National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

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

[Federal Register: December 11, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 238)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69163-69201]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11de03-17]

[[Page 69164]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178; FRL-7554-3]
RIN 2060-AK59

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

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

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for miscellaneous coating
manufacturing facilities. The final rule establishes emission limits
and work practice requirements for new and existing miscellaneous
coating manufacturing operations, including process vessels, storage
tanks, wastewater, transfer operations, equipment leaks, and heat
exchange systems, and implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) emission standards reflecting application of the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT). The HAP emitted from
miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities include toluene, xylene,
glycol ethers, methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone.
Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse
health effects such as irritation of the lung, eye, and mucous
membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and cancer. We do not
have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities and
the people living around the facilities covered by the final rule for
this source category that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to
determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these
facilities and the potential for resultant health effects. Therefore,
we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described
above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However,
to the extent the adverse effects do occur, and the final rule reduces
emissions, subsequent exposures will be reduced. The final rule will
reduce HAP emissions by 4,900 tons per year (tpy) for existing
facilities that manufacture miscellaneous coatings.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 11, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Docket ID. No. OAR-2003-0178 and A-96-04 are located at the
U.S. EPA, Office of Air & Radiation Docket & Information Center
(6102T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., room B108, Washington, DC
20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy McDonald, Organic Chemicals
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-C504-04), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5402, electronic mail
(e-mail) address mcdonald.randy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS\*\ Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... 3255 Manufacturers of coatings,
including inks, paints, or
adhesives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7985 of the
final 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.
Docket. The EPA has established official electronic public dockets
for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178 and A-96-04. The
official public docket consists of the documents specifically
referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other
information related to this action. Although a part of the official
docket, a public docket does not include Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that
is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the
EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket
materials.
Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://
www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Portions of the docket materials are available electronically through
Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket identification number. You may still
access publicly available docket materials through the Docket ID No. A-
96-04.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the final rule will also be available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the rule will be placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN
is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by February 9, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA,
only an objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by the final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceeding brought to enforce these
requirements.
Background Information Document. The EPA proposed the NESHAP for
miscellaneous coating manufacturing on April 4, 2002 (67 FR 16154), and
received 81 comment letters and comments from 8 speakers at a public
hearing on the proposal. A background information document (BID)
(``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Industry, Summary of Public
Comments and Responses,'') containing EPA's responses to each public
comment is available in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178.

[[Page 69165]]

Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Background
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What is the history of the source category?
D. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants
emitted from miscellaneous coating manufacturing?
E. How did we develop the final rule?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What are the affected sources and emission points?
B. What are the emission limitations and work practice
standards?
C. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
D. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air emission reduction impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air quality health and environmental impacts
and energy impacts?
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. What changes to applicability did the commenters suggest?
B. How Did We Develop the Standards?
C. Standards for Process Vessels
D. Standards for Storage Tanks
E. Standards for Wastewater
F. Standards for Equipment Leaks
G. Standards for Transfer Operations
H. Pollution Prevention
I. Initial Compliance
J. Ongoing Compliance
K. Recordkeeping and Reporting
L. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
V. 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 that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and some area sources of HAP and to
establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories.
Major sources of HAP are those that are located within a contiguous
area and under common control and have the potential to emit greater
than 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tpy) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/
yr (25 tpy) of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable, taking into consideration the cost
of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control
is commonly referred to as the maximum achievable control technology or
MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that all major sources achieve the level of control
already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in
each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor
cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources,
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources for
which the Administrator has emissions information (or the best-
performing five sources for which the Administrator has or could
reasonably obtain emissions information for categories or subcategories
with fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. In considering whether to establish standards
more stringent than the floor, we must consider cost, non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Is the History of the Source Category?

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish rules for
categories of emission sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, we
published an initial list of 174 source categories to be regulated (57
FR 31576). The listing was our best attempt to identify major sources
of HAP by manufacturing category. Following the publication of that
listing, we published a schedule for the promulgation of emission
standards for each of the 174 listed source categories. At the time the
initial list was published, we recognized that we might have to revise
the list from time to time as better information became available.
Based on information we collected in 1995, we realized that several
of the original source categories on the list had similar process
equipment, emission characteristics and applicable control
technologies. Additionally, many of these source categories were on the
same schedule for promulgation, by November 15, 2000. Therefore, we
decided to combine a number of source categories from the original
listing into one broad set of emission standards. On November 7, 1996,
we published a Federal Register notice combining 21 source categories
from the initial list of 174 into the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Processes source category (61 FR 57602). One of the 21 source
categories was the manufacture of paints, coatings, and adhesives.
On November 18, 1999, we published a Federal Register notice
describing changes to the source category list (64 FR 63035). At that
time, we also described our intent to group the source categories into
two new source categories instead of one. The two new source categories
are called the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing source
category and the miscellaneous coating manufacturing source category.
We proposed the NESHAP for both source categories on April 4, 2002 (67
FR 16154).
Today's action establishes final standards for miscellaneous
coating manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH). Final standards
for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing (40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF) will be published separately.

D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the Pollutants Emitted
From Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing?

The CAA was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of the population'' (see section
101(b) of the CAA). These NESHAP will protect public health by reducing
emissions of HAP from miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities.
Miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities emit an estimated
6,900 Mg/yr (7,600 tpy) of HAP. Approximately 30

[[Page 69166]]

percent of the HAP emitted by miscellaneous coating manufacturing
facilities is toluene, 30 percent is xylene, and glycol ethers, methyl
ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone account for approximately 25
percent. The final rule reduces total HAP emissions from miscellaneous
coating manufacturing facilities by 64 percent. As a result of
controlling these HAP, the final NESHAP will also reduce emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC). A summary of the potential health
effects caused by exposure to these pollutants is presented in the
preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 16154).

