specifications for filter efficiency and transfer efficiency,
respectively, if needed.

G. How did we select the compliance date?

You would be allowed 2 years to comply with the proposed standards
if your operation is an existing source. We believe that 2 years is
needed to allow adequate time for existing sources to ensure that all
additional equipment, if needed, is purchased and installed and to
provide sufficient time for painters employed by the 36,000 sources to
receive the training that would be required by the proposed rule.

H. How did we decide to exempt these area source categories from the
CAA title V permit requirements?

Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section
502(a). In December 2005, EPA interpreted the term ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a four-factor balancing
test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a
particular area source category, such that an exemption from title V is
appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements,
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed
for an area source category (see 70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (see
70 FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (see 70
FR 75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the
NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title V permits
(see 70 FR 75326).
In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained
that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or
more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section
502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in the Exemption Rule, we
explained that not all of the four factors must weigh in favor of
exemption for EPA to determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome
for a particular area source category. Instead, the factors are to be
considered in combination and EPA determines whether the factors, taken
together, support an exemption from title V for a particular source
category.
In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether
exempting the area

[[Page 52970]]

source category would adversely affect public health, welfare or the
environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25, 2005. As discussed below,
we have determined that the exemptions from title V would not adversely
affect public health, welfare and the environment.
In considering the exemption from title V requirements for sources
in the categories affected by this proposed rule, we first compared the
title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements (factor
one) to the requirements in this proposal and determined that the
management practices currently used at most facilities is GACT and the
rule requires recordkeeping that serves as monitoring and deviation
reporting to ensure compliance. Because the proposal would require
management practices for certain processes and requires recordkeeping
designed to serve as monitoring and that recordkeeping assures
compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule, additional
monitoring requirements that might be added under title V would be
unnecessary to assure compliance. Monitoring other than recordkeeping
is not practical or appropriate in either case because the requirements
are management practices. Records are required to ensure that the
management practices are followed, including such records as the amount
of MeCl use in paint stripping or the training certification for spray
gun operators.
As part of the first factor, we also considered the extent to which
title V could potentially enhance compliance for area sources covered
by this proposed rule through recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
For any affected area source facility, the proposed rule would require
an initial notification, a compliance status report, and report of
deviations. We considered the various title V recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, including requirements for a 6-month monitoring
report, deviation reports, and an annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6
and 71.6.
The proposed rule would also require affected facilities to certify
compliance with the management practices identified as GACT. In
addition, facilities must maintain records showing compliance with the
required management practices and deviations. The information required
in the deviation reports and records is similar to the information that
must be provided in the deviation reports required under 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge that title V might
impose additional compliance requirements on this category, but, we
conclude that the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
of this proposed rule are sufficient to ensure compliance with the
proposed standards, and title V would not significantly improve those
compliance requirements.
Under the second factor, we determine whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in these
categories and whether that burden would be aggravated by any
difficulty the source may have in obtaining assistance from the
permitting agency. Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes
certain burdens and costs that do not exist outside of the title V
program. The EPA estimated that the average cost of obtaining and
complying with a title V permit was $38,500 per source for a 5-year
permit period, including fees. See Information Collection Request for
Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number
1587.05. While EPA does not have specific information for the burdens
and costs of permitting for either paint stripping or miscellaneous
surface coating area sources; there are inherent activities associated
with the part 70 and 71 rules that are mandatory and impose burdens on
every affected source. These activities include: Reading and
understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and
understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up questions
from permitting authorities after the application is submitted;
reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing
and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis;
preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the
State, which may include a combination of written, verbal, and other
communications methods; collecting information, preparing, and
submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications
for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and
submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not
required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual
services of professional scientists and engineers (consultants) to help
them understand and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR
for part 70 provides additional information on the overall burdens and
costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here.
For a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70
sources (and hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
In assessing the second factor for facilities affected by this
proposal, we found that nearly all of approximately 3,000 paint
stripping and 36,000 miscellaneous surface coating facilities are small
businesses, some having as few as one or two employees. These small
sources lack the technical resources needed to independently comply
with permitting requirements and the financial resources needed to hire
the necessary staff or outside consultants. Given that title V
permitting would impose significant economic and non-economic costs on
nearly all of these area sources, we conclude that title V is a
significant burden for sources in these categories. Furthermore, given
the large number of sources in these categories and relative small
facility size, it would likely be difficult for each to obtain
independent assistance from their respective permitting authorities.
We, thus, conclude that factor two strongly supports title V exemptions
for facilities in these area source categories.
The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. We explained under the second factor
(above) that the economic and non-economic costs of compliance with
title V would impose a significant burden on nearly all of the
approximately 3,000 paint stripping and 36,000 miscellaneous surface
coating facilities. We also concluded in considering the first factor
that, while title V might impose additional requirements, that the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP
assure compliance with the management practices imposed in the NESHAP.
In addition, below in our consideration of the fourth factor we find
that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in
place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both
economic and non-economic, of compliance with title V are high, and the
potential for gains in compliance are low, title V permitting is not
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor
supports title V exemptions for these area source categories.
Finally, in determining if title V requirements were unnecessarily
burdensome, we considered whether there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with the

[[Page 52971]]