E. How Did We Develop the Final Rule?

We proposed the NESHAP for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
source category on April 4, 2002 (67 FR 16154) and provided an 85-day
comment period. We received public comments on the proposed
miscellaneous coating manufacturing NESHAP from 81 sources consisting
of paint, ink, and adhesives manufacturers, industry trade
associations, a federal government agency, an environmental group, and
other interested parties. In addition, a public hearing was held, at
which 8 of 11 speakers provided testimony related to the proposed
miscellaneous coating manufacturing rule. A copy of each of the comment
letters is available in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178.
The final rule reflects full consideration of all the comments we
received on the proposed subpart HHHHH, as well as our reassessment of
certain data in the rulemaking record. A detailed response to all
comments is included in the BID for the promulgated standards (Docket
ID No. OAR-2003-0178).

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?

The affected source for the miscellaneous coating manufacturing
source category is the miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations
at the facility. These operations include storage tanks, process
vessels, equipment components, wastewater treatment and conveyance
systems, transfer operations, and ancillary sources such as heat
exchange systems.
The final standards for miscellaneous coating manufacturing cover
vents from process vessels, storage tanks, wastewater, transfer
operations, equipment leaks, and ancillary heat exchange operations.
Total baseline HAP emissions for the miscellaneous coating
manufacturing source category are estimated to be 6,900 Mg/yr (7,600
tpy).

B. What Are the Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards?

Process Vessel Vents
For stationary process vessels with capacities greater than or
equal to 0.94 cubic meters (m3) (250 gallons (gal)) at
existing sources, the final rule requires an overall reduction,
adjusting for capture and control efficiency based on enclosure tests,
as applicable, of at least 75 percent by weight for HAP with a vapor
pressure greater than or equal to 0.6 kilopascals (kPa) (0.09 pounds
per square inch absolute (psia)), and at least a 60 percent reduction
by weight for HAP with a vapor pressure less than 0.6 kPa (0.09 psia).
The final rule also provides an emissions averaging alternative for
stationary process vessels at existing sources that are equipped with a
tightly-fitting vented cover. The overall mass reduction in HAP
emissions for vessels in the averaging group must be equal to or
greater than the reduction that would have resulted if each of the
covered vessels were vented to a control device that achieves a 75
percent emissions reduction for HAP with a vapor pressure greater than
or equal to 0.6 kPa (0.09 psia) or a 60 percent emissions reduction for
HAP with a vapor pressure less than 0.6 kPa (0.09 psia). The final rule
requires that portable process vessels at existing sources with
capacities greater than or equal to 0.94 m3 (250 gal) be
equipped with a cover. Stationary and portable vessels at new sources
must be equipped with a tightly-fitting vented cover, and the vented
organic HAP emissions must be reduced by at least 95 percent by weight.
Alternatively, for stationary process vessels with capacities greater
than or equal to 0.94 m3 (250 gal) at existing and new
sources and portable process vessels with capacities greater than or
equal to 0.94 m3 (250 gal) at new sources, you may install a
tightly-fitting vented cover and vent emissions to a condenser operated
at specified temperature limits to satisfy the overall control
requirement. Another option for meeting the standards for stationary
process vessels at existing sources is to use the vessels to produce
coatings with less than 5 percent HAP by weight; no additional control
of process vessel vents is required when producing such coatings.
We did not specifically request information on process vessels with
capacities less than 0.94 m3 (250 gal). Thus, we do not have
information indicating that a sufficient number of sources are using
control devices or other HAP emission reduction techniques to enable us
to set a MACT floor based on such devices or techniques. Therefore, the
MACT floor for process vessels with capacities less than 0.94
m3 (250 gal) is no emissions reduction. We examined one
regulatory alternative that would require the same 75 percent emissions
reduction as for larger process vessels. We concluded that the total
impacts of this alternative, including cost, non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements, are unreasonable in
light of the HAP emission reductions achieved. Thus, we did not develop
standards for process vessels with capacities less than 250 gal.
Storage Tanks
The standards for storage tanks at existing sources require either
organic HAP emissions reductions of 90 percent by weight or more, or
the use of floating roofs, or vapor balancing if the storage tanks have
capacities greater than or equal to 75 m3 (20,000 gal) and
store material with an organic HAP vapor pressure greater than or equal
to 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia). The standards for storage tanks at new sources
require either organic HAP emissions reductions of at least 80 percent
by weight, the use of floating roofs, or vapor balancing if the storage
tanks have capacities greater than or equal to 10,000 gal and store
material with an organic HAP vapor pressure greater than or equal to
0.02 psia. The standards for new sources also require either organic
HAP emissions reductions of at least 90 percent by weight, the use of
floating roofs, or vapor balancing for storage tanks that have
capacities equal to or greater than 75 m3 (20,000 gal) but
less than 94 m3 (25,000 gal) and store material that has an
organic HAP vapor pressure greater than or equal to 10.3 kPa (1.5
psia), and tanks with capacities greater than 94 m3 (25,000
gal) storing material that has an organic HAP vapor pressure greater
than or equal to 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia). The final rule does not include
standards for storage tanks smaller than 20,000 gal at existing sources
or for storage tanks smaller than 10,000 gal at new sources because the
MACT floor for these tanks was determined to be no emissions reduction.
Wastewater
For existing sources, the final rule requires that wastewater
containing a total partially soluble and soluble HAP load of 750 pounds
per year (lb/yr) and a concentration of 4,000 parts per million by
weight (ppmw) or greater be treated as hazardous waste or in an

[[Page 69167]]

enhanced biological treatment unit. The final rule also allows for
offsite treatment provided the affected sources that ship their
wastewater to an offsite facility for treatment as a hazardous waste
note this fact along with the name of the facility to which the
wastewater is shipped in their notification of compliance status
report. If the wastewater is shipped offsite for treatment in an
enhanced biological treatment unit, the offsite facility must comply
with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in
subpart HHHHH. For new sources, the applicability triggers for control
are more stringent, affecting all streams that contain partially
soluble and soluble HAP at a concentration greater than or equal to
1,600 ppmw.
Transfer Operations
Standards for transfer operations at existing and new sources
require 75 percent control of HAP emissions from product loading to
tank trucks and railcars if the amount of material transferred contains
at least 11.4 million liters per year (l/yr) (3.0 million gal/yr) of
HAP, and the material has a HAP partial pressure greater than or equal
to 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia). Acceptable control strategies also include
routing displaced vapors back to the process, or the use of condensers
operated below specified temperature limits.
Equipment Leaks
The final rule requires compliance with leak detection and repair
(LDAR) programs for equipment leaks. Existing sources must comply with
the sensory-based LDAR provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, the
NESHAP for Gas Distribution Facilities. Alternatively, existing sources
may comply with the LDAR program in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, or
subpart UU (the National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--
Control Level 1 and Control Level 2, respectively) because these
alternatives are equivalent to or more stringent than the sensory-based
LDAR program. New sources must comply with either the subpart TT or
subpart UU LDAR provisions. For heat exchange systems at existing and
new sources, the final rule requires a leak detection program,
consistent with the program in 40 CFR 63.104 (the Hazardous Organic
NESHAP (HON)).
Cleaning operations are considered part of the miscellaneous
coating manufacturing operations at existing and new sources.
Therefore, cleaning fluids are considered to be process fluids, and the
requirements for process vessels, storage tanks, equipment leaks, and
wastewater systems that apply to other process operations also apply to
cleaning operations.

C. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

To verify that the required reductions have been achieved, you must
either test or use calculation methodologies, depending on the emission
stream characteristics, control device, and the type of process vent.
Initial compliance demonstration provisions for stationary process
vessels at miscellaneous coating manufacturing sources reference the 40
CFR part 63, subpart SS, closed vent system and performance test
provisions and the capture efficiency Method 204 in appendix M to 40
CFR part 51. Control devices handling greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy)
of HAP must be tested, while engineering assessments are allowed for
control devices with lower loads and for condensers. Performance test
provisions are based on worst case operating conditions for devices
controlling process vents.
The initial compliance demonstration procedures reference 40 CFR
part 63, subpart SS, for storage tanks complying using control devices
and transfer operations, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, for storage
tanks complying using floating roofs.

D. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

The final rule requires monitoring to determine whether you are in
compliance with emission limits on an ongoing basis. This monitoring is
done either by continuously measuring HAP emissions reductions or by
continuously measuring a site-specific operational parameter, the value
of which you would establish during the initial compliance
demonstration. These parameters are required to be monitored at 15-
minute intervals throughout the operation of the control device. For
control devices that do not control more than 1 tpy of HAP emissions,
only a daily verification of the operating parameter is required, as is
provided in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG. To demonstrate compliance with
work practice standards, such as the requirement to maintain floating
roofs, inspection of equipment serves as the monitoring demonstration.

E. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?

The final rule requires recordkeeping and initial and semiannual
reporting. The initial notification is required within 120 days of the
effective date of the NESHAP. That report, which is very brief, serves
to alert appropriate agencies (State agencies and EPA Regional Offices)
of the existence of your affected source and puts them on notice for
future compliance actions. The precompliance report details compliance
alternatives that require preapproval and is required 6 months prior to
the compliance date. The notification of compliance status (NOCS)
report, which is due 150 days after the compliance date of the NESHAP,
is a comprehensive report that describes the affected source and the
strategy being used to comply. The final rule also incorporates a
number of provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 (General
Provisions), among them the startup, shutdown and malfunction
provisions.

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts?

We estimate nationwide baseline HAP emissions from the
miscellaneous coating manufacturing sources to be 6,900 Mg/yr (7,600
tpy). We project that the final rule will reduce HAP emissions by about
4,400 Mg/yr (4,900 tpy). Because many of the HAP emitted by
miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities are also VOC, the
proposed NESHAP will also reduce VOC.
Combustion of fuels to generate electricity and steam will increase
secondary emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides
(NO_X), and sulfur dioxide (SO₂) by about 25 Mg/yr
(27 tpy). These impacts were estimated assuming electricity is
generated in coal-fired power plants and steam is produced in natural
gas-fired industrial boilers.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

The cost impacts include the capital cost to install control
devices and monitoring equipment, and include the annual costs involved
in operating control devices and monitoring equipment, implementing
work practices, and conducting performance tests. The annual cost
impacts also include the cost savings generated by reducing the loss of
product or solvent in the form of emissions. The total capital costs
for existing sources are estimated to be $57 million, and the total
annualized costs for existing sources are estimated to be $16 million.
Total capital costs for new sources are estimated to be $1.3 million
per new facility and total annualized costs are estimated to be $.25
million per new facility. Three new facilities were estimated in the
first 3 years after promulgation of this rule.