NESHAP without relying on title V permits (factor four). In doing so,
we considered whether there are sufficient State programs in place to
enforce these proposed area source standards, and we believe that there
are sufficient State programs to assure compliance with these proposed
area source standards. In addition, we recognize that EPA retains
authority to enforce these NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113
and 114. We concluded that title V permitting is ``unnecessary'' to
assure compliance with these proposed standards because the statutory
requirements for implementation and enforcement of these proposed
standards by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to assure
compliance, in all parts of the United States, without title V permits.
States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach,
and education programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not
required by statute. We determined that these additional programs will
supplement and enhance the success of compliance with these proposed
standards and conclude that, in light of all of the above, there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with these proposed standards without relying on
title V permitting.
In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source standards that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
standards. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we did not
have similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the
Exemption rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less
diligent in enforcing these proposed standards. See 70 FR 75326. In
fact, States must have adequate programs to enforce the HAP regulations
and provide assurances that it will enforce all NESHAP, including area
source standards, before EPA will delegate the program. See 40 CFR part
63, subpart E.
In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are
implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to
assure compliance with these proposed standards without relying on
title V permitting.
Balancing the four factors for these area source categories
strongly supports that title V is unnecessarily burdensome. While title
V might add additional compliance requirements if imposed, we concluded
that there would not be significant improvements to the compliance
requirements in this proposed rule, because the proposed rule
requirements are specifically designed to assure compliance with the
management and equipment practices imposed on these area source
categories. We also concluded that the economic and non-economic costs
of compliance with title V, in conjunction with the likely difficulty
this large number of small sources would have obtaining assistance from
the permitting authority, would impose a significant burden on these
area sources. We determined that the high relative costs would not be
justified given that there was likely to be little or no potential gain
in compliance likely to occur if title V were required, and that there
are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure
compliance with these proposed standards. Thus, we conclude that title
V permitting would be ``unnecessarily burdensome'' for these area
source categories.
In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA also considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting these area source categories from title V
requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment. Exemption of these area source categories from title V
requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment because the level of control would remain the same if a
permit were required. The title V permit program does not impose new
substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead
requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly
with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As
stated in our consideration of factor one for these categories, title V
would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance
requirements applicable to existing or new area sources.
Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve
understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve
compliance with the requirements. In these cases, however, placing all
requirements for the source in a title V permit would do little to
clarify the requirements applicable to each source or assist it in
compliance with the proposed rule requirements, because of the
simplicity of the source and the proposed standards, and the likelihood
that these sources are not subject to other regulatory requirements
under the CAA. We have no reason to think that new sources would be
substantially different from the existing sources in these categories.
In addition, we explained in the Exemption Rule that requiring permits
for the large number of area sources could, at least in the first few
years of implementation, potentially adversely affect public health,
welfare, or the environment by shifting State agency resources away
from assuring compliance for major sources with existing permits to
issuing new permits for these area sources, potentially reducing
overall air program effectiveness. For this proposed rule, we conclude
that title V exemptions for these area sources will not adversely
affect public health, welfare, or the environment for all of the
reasons explained above.
For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing to exempt these source
categories from title V permitting requirements.

V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards

The EPA estimates that about 39,000 establishments perform paint
stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operations. We estimate
that about 3,000 of these establishments are paint stripping facilities
and 36,000 establishments are surface coating operations. The majority
of these surface coating establishments (about 35,000) are involved in
motor vehicle and mobile equipment refinishing, and employ about
263,000 people, of which about one-third are painters.

A. What are the air impacts?

Paint Stripping Operations
The baseline MeCl emissions from paint stripping operations are
estimated to be 3,800 tpy. Around 500 tpy is estimated to be emitted
from the approximately 2,000 facilities that use less than 150 gal of
paint stripper containing MeCl, per year (which approximately equals
MeCl emissions of 1,000 pounds per year based on typical stripper
formulations). The remaining 3,300 tpy is estimated to be emitted by
the approximately 1,000 paint strippers that use more than 150 gallons
of MeCl stripper and who would be required to develop a MeCl
minimization plan.

[[Page 52972]]

Miscellaneous Coating Operations
The baseline emissions from the surface coating operations are
estimated to be about 38,000 tpy of HAP, including 12.4 tpy of
inorganic HAP (e.g. Pb and Cr-VI compounds). In addition to the HAP,
baseline emissions of criteria pollutants are estimated to be 3,100 tpy
of particulate matter (PM) from paint overspray and 120,400 tpy of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) from coating and solvent evaporation.
Implementation of the proposed standards would achieve a reduction
of 6,900 tpy of HAP from surface coating operations, including about
11.4 tpy of inorganic HAP. In addition to the HAP, we estimate PM
reductions of about 2,900 tpy and VOC reductions of about 20,900 tpy.
These reductions would occur as a result of reduced use of HAP-
containing solvents and coatings, increased use of filtered spray
booths to capture overspray, increased spray painter training and use
of HVLP or equivalent guns to improve transfer efficiency and to reduce
coating overspray and paint consumption, and increased use of enclosed
spray gun washers. Additional detail on these calculations are included
in the public docket for this rulemaking.

B. What are the cost impacts?

Paint Stripping Operations
We estimate that the proposed standards for paint stripping
operations will result in an initial cost of around $1,500,000 and a
net savings in annual costs. This includes an estimated initial cost of
$490,000 and annual costs of $80,000 for the nearly 2,000 paint
strippers whose annual usage of paint stripper containing MeCl is below
150 gallons. Initial costs for the approximately 1,000 paint strippers
who use more than 150 gallons per year, who would be required to
develop MeCl minimization plans are estimated to be just over $1
million. The annual costs for those plants are estimated to be a net
savings of $920,000.
For the nearly 2,000 paint strippers whose annual usage of MeCl in
paint strippers is below 1,000 lb, or whose annual usage of paint
stripper containing MeCl is below 150 gallons, evaluation of improved
methods to reduce the emissions of MeCl from evaporative losses
comprise most of the costs.
The costs for the approximately 1,000 paint strippers who are
required to develop MeCl minimization plans are attributable to the
development and implementation of the MeCl minimization plan. Annual
costs will include an estimated $400,000 for the development and
implementation of the MeCl minimization plan and reporting requirements
and an estimated $450,000 associated with switching paint stripping
technologies. Annual savings resulting from the implementation of the
MeCl minimization plan include an estimated $420,000 from the
elimination of unnecessary stripping operations and $1,320,000 in
management practice savings from the reduced use of MeCl-containing
strippers. For reasons set out earlier in this preamble, we believe
that 5 percent of paint stripping in the private sector is not
necessary and specifically request comment as to whether or not 5
percent is an appropriate figure to use. Additional detail on these
calculations are included in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
We estimate that the proposed standards for surface coating
operations will have no net annual cost to surface coating operations.
The initial cost of complying with the proposed standards would be off-
set and recovered over time by cost savings as a result of more
efficient use of labor and materials by surface coating operations. The
initial costs for surface coating operations are for purchase improved
spray booth filters, automated enclosed gun washers, HVLP spray guns,
and painter training, if needed to comply with the proposed standards.
Spray finishing operations are already required by OSHA standards
to perform spray painting in a spray booth or similar enclosure.
However, the proposed standards specify that certain types of filters
have to be used on the spray booth exhaust to minimize HAP emissions,
and these filters are not addressed by OSHA standards. Some surface
coating sources may need to replace their current filters for ones with
higher paint overspray capture efficiency, but the higher efficiency
filters are readily available and will not result in an additional cost.
We estimate that about 5,000 facilities would need to purchase and
install an enclosed spray gun washer. The total capital cost for each
source that would need to install a gun washer was estimated to be
approximately $1,800. This cost is the same for new and existing
sources. The total capital cost for all 5,000 sources that would be
required to purchase a spray gun washer was estimated to be $9.0 million.
The EPA estimates that sources that would need to purchase a spray
gun washer would have no net annualized capital costs or operating
costs. We estimate the annual costs would be offset from reduced labor
to clean spray guns and reduced costs for cleaning solvent purchase and
disposal. Spray gun washers are automated so that after loading the
spray gun in the washer, the painters can perform other tasks while the
spray guns are being cleaned. Automated spray gun washers are also
capable of re-using solvent for gun cleaning to minimize solvent
consumption and waste disposal. Finally, small surface coating
facilities that do not currently have an automated gun washer can still
comply with the proposed standards by cleaning guns by hand as long as
they do not atomize cleaning solvent from the gun and they collect
spent solvent in a container that is closed when not in use.
The estimated cost for training is $1,000 per painter, which covers
tuition cost and labor cost for 16 hours of training time. Based on the
United States census data collected to estimate new sources for this
source category the number of refinishing shops in the United States
remain constant (i.e., for every new shop, a shop closes) and it is
expected that this trend will continue in the future. This reflects on
the number of new painters that would need training. We assumed that
training certification would be valid for 5 years, so about one-fifth
of painters (20 percent) would receive training every year. We estimate
that about 18,000 painters would be trained per year at an annual cost
of $18 million per year.
However, EPA believes that these training costs could be over-
stated for at least two reasons. First, many facilities already send
their painters to training sponsored by paint companies and trade
organizations. Paint companies sponsor painter training so that the
paint company can reduce warranty claims on their paint products. These
training courses already cover much of the same material required by
the proposed rule. Therefore, the rule would not impose new training
costs on these facilities that already participate in training.
Second, the estimated training cost could be offset by reduced
coating costs if the training results in reduced coating consumption.
Data from the STAR® training programs indicate that painters who
complete this training can decrease the amount of coating sprayed by
about 20 percent per job. We estimate that if a typical facility
reduced their coating consumption and costs by about 4 percent per
year, the cost savings would equalize the increased cost of training
after one year, and there would be no net cost in training. To recover
the cost of training over 5 years, a typical facility would need to
reduce their coating consumption by slightly less than 1 percent. As
previously mentioned, EPA

[[Page 52973]]

believes the costs associated with training are over-stated; however,
we specifically request comment on whether or not these assumptions are
accurate.
In summary, EPA estimates that the proposed requirements for
surface coating operations would not result in any net increase in
annual costs from the control requirements for surface coating
operations. We estimated that the annual cost for recordkeeping and
reporting for surface coating operations would be $7.8 million for
about 36,000 surface coating operations, or an average of about $220
per facility. Cost estimates are based on the information available to
the Administrator and presented in the economic analysis of this rule.
Additional detail is included in the public docket for this rulemaking.

C. What are the economic impacts?

The economic impact analysis focuses on changes in market prices
and output levels. A more detailed discussion of the economic impacts
is presented in the economic impact analysis memorandum that is
included in the docket.
Both the magnitude of control costs needed to comply with the rule
and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have
a role in determining how the market prices and quantities will change
in response to the rule. In this case, we have so many facilities that
model facilities must be used in the cost analysis. The cost analysis
estimates that there will be no net increase in annual costs from the
control requirements from the proposed regulation for surface coating
operations. The record keeping and reporting costs are estimated to
range from $76 to $95 per facility per year.
These costs are too small to have any significant market impact.
Whether the costs are absorbed by the affected facilities or passed on
to the purchaser in the form of higher prices, the impacts would be
quite small.
The cost analysis estimates that there will be a net cost savings
from the control requirements, recordkeeping, and reporting from the
proposed regulation for paint stripping for all but the smallest model
plant. The cost for the smallest model plant is estimated to be $11 a year.
Again, these costs are too small to have any significant market
impact. Whether the costs are absorbed by the affected facilities or
passed on to the purchaser in the form of higher prices, the impacts
would be quite small.
While most of these facilities are small, the very small costs are
not expected to be even a tenth of a percent of revenues. Thus a
significant impact is not expected for a substantial number of small
entities.

D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts?

Paint Stripping Operations
We estimate that there will be a reduction in non-air health and
environmental impacts resulting from the paint stripping area source
NESHAP. Reduced usage of MeCl-containing chemical strippers will result
in reduction in waste water generated from rinsing chemically stripped
pieces. Additionally, reduced chemical stripping activity will result
in a reduction in the generation of hazardous wastes composed of rags
and other chemical stripper applicators and removal equipment.
EPA expects some increase in the need for energy to resulting from
switching away from MeCl-containing chemical strippers to other paint
stripping methods. There would be a slight increase in energy usage
associated with switching to other chemical strippers that do not
contain MeCl because they often need to be heated above room
temperature to be most effective. There is also some increase in energy
usage associated with non-manual mechanical stripping and blasting with
both dry and wet media.
The energy usage increase would be somewhat more for thermal
decomposition or cryogenic paint stripping technologies. Thermal
decomposition basically uses natural gas heated ovens to bake the paint
off the substrate. Cryogenic paint stripping methods have increased
electricity demands associated with the production of liquid nitrogen
or liquid carbon dioxide.
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
We estimated that about 5,000 surface coating operations would need
to install spray booths to comply with the proposed standards. Spray
booths would need electricity to run fans and natural gas to heat make-
up air to maintain facility temperatures in colder weather. We estimate
that this would lead to an increased electricity consumption of 9.8
million kilowatt hours per year and increased natural gas consumption
of 724 million cubic feet per year. However, spray booths are already
required for spray finishing operations to comply with OSHA standards,
so theses impacts would not be assigned to these proposed standards.
Facilities that install spray booths would also need to dispose of
used spray booth filters. These are often placed in a sealed drum to
prevent spontaneous combustion and disposed of as hazardous waste. We
estimate that 5,000 new spray booths could generate used filters equal
to about 8,000 drums per year.
Facilities that install enclosed spray gun washers would need to
dispose of spent solvent as hazardous waste that formerly may have been
allowed to evaporate. However, we cannot estimate this amount because
we cannot determine the baseline disposal practices for facilities that
did not have enclosed spray gun washers. If facilities previously
handled spent solvent waste as hazardous waste, the installation of an
enclosed spray gun washer could lead to a more efficient use of
cleaning solvent and could reduce the volume of waste generated.
We expect no increase in generation of wastewater or other water
quality impacts. None of the control measures considered for this rule
generates a wastewater stream.
The installation of spray booths and enclosed gun washers, and
increased worker training in the proper use and handling of coating
materials should reduce worker exposure to harmful chemicals in the
workplace. This should have a positive benefit on worker health, but
this benefit cannot be quantified in the scope of this rulemaking.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning And Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2268.01.
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