[[Page 69168]]

We estimate that in the first 3 years after the effective date of
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, that the annual cost burden will average
$3,500/yr per respondent for recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for an estimated 129 sources. Most of these costs are for new and
reconstructed sources that must be in compliance upon startup; other
costs are for existing sources to prepare initial notifications and
plans. In the fourth year after the effective date, existing facilities
must begin to monitor and record operating parameters to comply with
operating limits and prepare compliance reports. These activities will
significantly increase the nationwide annual burden.
We expect that the actual compliance cost impacts of the NESHAP
will be less than described above because of the potential to use
common control devices, upgrade existing control devices, implement
emissions averaging, or comply with the preset temperature limits for
condensers. Because the effect of such practices is highly site-
specific and data were unavailable to estimate how often the lower cost
compliance practices could be utilized, we could not quantify the
amount by which actual compliance costs will be reduced.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

The economic impact analysis shows that the expected price increase
for affected output would be 0.3 percent as a result of the NESHAP for
miscellaneous coating manufacturers. The expected change in production
of affected output is a reduction of 0.1 percent as a result of the
final rule. One plant closure is expected out of the 127 facilities
affected by the final rule. It should be noted that the baseline
economic conditions of the facility predicted to close affect the
closure estimate provided by the economic model, and that the facility
predicted to close appears to have low profitability levels currently.
Therefore, no adverse impact is expected to occur for those industries
that produce output affected by the NESHAP, such as paints, inks, and
adhesives.

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

We do not expect wastewater, solid waste, or hazardous waste to be
generated from controlling HAP emissions from miscellaneous coating
manufacturing facilities. Thus, we expect no non-air quality health
impacts from controlling HAP emissions from miscellaneous coating
manufacturing facilities. We expect the overall energy demand (i.e.,
for electricity generation and steam production) to increase by an
estimated 32,000 gigajoules per year (30.0 billion British thermal
units per year (Btu/yr).

IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

A. What Changes to Applicability Did the Commenters Suggest?

Comment: A number of commenters opposed regulation of activities
such as mixing additives and other ingredients, thinning, and adjusting
tint by facilities that are the end-users of coatings and are subject
to any of the surface coating NESHAP; several of the commenters
described these activities as ``affiliated operations,'' and they
concurred with the definition and draft preamble language for the Paper
and Other Web Coating (POWC) NESHAP that were discussed during POWC
stakeholder meetings on May 22 and June 26, 2002.\1\ For example,
several of the commenters requested specific exemptions for affiliated
operations at facilities subject to surface coating rules in subpart GG
(National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities), subpart KK of 40 CFR part 63 (NESHAP for the Printing and
Publishing Industry), and/or subpart JJJJ of 40 CFR part 63 (NESHAP:
Paper and Other Web Coating). Another commenter requested an exemption
for the onsite formulation and mixing of specialty, ablative coatings
that are applied to space vehicles at a National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) site and are exempt from control under subpart GG
of 40 CFR part 63. Two commenters requested specific language in either
the preamble or final rule to clarify that operations at facilities
subject to subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63 (the plywood and composite
wood products NESHAP) are not subject to subpart HHHHH of 40 CFR part
63. Another commenter also suggested extending the provision to all
equipment associated with a process for which another 40 CFR part 63
standard has been promulgated. One commenter stated that end users,
particularly those at facilities subject to subpart MMMM of 40 CFR part
63 (NESHAP: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products),
should be exempt because subpart MMMM already addresses emissions
associated with the use of diluents at such facilities. Another
commenter noted that the exemption in Sec. 63.7985(a)(4) of operations
that are part of an affected source under another subpart of 40 CFR
part 63 should apply to end-users subject to subparts MMMM, IIII (auto
surface), and PPPP (plastic parts and products) because affiliated
operations are part of the affected sources under those rules. One
commenter requested clarification that the exemption in Sec.
63.7985(a)(4) is not limited only to operations that are required to
implement controls under other standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The final POWC NESHAP was published on December 4, 2002 (67
FR 72330).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two commenters requested exemptions for affiliated operations at
facilities subject to any of the surface coating NESHAP. According to
the commenters, the exemption is necessary because we obtained no
information on end-users while developing subpart HHHHH, some of the
regulated community would not have an opportunity to comment on the
proposal because some of the surface coating rules will not be
published until after subpart HHHHH is finalized, and we considered
emissions from affiliated operations in some surface coating source
categories to be insignificant when we were developing the surface
coating NESHAP. To exclude end users in general, one commenter
recommended more clearly defining ``coatings manufacturing'' with a
definition similar to that for ``batch process'' in subpart GGG of 40
CFR part 63, using a more narrow listing of Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes, and adding specific exemptions for temporary
activities such as mixing prior to painting a tank or structure at a
major source.
Response: The final rule does not apply to activities conducted by
end users of coating products in preparation for application. As noted
by some of the commenters, we have decided to exempt affiliated
operations at POWC facilities from subpart HHHHH. In the preamble to
the final POWC surface coating MACT rule (67 FR 72330, December 4,
2002), we define affiliated operations at POWC facilities and indicate
that they are part of the POWC source category, but they are not part
of the POWC affected source for a variety of reasons. We also examined
other surface coating rules, and determined that the exemption for
affiliated operations should also be applied to sources that are
subject to the printing and publishing rule (subpart KK), the aerospace
manufacturing rule (subpart GG), the metal coil coating rule (subpart
SSSS of 40 CFR part 63), and the miscellaneous metal parts and products
rule (subpart MMMM). These five rules lack requirements for affiliated