[[Page 52974]]

requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (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 require sources to submit an initial
notification that they are subject to the standards, submit a
notification of whether or not the source is in compliance (the
notification of compliance status), submit annual compliance reports,
and keep records needed to demonstrate compliance. These requirements
would be the minimum needed to ensure that sources were complying with
the requirements of the proposed rule.
We estimate that about 40,000 existing area sources would be
subject to the proposed standards. We estimate that about 1,600 new
facilities would open per year in the 3 years following promulgation of
the standards, but that the total number of facilities would remain
constant as new facilities replace facilities that have closed.
New and existing sources would have no capital costs associated
with the information collection requirements in the proposed standards.
The estimated recordkeeping and reporting burden in the third year
after the effective date of the promulgated rule is estimated to be
62,877 labor hours at a cost of $2.2 million. This estimate includes,
depending on the type of source, the cost of keeping records of paint
stripping solvent consumption, painter training, spray booth filter
efficiency, and spray gun transfer efficiency, and the cost of
submitting annual compliance reports. The average hours and cost per
facility would be 6.4 hours and $219. Each facility would be required
to submit one compliance report per year. Starting in year 4, about
40,000 facilities would respond per year.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, we have established a public docket for this rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-2005-0526. Submit any
comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after September 17, 2007, a comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it by October 17, 2007. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed area
source NESHAP on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business that meets the Small Business Administration size
standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201, which for the
entities affected by the proposed rule is generally one having less
than 500 to 1,000 employees, depending on the specific NAICS code under
which that business is classified, or annual revenues of less than $6.5
million, refer to NAICS code table listed previously; (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.
After considering the economic impacts of the proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There would
not be adverse impacts on existing area sources in either of the three
source categories because the proposed rule does not create any new
burdens for existing sources, other than minimal notification and
reporting requirements, and best management or equipment practices,
which are designed to recover initial cost. We have determined that the
cost of these requirements (estimated at less than $1,000 per year per
facility) would not result in an adverse economic impact on any
facility, large or small (i.e., the cost is less than one percent of
total revenues, even for small businesses).
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. The proposed
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout
the sources engaged in paint stripping and miscellaneous surface
coating. The proposed standards also require the minimal amount of
recordkeeping and reporting needed to demonstrate and verify
compliance. These proposed standards were also developed in
consultation with numerous individual small businesses and their
representative trade associations. We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a

[[Page 52975]]

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.
EPA has determined, based on discussions with State, local, and
tribal governments during site visits, that this rule does not contain
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 one year. Thus, the proposed rule is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Some State, local, or tribal governments have paint stripping and/
or miscellaneous surface coating operations (e.g., municipal fleet
vehicle maintenance garages) that may be subject to the requirements of
this proposed rule. However, we do not believe that any of them are
operated by small government entities. Small government entities are
expected to contract for refinishing services when these services are
needed, rather than doing this work in-house. In addition, total
expenditures for all entities to comply with the proposed rule are
estimated to be less than $100 million in any year.

E. 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.''
This 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. The EPA is required by CAA
section 112, to establish the standards in the proposed rule. The
proposed rule primarily affects private industry, and does not impose
significant economic costs on State or local governments. The proposed
rule does not include an express provision preempting State or local
regulations. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order
do not apply to the proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

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

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation And Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, 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. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, or the
relation between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.

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

Executive Order 13045: ``Protection Of Children From Environmental
Health 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, the Agency 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.
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 Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.

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

This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, Or Use'' (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Some of
the affected sources would be expected to install and operate spray
booths to comply with the rule and these would require electricity and
natural gas to operate. However the increased use of energy by these
sources would not have a significant effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 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 does not use available and applicable VCS.

[[Page 52976]]

This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA is
citing the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Method 52.1, ``Gravimetric and Dust-
Spot Procedures for Testing Air-Cleaning Devices Used in General
Ventilation for Removing Particulate Matter, June 4, 1992,'' to measure
paint booth filter efficiency to measure the capture efficiency of
paint overspray arrestors with spray-applied coatings.
The EPA is also citing California South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) methods: ``Spray Equipment Transfer
Efficiency Test Procedure For Equipment User, May 24, 1989'' and
``Guidelines for Demonstrating Equivalency with District Approved
Transfer Efficient Spray Guns, September 26, 2002'' as methods to
demonstrate the equivalency of spray gun transfer efficiency for spray
guns that do not meet the definition of high-volume/low pressure (HVLP)
or electrostatic spray.
Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards in addition to these methods. The search
and review results are in the docket for this rule.
One voluntary consensus standard was identified as applicable to
this rule. The German standard DIN EN 13966-1:2003 ``Determination of
the transfer efficiency of atomizing and spraying equipment for liquid
coating materials--Part 1: Flat panels,'' appears to be applicable to
this rule. We are inviting comment on the appropriateness of this
standard to establish the transfer efficiency of spray guns that do not
meet the definition of high-volume low-pressure or electrostatic spray guns.
For the methods required by the proposed rule, a source may apply
to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative
monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods,
performance specifications, or procedures under section 63.7(f) and
section 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions. EPA welcomes
comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically,
invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus
standards and to explain why such standards should be used in regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income populations. The proposed rule establishes national standards
for air quality that apply equally to all affected sources, whether or
not they are located in or near minority or low-income populations.
Hence there are no requirements in this proposal that would
disproportionately affect these populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 6, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is 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.

Subpart A--[Amended]

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart HHHHHH consisting of
Sec. Sec. 63.11169 through 63.11180 and table 1 to read as follows:
Subpart HHHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources

What This Subpart Covers

Sec.
63.11169 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.11170 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11171 What operations does this subpart cover?

General Compliance Requirements

63.11172 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
63.11173 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?
63.11174 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.11175 What notifications must I submit?
63.11176 What reports must I submit?
63.11177 What records must I keep?
63.11178 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11179 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.11180 What definitions do I need to know?

Tables to Subpart PPPP of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart HHHHHH of Part 63--Paint Stripping Alternative
Stripping Requirements

Table 2 to Subpart HHHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart HHHHHH of Part 63

Subpart HHHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources

What This Subpart Covers

Sec. 63.11169 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants for paint stripping operations at area sources that
involve the use of paint strippers (chemical formulations) that contain
methylene chloride (MeCl) in paint removal processes, and/or
miscellaneous surface coating operations at area sources. This subpart
also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with the management practice standards contained herein.

Sec. 63.11170 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a) You are subject to this subpart if your facility is an area
source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) as defined in paragraph (c) of
this section, including sources that are part of a tribal, local,
State, or Federal facility and you:
(1) Perform paint stripping operations using a paint stripper
containing MeCl, and/or
(2) Perform miscellaneous surface coating operations (including
autobody refinishing).
(b) Paint stripping means the removal of dried coatings from wood,
metal, plastic, and other substrates. Miscellaneous surface coating is
the application of a coating to a substrate

[[Page 52977]]

using, for example, spray guns, brushes, or rollers. When application
of coating to a substrate occurs, then miscellaneous surface coating
operations also include associated activities, such as surface prep,
cleaning, mixing, and storage.
(c) An area source of HAP is a source of HAP that is not a major
source of HAP, is not located at a major source, and is not part of a
major source of HAP emissions. A major source of HAP 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.
(d) This subpart does not apply to paint stripping or surface
coating operations that meet any of the criteria of paragraphs (d)(1)
through (2) of this section.
(1) Paint stripping or surface coating performed on-site at
installations owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the United
States (including the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such
State), or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(2) Paint stripping or surface coating of military munitions
manufactured by or for the Armed Forces of the United States (including
the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such State) or equipment
directly and exclusively used for the purposes of transporting military
munitions as defined in Sec. 63.11180.
(e) If you are an owner or operator of an area source subject to
this subpart, you are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit
under 40 CFR part 70 or 71, provided you are not required to obtain a
permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 71.3(a) for a reason other than your
status as an area source under this subpart. Notwithstanding the
previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of
this subpart applicable to area sources.

Sec. 63.11171 What operations does this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each new and existing affected area
source engaged in the activities listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3) of this section:
(1) All paint stripping that involves the use of a paint stripper
that contains MeCl;
(2) Surface coating of miscellaneous parts and/or products made of
metal or plastic, or combinations of metal and plastic; and
(3) Finishing and refinishing of motor vehicles and mobile equipment.
(b) The affected source is the collection of all of the items
listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section. Not all
affected sources will have all of the items listed in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (6) of this section.
(1) Mixing rooms and equipment;
(2) Spray booths, ventilated prep stations, curing ovens, and
associated equipment;
(3) Spray guns and associated equipment;
(4) Spray gun cleaning equipment;
(5) Equipment used for storage, handling, recovery, or recycling of
cleaning solvent or waste paint; and
(6) Equipment used for paint stripping at paint stripping
facilities using paint strippers containing MeCl.
(c) An affected source is a new source if it meets the criteria in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(1) You commenced the construction of the source after September
17, 2007 by installing new paint stripping or surface coating
equipment. If you purchase and install paint stripping equipment, spray
booths, enclosed spray gun cleaners, or purchase new spray guns to
comply with this subpart at an existing source, these actions would not
make your existing source a new source.
(2) The new paint stripping or surface coating equipment is used at
a source that was not actively engaged in paint stripping and/or
miscellaneous surface coating prior to September 17, 2007.
(d) An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition
of reconstruction in Sec. 63.2.
(e) An affected source is an existing source if it is not a new
source or a reconstructed source.

General Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.11172 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) and (b) of this section.
(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 after September 17, 2007, the compliance date is [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
(2) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected
source occurs after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 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 2 years after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].

Sec. 63.11173 What are my general requirements for complying with
this subpart?

(a) Each paint stripping operation that is an affected area source
must implement management practices to minimize the evaporative
emissions of MeCl. The management practices must address, at a minimum,
the practices in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section, as
applicable, for your operations.
(1) Evaluate each application to ensure there is a need for paint
stripping (e.g., evaluate whether it is possible to re-coat the piece
without removing the existing coating).
(2) Evaluate each application where a paint stripper containing
MeCl is used to ensure that there is no alternative paint stripping
technology that can be used.
(3) Reduce exposure of all paint strippers containing MeCl to the
air (e.g., use of a water layer or hollow plastic spheres to cover the
stripper in an immersion tank).
(4) Optimize application conditions when using paint strippers
containing MeCl to reduce MeCl evaporation (e.g., if the stripper must
be heated, make sure that the temperature is kept as low as possible to
reduce evaporation).
(5) Practice proper storage and disposal of paint strippers
containing MeCl (e.g., store stripper in closed, air-tight containers).
(b) Each paint stripping operation with annual usage of 150 gallons
or more of paint strippers containing MeCl must develop and implement a
written MeCl minimization plan to minimize the use and emissions of
MeCl. The MeCl minimization plan must address, at a minimum, the
management practices specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this
section, as applicable, for your operations. Each operation must post a
placard or sign outlining the MeCl minimization plan in each area where
paint stripping operations subject to this subpart occur.
(c) Each paint stripping operation must maintain copies of annual
usage of paint strippers containing MeCl on-site at all times.
(d) Each paint stripping operation with annual usage of 150 gallons
or more of paint strippers containing MeCl must maintain a copy of
their current

[[Page 52978]]