[[Page 69169]]

operations, but affiliated operations were considered during the
development of the rules and controls were determined not to be
warranted. We have not extended this exemption to other surface coating
rules (or certain other rules) that already include affiliated
operations as part of the affected source under the applicable subpart
because operations that are part of another affected source are exempt
from the final subpart HHHHH according to Sec. 63.7985(a)(4). One
commenter's assumption that this exemption is not limited to those
operations within another affected source that must implement controls
is correct. Preparations for painting equipment or structures at a
facility are not part of a manufacturing process and thus are not
subject to subpart HHHHH.
Comment: Several commenters recommended clarifying the provision in
Sec. 63.7985(c)(3) of the proposed rule that would exempt all
equipment associated with a process that has less than 5 percent HAP in
process vessels. One commenter noted that this provision will not
exempt all water-based coating manufacturing because the actual HAP
content in the process vessel varies during the process. To be useful,
this commenter stated the determination must be based on the HAP
content of the final product. According to another commenter, the
exemption should be based on ``organic'' HAP, and sources should be
allowed to determine this percentage based on material safety data
sheets (MSDS) or other available information as an alternative to
chemical analysis. One commenter suggested that the exemption would be
less confusing if it were applied to individual vessels rather than a
``coating process'' because equipment is generally associated with a
specific process vessel and the definition of ``process'' is too broad.
One commenter also stated that if a process vessel is not subject to
control because its capacity is less than 250 gallons or the HAP
emissions are less than 50 parts per million by volume (ppmv), then it
is also reasonable that no other requirements should apply to any of
the equipment associated with that process vessel (i.e., the storage
tank, equipment leak, and wastewater standards).
To minimize the compliance burden, one commenter requested
exemptions for impurities and trace constituents present in quantities
less than 0.1 percent by weight for carcinogens and less than 1.0
percent by weight for all other HAP, values which are consistent with
the levels that must be provided on MSDS. The commenter stated that
this would reduce the burden of determining the HAP content in a vessel
for comparison with the 5 percent exemption level and for determining
the HAP content in process vessel vents for comparison to the 50 ppmv
limit.
Response: Under the proposed rule, whenever the contents of a
process vessel contain less than 5 percent HAP by weight, the owner or
operator would be exempt from all requirements for the process vessel
and related equipment. Under the final rule, this provision has been
replaced with a provision that provides for compliance with the
stationary process vessel standards at existing sources when the vessel
is being used to manufacture a coating that contains less than 5
percent HAP by weight. Our rationale for allowing the mass limit as an
alternative standard is based on an estimated equivalent reduction in
HAP emissions as compared to complying with the process vessel
standards. Although we did not collect specific data on coatings
content, we reviewed information that we collected in the development
of standards for other coating manufacturing source categories. Based
on these data, we concluded that we could achieve equivalent reductions
in HAP emissions if coating manufacturers reduce the HAP content of
final products to less than 5 percent by weight. In order to achieve
equivalent reductions of 75 percent for process vessels, the average
HAP content of coatings would have to be greater than 20 percent. Other
data collection efforts support the conclusion. For example, the
average HAP levels in all the solventborne coatings reported in the
metal can and wood building products source categories are 32 and 28
percent, respectively. On a consumption-weighted basis, the HAP content
of coatings in the metal can source category is 20 percent. Further,
although the HAP content of many water-based coatings is less than 5
percent by weight, we did not include an explicit exemption for
waterborne coatings because the HAP content of some waterborne coatings
could be relatively high as long as the HAP is soluble in water.
In developing this alternative, we are persuaded by one commenter's
suggestion to apply it to all vessels that are associated with the
manufacturing of the final product. Although another commenter
suggested that identifying all process vessels in a manufacturing
process would be confusing, we think that this alternative would
actually simplify compliance for most owners and operators. As long as
the process vessel meets the definition in the final rule, an owner or
operator could comply with the alternative standard when the vessel was
processing material that would ultimately contain less than 5 percent
HAP by weight as final product.
To further eliminate confusion, we clarified that the alternative
applies only to process vessels. Storage tanks are not considered
because their control requirements are determined based on the size of
the tank and the HAP partial pressure, not whether the tank is used for
an individual product. Transfer operations are not considered because
their control requirements are determined based on the total annual
quantity of coating that is loaded and its weighted average partial
pressure. Equipment leaks also are not considered because the need for
control is determined by the number of hours a particular component is
in organic HAP service within the affected source, not the specific
product being produced. Also, we did not exempt wastewater streams from
process vessels smaller than 250 gal because we have no evidence that
such vessels are cleaned by a different procedure than larger vessels
or that the wastewater streams from such cleaning operations are kept
separate.
We did not allow in the final rule a de minimis exemption of 0.1 or
1 weight percent HAP for trace constituents. This exemption is not
relevant to the 5 weight percent HAP product alternative standard.
Further, we do not feel that an additional de minimis or trace
constituent exemption for compliance with the remaining standards is
necessary.
Comment: One commenter recommended establishing applicability based
on the affected source rather than the major source so that small
coating manufacturing operations co-located with large surface coating
sources are not subject to subpart HHHHH.
Response: We have not made the suggested change because the
definition of a ``major source'' encompasses an entire plant site
without being subdivided according to industrial classifications or
activities. This definition is contained in section 112(a)(1) of the
CAA, which includes ``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 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP.''
Comment: One commenter requested an exemption for processes with
uncontrolled emissions less than 10,000 lb/yr.