MeCl minimization plan on-site at all times.
(e) Each miscellaneous surface coating operation must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this section.
(1) All painters must be certified that they have completed
training in the proper spray application of surface coatings and the
proper setup and maintenance of spray equipment. The minimum
requirements for training and certification are described in paragraph
(f) of this section. The spray application of surface coatings is
prohibited by persons who are not certified as having completed the
training described in paragraph (f) of this section. The requirements
of this paragraph do not apply to the students of an accredited surface
coating training program who are under the direct supervision of an
instructor who meets the requirements of this paragraph.
(2) All spray-applied coatings must be applied in a spray booth or
preparation station that meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(i)
of this section and either paragraph (e)(2)(ii) or (e)(2)(iii) of this
section.
(i) All spray booths and preparation stations must be fitted with
polyester fiber or fiberglass particle filters on the exhaust, or must
be fitted with a type of filter technology that is demonstrated to
achieve at least 98-percent capture of paint overspray. The procedure
used to demonstrate filter efficiency must be consistent with the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers Method 52.1, ``Gravimetric and Dust-Spot Procedures for
Testing Air-Cleaning Devices Used in General Ventilation for Removing
Particulate Matter, June 4, 1992.''
(ii) Spray booths and preparation stations used to refinish
complete motor vehicles or mobile equipment must be fully enclosed with
a full roof, and four complete walls or complete side curtains, and
must be ventilated at negative pressure so that air is drawn into any
openings in the booth walls or preparation station curtains.
(iii) Spray booths and preparation stations that are used to coat
miscellaneous parts and products or vehicle subassemblies must have a
full roof, at least three complete walls or complete side curtains, and
must be ventilated so that air is drawn into the booth.
(3) All spray-applied coatings must be applied with a high-volume,
low-pressure (HVLP) spray gun, electrostatic application, or an
equivalent technology that is demonstrated by the spray gun
manufacturer to achieve comparable transfer efficiency, and for which
written approval has been obtained from the Administrator. The
procedure used to demonstrate that spray gun transfer efficiency is
equivalent to that of an HVLP spray gun must be equivalent to the
California South Coast Air Quality Management District's ``Spray
Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for Equipment User, May
24, 1989'' and ``Guidelines for Demonstrating Equivalency with District
Approved Transfer Efficient Spray Guns, September 26, 2002.''
(4) All paint spray gun cleaning must be done with either non-HAP
gun cleaning solvents, or with a fully enclosed spray gun cleaner. Hand
cleaning of parts of the disassembled gun, such as the air cap, with
HAP-containing solvent is permitted. Spraying of atomized or non-
atomized HAP-containing cleaning solvent through the gun outside of the
enclosed portion of the gun cleaner, or when the gun cleaner is opened,
is prohibited.
(5) As provided in Sec. 63.6(g), we, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, may choose to grant you permission to use an
alternative to the management practice standards in this section after
you have requested approval to do so according to Sec. 63.6(g)(2).
(f) Each owner or operator of an affected miscellaneous surface
coating source must ensure and certify that all new and existing
personnel, including contract personnel, who spray apply surface
coatings are trained in the proper application of surface coatings as
required by paragraph(e)(1) of this section. The training program must
include, at a minimum, the items listed in paragraphs (f)(1) to (f)(3)
of this section.
(1) A list of all current personnel by name and job description who
are required to be trained;
(2) Hands-on and classroom instruction that addresses, at a
minimum, initial and refresher training in the topics listed in
paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (2)(viii) of this section.
(i) Surface prep.
(ii) Spray gun set up and operation and spray technique for
different types of coatings to improve transfer efficiency and minimize
coating usage and overspray.
(iii) Routine spray booth and filter maintenance.
(iv) Paint mixing, matching, and applying.
(v) Solving paint application problems.
(vi) Finish defects causes and cures.
(vii) Safety precautions.
(viii) Environmental compliance.
(3) A description of the methods to be used at the completion of
initial or refresher training to demonstrate, document, and provide
certification of successful completion of the required training.
(g) As required by paragraph (e)(1) of this section, all new and
existing personnel at an affected miscellaneous surface coating source,
including contract personnel, who spray apply surface coatings must be
trained by the dates specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2).
(1) If your source is a new source, all personnel must be trained
and certified no later than 60 days after hiring or no later than 60
days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], whichever is later. Painter training that was completed
within 5 years prior to the date training is required, and that meets
the requirements specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section
satisfies this requirement and is valid for a period not to exceed 5
years after the date the training is completed.
(2) If your source is an existing source, all personnel must be
trained and certified no later than the compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.11172(b). Painter training that was completed within 5 years
prior to the date training is required, and that meets the requirements
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section satisfies this
requirement and is valid for a period not to exceed 5 years after the
date the training is completed.
(3) Training and certification will be valid for a period not to
exceed 5 years after the date the training is completed, and all
personnel must receive refresher training that meets the requirements
of this section and be re-certified every 5 years.

Sec. 63.11174 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 1 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in subpart A of this part apply to you.

Notifications, Reports, and Records

Sec. 63.11175 What notifications must I submit?

(a) Initial Notification. If you are the owner or operator of a
paint stripping operation using paint strippers containing MeCl and/or
a miscellaneous surface coating operation, you must submit the Initial
Notification required by Sec. 63.9(b) for a new affected source no
later than 120 days after initial startup or [DATE 120 DAYS AFTER THE
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],
whichever is later. For an existing affected source, you must submit
the Initial Notification no later than [DATE

[[Page 52979]]

1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register]. Your Initial Notification must provide the information
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) The name, address, phone number and e-mail address of the owner
and operator;
(2) The address (physical location) of the affected source;
(3) An identification of the relevant standard (i.e., this
subpart);
(4) A brief description of the type of operation. For example:
(i) For miscellaneous parts and products, identify whether the
substrate is metal, plastic, or a combination of metal and plastic,
brief characterization of the types of products (e.g., aerospace
components, sports equipment, etc.) number of spray booths, and number
of painters usually employed at the operation; and
(ii) For motor vehicle or mobile equipment finishing or
refinishing, identify the type of operation (e.g., original equipment
manufacturer, collision repair facility, production paint shop
performing complete paint jobs, automobile restoration or customizing
shop, mobile equipment repair and refinishing operation), number of
spray booths, number of preparation stations, and number of painters
usually employed at the operation.
(5) If a paint stripping operation uses 150 gallons of paint
strippers containing MeCl they must submit a written MeCl minimization
plan in accordance with Sec. 63.11173(b).
(6) If a paint stripping operation uses less than 150 gallons of
paint strippers containing MeCl and chooses not to develop and
implement a written MeCl minimization plan in accordance with Sec.
63.11173(b), you must submit a statement signed by a responsible
official that certifies the paint stripping operation will not use more
than 150 gallons of paint strippers containing MeCl during any calendar
year in the future.
(b) Notification of Compliance Status. If you are the owner or
operator of an existing affected paint stripping source that annually
uses more than 150 gallons of paint strippers containing MeCl or an
existing affected coating source, you must submit a Notification of
Compliance Status on or before [DATE 2 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. If you are the
owner or operator of a new affected paint stripping source that
annually uses more than 150 gallons of paint strippers containing MeCl
or a new affected coating source, you must submit a Notification of
Compliance Status within 120 days after initial startup, or by [DATE
120 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], whichever is later. You are required to submit the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section
with your Notification of Compliance Status:
(1) Your company's name and address.
(2) A statement by a responsible official with that official's
name, title, phone number, e-mail address and signature, certifying the
truth, accuracy, and completeness of the notification and a statement
of whether the source has complied with all the relevant standards and
other requirements of this subpart.
(3) The date of the Notification of Compliance Status.
(4) For each paint stripping affected source, you must include also
the method(s) of paint stripping employed and the annual usage of paint
strippers containing MeCl for each of the previous 5 calendar years.

Sec. 63.11176 What reports must I submit?

(a) Annual Compliance Report. If you are the owner or operator of
an affected paint stripping source that annually uses more than 150
gallons of paint strippers containing MeCl or an affected miscellaneous
surface coating source, you are required to submit an Annual Compliance
Report to the Administrator containing the information specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. The annual compliance
report must cover each calendar year, beginning with the remainder of
the calendar year after the initial compliance date for your source.
(1) Your company's name and address.
(2) A statement by a responsible official with that official's
name, title, phone number, e-mail address and signature, certifying the
truth, accuracy, and completeness of the report, and certifying whether
the source is in compliance with the paint stripping and miscellaneous
surface coating standards. If the source is not in compliance, include
a description of the deviations from the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.11173, 63.11174, 63.11177, and 63.11178, the time periods during
which the deviations occurred, and the corrective actions taken.
(3) Date of report.
(4) If your source includes paint stripping operations, include
also the method(s) of paint stripping employed at the facility during
the period and annual usage of paint strippers containing MeCl for
paint stripping.
(b) You must submit the annual compliance report for each calendar
year no later than March 1 of the following calendar year.
(c) If you are operating under a Title V permit, certification of
compliance under your permit is sufficient to meet the Annual
Compliance Report requirement.

Sec. 63.11177 What records must I keep?

If you are the owner or operator of a miscellaneous surface coating
operation, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)
through (d) and (g) of this section. If you are the owner or operator
of a paint stripping operation, you must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (e) through (g) of this section.
(a) Certification that each painter has completed the training
specified in Sec. 63.11173(f) with the date the initial training and
the most recent refresher training was completed.
(b) Documentation of the filter efficiency of any spray booth
exhaust filter material that is not a polyester fiber or fiberglass
filter, according to the procedure in Sec. 63.11173(e)(3)(i).
(c) Documentation from the spray gun manufacturer that each spray
gun that does not meet the definition of an HVLP spray gun,
electrostatic application, or air brush has been determined by the
Administrator to achieve a transfer efficiency equivalent to that of an
HVLP spray gun, according to the procedure in Sec. 63.11173(e)(4).
(d) Copies of any notification submitted as required by Sec.
63.11175 and copies of any report submitted as required by Sec. 63.11176.
(e) Records of paint strippers containing MeCl used for paint
stripping operations at your facility, including the MeCl content of
the paint stripper used. Documentation needs to be sufficient to verify
annual usage of paint strippers containing MeCl (e.g., material safety
data sheets or other documentation provided by the manufacturer or
supplier of the paint stripper, purchase receipts, records of paint
stripper usage, engineering calculations).
(f) If you are a paint stripping source that annually uses more
than 150 gallons of paint strippers containing MeCl, you are required
to maintain a record of your current MeCl minimization plan on-site for
the duration of your facility's operations.
(g) Records of any deviation from the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.11173, 63.11174, 63.11175, or 63.11176. These records must include
the date and time period of the deviation, and a description of the

[[Page 52980]]

nature of the deviation and the actions taken to correct the deviation.

Sec. 63.11178 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

If you are the owner or operator of an affected source, you must
maintain copies of the records specified in Sec. 63.11177 for a period
of at least 5 years after the date of each record. Copies of records
must be kept on site and in a printed or electronic form that is
readily accessible for inspection for at least the first 2 years after
their date, and may be kept off-site after that 2-year period.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec. 63.11179 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (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 the 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 Administrator and are not transferred to the State,
local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authority in Sec. 63.11173(d)(3) and (e)(6) will not be
delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies.

Sec. 63.11180 What definitions do I need to know?

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40
CFR 63.2, and in this section as follows:
Additive means a material that is added to a coating after purchase
from a supplier (e.g., catalysts, activators, accelerators).
Air brush means a hand-held air-atomized spray gun intended for
spot repair and graphic arts work with a paint cup capacity of no more
than 1.0 fluid ounce (30 cc).
Cleaning material means a solvent used to remove contaminants and
other materials, such as dirt, grease, or oil, from a substrate before
or after coating application or from equipment associated with a
coating operation, such as spray booths, spray guns, racks, 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, and maskants. Decorative,
protective, or functional materials that consist only of protective
oils for metal, acids, bases, or any combination of these substances,
or paper film or plastic film which may be pre-coated with an adhesive
by the film manufacturer, are not considered coatings for the purposes
of this subpart.
Compliance date means the date by which you must comply with this
subpart.
Dry media blasting means abrasive blasting using dry media. Dry
media blasting relies on impact and abrasion to remove paint from a
substrate. Typically, a compressed air stream is used to propel the
media against the coated surface.
Electrostatic application means any method of coating application
where an electrostatic attraction is created between the part to be
coated and the atomized paint particles.
Equipment cleaning means the use of an organic solvent to remove
coating residue from the surfaces of paint spray guns and other
painting related equipment, including, but not limited to stir sticks,
paint cups, brushes, and spray booths.
High-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray equipment means spray
equipment that is permanently labeled as such and used to apply any
coating by means of a spray gun which is designed and operated between
0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) air atomizing pressure
measured dynamically at the center of the air cap and at the air horns.
Initial startup means the first time equipment is brought online in
a paint stripping or surface coating operation, and paint stripping or
surface coating is first performed.
Materials that contain HAP or HAP-containing materials mean, for
the purposes of this subpart, materials that contain 0.1 percent or
more by mass of any individual HAP that is an OSHA-defined carcinogen
as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4), or 1.0 percent or more by mass
for any other individual HAP.
Military munitions means all ammunition products and components
produced or used by or for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) or for
the U.S. Armed Services for national defense and security, including
military munitions under the control of the Department of Defense, the
U.S. Coast Guard, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA),
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and National Guard personnel. The term
military munitions includes: confined gaseous, liquid, and solid
propellants, explosives, pyrotechnics, chemical and riot control
agents, smokes, and incendiaries used by DoD components, including bulk
explosives and chemical warfare agents, chemical munitions, biological
weapons, rockets, guided and ballistic missiles, bombs, warheads,
mortar rounds, artillery ammunition, small arms ammunition, grenades,
mines, torpedoes, depth charges, cluster munitions and dispensers,
demolition charges, nonnuclear components of nuclear weapons, wholly
inert ammunition products, and all devices and components of any items
listed in this definition.
Miscellaneous parts and/or products means any part or product made
of metal or plastic, or combinations of metal and plastic.
Miscellaneous parts and/or products include, but are not limited to,
metal and plastic components of the following types of products as well
as the products themselves: Motor vehicle parts and accessories for
automobiles, trucks, recreational vehicles; automobiles and light duty
trucks at automobile and light duty truck assembly plants; boats;
sporting and recreational goods; toys; business machines; laboratory
and medical equipment; and household and other consumer products.
Miscellaneous surface coating operation means the collection of
equipment used to apply surface coating to miscellaneous parts and/or
products or to finish or refinish motor vehicles or mobile equipment
including applying cleaning solvents to prepare the surface before
coating application, mixing coatings before application, applying
coating to a surface, drying or curing the coating after application,
and cleaning coating application equipment, but not plating. A single
surface coating operation may include any combination of these types of
equipment, but always includes at least the point at which a coating
material is applied to a given part. A surface coating operation
includes all other steps (such as surface preparation with solvent and
equipment cleaning) in the affected source where HAP are emitted from
the coating of a part. The use of solvent to clean parts (for example,
to remove grease during a mechanical repair) does not constitute a
miscellaneous surface coating operation if no coatings are applied. A
single affected source may have multiple surface coating operations.
Coating application with air brush, non-refillable handheld aerosol
cans, touch-up markers, or marking pens is not a