[[Page 69170]]

Response: We have not incorporated the requested exemption because
it is not supported by the available data.
Comment: One commenter requested an exemption for waterborne
coatings.
Response: We have not included an explicit exemption for waterborne
coatings because the HAP content of a waterborne coating could be
relatively high as long as the HAP is soluble in water. However, a
source can reformulate coatings to contain less than 5 percent HAP as a
means of meeting the process vessel vent emission limits and work
practice standards for existing sources.
Comment: One commenter requested an exemption for low vapor
pressure HAP.
Response: We did not provide an exemption for low vapor pressure
HAP materials because we could not justify a no emissions reduction
MACT floor for these materials based on our information. We did not
collect information that could be used to support the concept that
process vessels containing only low vapor pressure materials would not
be controlled to the same levels as those containing higher vapor
pressure materials. Further, we reviewed HAP storage tank throughput at
facilities that reported control of process vessels, and noted that
lower vapor pressure HAP, such as glycol ethers and ethylene glycol,
were also used at these facilities. However, for the final rule, we
have written the standard for stationary process vessels at existing
sources to require 75 percent reduction only for HAP with a vapor
pressure greater than or equal to 0.6 kPa. We made this change based on
a revised analysis that showed the total impacts of the regulatory
alternative are unreasonable for HAP with vapor pressures less than 0.6
kPa. Thus, these HAP must be controlled to the MACT floor level of 60
percent.
Comment: Three commenters requested clarification of how to
determine whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, or 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHHH, applies to their operations. One commenter noted that
the proposed definition of ``coating manufacturing'' is expansive and
would unnecessarily subject facilities to both subparts.
Response: If the product being manufactured is a coating, and the
manufacturing steps involve blending, mixing, diluting, and related
formulation operations, without an intended reaction, then the process
is subject to subpart HHHHH. If a reaction as well as various other
operations are involved, then the process typically is subject to
subpart FFFF. However, if the downstream formulation operations are
distinct from the preceding synthesis process(es), (perhaps because the
synthesized product is isolated and some of it is sold or transferred
offsite), then the formulation operations are subject to subpart HHHHH,
and the synthesis operations are subject to subpart FFFF. In the event
that equipment used for manufacturing products in processes that are
subject to subpart FFFF is also used for coating manufacturing
operations that are subject to subpart HHHHH, then the primary use of
the equipment determines applicability.

B. How Did We Develop the Standards?

Comment: According to one commenter, the lack of standards for all
HAP is unlawful. The commenter cited hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen
fluoride, chlorine, potassium compounds, and maleic and phthalic
anhydrides as examples of HAP that are not regulated. Another commenter
recommended listing the HAP that are subject to the final rule, or
cross-referencing Table 2 in subpart F of the HON.
Response: The standards in subpart HHHHH apply to all HAP that are
used in coating manufacturing. Of the six compounds cited by the first
commenter, only HCl and phthalic anhydride are listed in our database.
All process vessels larger than 250 gallons that emit any HAP,
including the six cited by the first commenter, must be controlled. We
did not list the HAP in the final rule because the rule applies to all
HAP listed in the Clean Air Act.
Comment: One commenter stated that the thresholds in the proposed
subpart HHHHH unlawfully exempt emission points from control. According
to the commenter, all emission points must be controlled.
Response: We disagree that every emission point at a major source
must be required to reduce emissions. First, section 112(a) of the CAA
defines ``stationary source'' (through reference to section 111(a)) as:
* * * any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or
may emit any air pollutant * * * .'' (42 U.S.C. 7412(a)(3) and
7411(a)(3)). The General Provisions for the MACT program define the
term ``affected source'' as * * * the collection of equipment,
activities, or both within a single contiguous area and under common
control that is included in a section 112(c) source category or
subcategory for which a section 112(d) standard or other relevant
standard is established pursuant to section 112 * * *.'' (40 CFR 63.2).
Nothing in the definition of ``stationary source'' or in the regulatory
definition of ``affected source'' states or implies that each emission
point or volume of emissions must be subjected to control requirements
in standards promulgated under CAA section 112.
Further, even under the commenter's interpretation of ``stationary
source,'' the Agency would still have discretion in regulating
individual emission sources. Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the
Administrator to * * * distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of
sources within a category or subcategory in establishing such standards
* * *.'' We interpret this provision for the miscellaneous coating
manufacturing NESHAP, as we have for previous rules, as allowing
emission limitations to be established for subcategories of sources
based on size or volume of materials processed at the affected source.
Under the discretion allowed by the CAA for the Agency to consider
sizes of sources, we made the determination that certain small-capacity
and low-use operations (e.g., smaller storage tanks) can be analyzed
separately for purposes of identifying the MACT floor and determining
whether beyond-the-floor requirements are reasonable. In addition, our
MACT floor determinations for certain categories (e.g., stationary
process vessels), which are set according to section 112(d)(3) of the
CAA, reflect the performance levels of the best-performing sources for
which we had information, including vapor pressure thresholds or
cutoffs below which the best-performing sources do not reduce
emissions.
In general, our MACT floor determinations have focused on the best-
performing sources in each source category, and they consider add-on
control technologies as well as other practices that reduce emissions.
As part of our information collection effort, we requested information
on emission reduction measures. We generally did not receive
information indicating that, for the emission points covered by 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHH, sources are currently reducing emissions
through measures other than control technologies (e.g., by fuel
switching or raw materials or process changes) in sufficient numbers to
support a MACT floor based on such measures. Accordingly, our standards
include a performance level that represents the level achieved by the
best control technology, and a threshold or cutoff that represents the
lowest emission potential that is controlled by the best 12 percent of
sources. Because the miscellaneous coating manufacturing source
category is broad in terms of the

[[Page 69171]]

numbers and types of processing operations that are covered, one
challenge was to develop a format by which all sources could be
compared to each other to establish the best-performing sources. The
performance level generally is of the format that can be applied to
different types of control technology and processes and is generally
consistent with existing State and local rules. Thus, different types
of control technology and emission levels resulting from existing rules
are captured in our MACT floor analysis. The cutoff allows owners and
operators that have reduced their emissions below a certain level using
one or more methods, including process changes to reduce or eliminate
pollution at the source, to comply without additional control. Both
performance levels and cutoffs have been set to account for variations
in emission stream characteristics so that the standards can be applied
consistently across the source category. This approach is consistent
with the language of CAA section 112(d)(3) that requires us to set the
MACT floor based on the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources.

C. Standards for Process Vessels

Comment: One commenter is not convinced that the existing source
MACT floor for portable vessels should be only a cover because some
portable vessels have a cover plus add-on control devices, and the
actual performance of a covered vessel varies depending on the type of
cover and other factors such as the HAP content and vapor pressure of
the material being processed. Similarly, the commenter also objected to
the existing source MACT floor for stationary process vessels, claiming
that it does not reflect the actual performance of the best performers,
and that we have not accounted for various factors that affect the
performance.
Other commenters indicated that the existing source MACT floor is
too stringent, or at the very least the control level should not be
increased from 60 percent to 80 percent. For example, one commenter is
not convinced that 6 percent, or the average of the best performing 12
percent, are controlled because many of the controls are applied only
to vessels with specific characteristics rather than facility-wide.
Another commenter questioned the validity of averaging uncontrolled
sources with controlled sources in developing the MACT floor, and
concluded that the floor should be no control. In response to a
solicitation for comment regarding the setting of the floor based on
the mean or the median of controlled vessels (i.e., 60 percent versus
80 percent control, respectively), the commenter stated the mean is
appropriate for several reasons: (1) There are sufficient data points
to use the mean, (2) 60 percent represents a real-world technology, (3)
EPA claimed in MACT floor memoranda that the mean is a better measure
of the central tendency of the data, (4) EPA indicated during the
stakeholder process that the mean would be used as it is representative
of the industry and consistent with Congress' intent under the CAA, and
(5) EPA guidelines for MACT determinations under CAA section 112(j)
state that the MACT floor should be based on the mean unless there is a
large discrepancy between the emission reductions achieved by available
control options (which the commenter indicated is not the case here
because control efficiencies are uniformly distributed between 2 and 99
percent). Numerous other commenters simply stated that the MACT floor
has been adequately characterized, and should not be revised
Nearly all of the commenters objected to the apparent requirement
for 100 percent capture of emissions for the new and existing source
MACT floors for stationary process vessels, and they stated the floor
control levels should specify only the efficiency of the control
device. They expressed particular concern with a statement in the
preamble to the proposed rule that indicated covers must be sealed and
gasketed. The commenters noted that 100 percent capture is not feasible
(and, therefore, not achieved in practice except possibly if using
chemical reaction type vessels and closed solids charging systems)
because covers often must include an opening for an agitator shaft, and
vessels must be opened periodically to take samples, add material, and
perform inspections. They also noted that this requirement contradicts
our position in stakeholder meetings and background memoranda, and they
concluded that the information collection request (ICR) data do not
support a capture component to the floor (i.e., only information about
the control efficiency was requested). Even if actual capture
efficiencies are allowed, they noted that the proposed overall capture
plus control efficiency of 95 percent for process vessels at new
sources would be virtually impossible to achieve because it effectively
requires nearly 100 percent capture.
Numerous commenters objected to the requirement that emissions from
cleaning are subject to control, at least if the vessel does not have
an automatic wash system. One commenter noted that most vessels are
cleaned by hand, but even vessels that have automatic wash systems must
be opened for inspections after cleaning.
Response: We did not adjust the MACT floors for portable or
stationary vessels. For portable vessels, the MACT floor is to equip
each vessel larger than 250 gal with a cover. Our data show that less
than 6 percent of portable vessels are equipped with add-on control
devices, but over 90 percent are equipped with covers. We did not
receive information regarding any other emission reduction techniques
besides the use of covers or add-on control devices for portable
vessels in responses to our ICR request for such information. Thus, we
do not have information indicating that a sufficient percentage of
sources to set a floor are using any emission reduction techniques
other than covers, and we cannot support a floor determination based on
the use of any other techniques.
Our database includes information for 4,628 stationary process
vessels larger than 250 gal. Six percent of all stationary process
vessels corresponds to a total of 278 vessels. A total of 368 vessels
are equipped with some type of add-on device, or about 8 percent. The
average control of the best-performing 12 percent (60 percent
reduction) represents a technically feasible level of control and,
therefore, we disagree with the assertion that the floor should be no
control. The average control efficiency was determined for 368 vessels,
including 278 controlled vessels and factoring in no control for the
remaining 187 top records.
The commenters also contended that reported efficiencies do not
consider capture efficiency. Of the 378 vessels that are controlled,
over 278 (6 percent of the stationary process vessels) reported either
direct ventilation to control devices, reported closed vent systems to
control devices, or reported operating essentially 100 percent capture
(routing building exhausts to an incinerator a capture system) and
control. Therefore, we concluded that it is appropriate to set the
existing source MACT floor for stationary process vessels larger than
250 gal on an overall control efficiency based on the reported
efficiencies.
The new source MACT floors for portable and stationary process
vessels larger than 250 gal are based on the best-performing source.
For both portable and stationary process vessels, the best-performing
source covers the vessels and vents emissions through a closed-vent
system to a thermal incinerator with an overall control efficiency of
95