[[Page 52981]]

miscellaneous surface coating operation for the purposes of this subpart.
Mobile equipment means any device that may be drawn and/or driven
on a roadway including, but not limited to, heavy-duty trucks, truck
trailers, fleet delivery trucks, buses, mobile cranes, bulldozers,
street cleaners, agriculture equipment, motor homes, and other
recreational vehicles (including camping trailers and fifth wheels).
Motor vehicle means any self-propelled vehicle, including, but not
limited to, automobiles, light duty trucks, golf carts, vans, and
motorcycles.
Non-HAP solvent means, for the purposes of this subpart, a solvent
(including thinners and cleaning solvents) that contain less than 0.1
percent by mass of any individual HAP that is an OSHA-defined
carcinogen as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) and less than 1.0
percent by mass for any other individual HAP.
Paint stripping and/or miscellaneous surface coating source or
facility means any shop, business, location, or parcel of land where
paint stripping or miscellaneous surface coating operations are conducted.
Paint stripping means the removal of dried coatings from wood,
metal, plastic, and other substrates. A single affected source may have
multiple paint stripping operations.
Painter means any facility personnel who apply coating materials.
Plastic refers to substrates containing one or more resins and may
be solid, porous, flexible, or rigid.
Protective oil means 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.
Solvent means a fluid containing organic compounds used to perform
paint stripping, surface prep, or cleaning of surface coating equipment.
Spot repair means the repair of the finish on motor vehicles,
mobile equipment, or associated parts or components that is less than 1
square foot in area.
Surface preparation or Surface prep means use of a cleaning
material on a portion of or all of a substrate prior to the application
of a coating.
Transfer efficiency means the amount of coating solids adhering to
the object being coated divided by the total amount of coating solids
sprayed, expressed as a percentage. Coating solids means the
nonvolatile portion of the coating that makes up the dry film.
Truck bed liner coating means any coating, excluding color coats,
labeled and formulated for application to a truck bed to protect it
from surface abrasion.

Table 1 to Subpart HHHHHH of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart HHHHHH of Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to Subpart
Citation Subject HHHHHH Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(12)............ General Applicability..... Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)-(3)............. Initial Applicability Yes.................. Applicability of subpart
Determination. HHHHHH is also specified
in Sec. 63.11170.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)................. Applicability After Yes..................
Standard Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)................. Applicability of Permit Yes.................. Sec. 63.11170(e) of
Program for Area Sources. Subpart HHHHHH exempts
area sources from the
obligation to obtain
Title V operating
permits.
Sec. 63.1(c)(5)................. Notifications............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(e).................... Applicability of Permit No................... Sec. 63.11170(e) of
Program to Major Sources Subpart HHHHHH exempts
Before Relevant Standard area sources from the
is Set. obligation to obtain
Title V operating
permits.
Sec. 63.2....................... Definitions............... Yes.................. Additional definitions
are specified in Sec.
63.11180.
Sec. 63.3(a)-(c)................ Units and Abbreviations... Yes..................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(5)............. Prohibited Activities..... Yes..................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)................ Circumvention/ Yes..................
Fragmentation.
Sec. 63.5....................... Construction/ No................... Subpart HHHHHH applies
Reconstruction of major only to area sources.
sources.
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. 63.11172 specifies
and Reconstructed Sources. the compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(5)............. Compliance Dates for Yes.................. Sec. 63.11172 specifies
Existing Sources. the compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)............. Operation and Maintenance. Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................. Startup, Shutdown, and No................... No startup, shutdown, and
Malfunction Plan. malfunction plan is
required by subpart
HHHHHH.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................. Compliance Except During Yes..................
Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction.
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 HHHHHH does not
Visible Emission establish opacity or
Standards. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(16)............ Extension of Compliance... Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(j).................... Presidential Compliance Yes..................
Exemption.
Sec. 63.7....................... Performance Testing No................... No performance testing is
Requirements. required by subpart
HHHHHH.
Sec. 63.8....................... Monitoring Requirements... No................... Subpart HHHHHH does not
require the use of
continuous monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.9(a)-(d)................ Notification Requirements. Yes.................. Sec. 63.11175 specifies
notification
requirements.

[[Page 52982]]

Sec. 63.9(e).................... Notification of No................... Subpart HHHHHH does not
Performance Test. require performance
tests.
Sec. 63.9(f).................... Notification of Visible No................... Subpart HHHHHH does not
Emissions/Opacity Test. have opacity or visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.9(g).................... Additional Notifications No................... Subpart HHHHHH does not
When Using CMS. require the use of
continuous monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.9(h).................... Notification of Compliance No................... Sec. 63.11175 specifies
Status. the dates and required
content 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 requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
63.11177.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(xi)........ Recordkeeping Relevant to No................... Subpart HHHHHH does not
Startup, Shutdown, and require startup,
Malfunction Periods and shutdown, and
CMS. malfunction plans, or
CMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)........... Waiver of recordkeeping Yes..................
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).......... Alternatives to the No................... Subpart HHHHHH does not
relative accuracy test. require the use of CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)........... Records supporting Yes..................
notifications.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................ Recordkeeping Requirements Yes..................
for Applicability
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)................... Additional Recordkeeping No................... Subpart HHHHHH does not
Requirements for Sources require the use of CMS.
with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................ General Reporting Yes.................. Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
63.11176.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)-(3)............ Report of Performance Test No................... Subpart HHHHHH does not
Results, and Opacity or require performance
Visible Emissions tests, or 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 No................... Subpart HHHHHH does not
Malfunction Reports. require startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)................... Additional Reporting No................... Subpart HHHHHH does not
requirements for Sources require the use of CMS.
with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(f)................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes..................
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11...................... Control Device No................... Subpart HHHHHH does not
Requirements/Flares. require the use of
flares.
Sec. 63.12...................... State Authority and Yes..................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13...................... Addresses of State Air Yes..................
Pollution Control
Agencies and EPA Regional
Offices.
Sec. 63.14...................... Incorporation by Reference Yes.................. Test methods for
measuring paint booth
filter efficiency and
spray gun transfer
efficiency in Sec.
63.11173(e)(2) and (4)
are incorporated and
included in Sec.
63.14.
Sec. 63.15...................... Availability of Yes..................
Information/
Confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16(a)................... Performance Track Yes..................
Provisions--reduced
reporting.
Sec. 63.16(b)-(c)............... Performance Track No................... Subpart HHHHHH does not
Provisions--reduced establish numerical
reporting. emission limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-17973 Filed 9-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources

Local Navigation