[[Page 69172]]

percent. Thus, the MACT floors are based on these conditions.
We recognize that basing MACT floors for stationary and portable
vessels on capture and control does not overtly consider fuel,
materials, process, or similar changes that could result in lower
overall mass emissions. However, based on the information we have, we
cannot accurately quantify a level of mass emissions that could result
from such emission reduction techniques as a MACT floor and that could
be achieved by all coating manufacturers given the variability in
processing operations, the scale of processing operations, and products
manufactured.
We did not specifically request information for portable or
stationary process vessels with capacities less than 250 gal, and we do
not have any such information. We set a MACT floor of no emissions
reductions because we do not have information indicating that a
sufficient percentage of sources are using emission reduction
techniques or add-on controls to enable us to set a MACT floor.
The MACT floor for stationary process vessels at existing sources
is based on overall control. Thus, the final rule specifies that these
process vessels must either be equipped with tightly-fitting vented
covers and closed vent systems meeting the requirements of subpart SS
of 40 CFR part 63. We have decided to exempt some emissions releases
that result from safety and hygiene practices because it is unlikely
that these vents would reach the 50 ppmv concentration level defined to
be a process vessel vent. The exemption also will relieve owners and
operators from the burden of demonstrating that they meet the
concentration level. Specifically, the definition of process vessel
vent excludes flexible elephant trunk systems that draw ambient air
(i.e, systems that are not ducted, piped, or otherwise connected to the
unit operations) away from operators that could be exposed to fumes
when vessels are opened. As an alternative, capture efficiency must be
considered in the overall control efficiency determination if vessels
are not equipped with tightly-fitting vented covers and closed vent
systems. Opening of covers for addition of materials, sampling, etc.,
is included as part of the capture efficiency demonstration. For new
sources, the final rule requires the use of tightly-fitting vented
covers to controls; determining capture is not an option because, as
the commenters noted, achieving 95 percent overall control would
require nearly 100 percent capture.
Finally, we have not required control of cleaning that is
accomplished manually. However, emissions resulting from automatic wash
systems are required to be considered and controlled. Similarly,
control is required for emissions resulting from flushing of lines or
other equipment with solvent at the end of a batch because these are
closed operations.
Comment: Most of the commenters stated that the standard for
stationary process vessels at existing sources should be set at the
MACT floor. According to the commenters, the cost of the regulatory
alternative is unreasonable because our analysis overstated the
uncontrolled emissions, used unrealistic model plant and emission
stream characteristics, and understated the costs.
The commenters disputed our estimate of uncontrolled emissions for
a number of reasons. Their primary argument is that using the Emission
Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) equations would give a more
accurate estimate of the HAP emissions than the AP-42 VOC emission
factor. They noted that EPA has identified the EIIP equations as the
preferred method, companies use them as the basis for title V permits,
States prefer them for permitting and compliance demonstrations, and
EPA specifies the use of similar equations in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGG. Conversely, they noted that the AP-42 VOC emission factor is
inappropriate because, typically, half or less of the VOC is HAP; the
factor is meant to estimate emissions from the entire process, not just
stationary process vessels; and the industry has shifted to less
volatile solvents in recent years. One commenter provided data showing
that the EIIP methodology, calibrated with stack testing, results in
emissions equal to about 0.2 to 0.6 percent of HAP throughput. Another
commenter also noted that our baseline emissions estimate exceeds
facility-wide Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) emissions (which also
include non-HAP, fugitives, emissions from portable vessels, and
emissions from other processes) by factors between 3 and 36. The
commenter also does not believe that 5 facilities generate half of the
emissions in the source category. For example, the commenter contacted
the facility in our database with the highest estimated emissions and
determined that only 2 percent of the solvent throughput is
attributable to the manufacture of inks and coatings; the remainder is
associated with the distribution of paint thinners and paint reducers.
The commenters considered many of the model plant parameters and
emission stream characteristics to be unrealistic. Related to their
concerns that 100 percent capture is infeasible, they noted that local
exhaust ventilation systems usually convey large volumes of air to
minimize worker exposure, reduce the risk of fires, and contain dust.
As a result of the high air flow rates, they noted that the HAP
concentration is much lower than the 40,000 ppmv in our impacts
analysis. Based on stack test data, one commenter stated that actual
concentrations are less than 1,200 ppmv. Another commenter indicated
the concentrations are in the hundreds of ppmv. The commenters noted
that for toluene, the surrogate HAP used in our analysis, 40,000 ppmv
is within the flammable range, which poses safety concerns and would
necessitate the use of expensive fire/explosion prevention equipment
and inerting systems. One commenter stated that xylene should be used
as the surrogate HAP because it is now four times more prevalent than
toluene. The commenters noted that the model included emissions only
from filling, but emissions also result from other process steps such
as mixing, gas sweep, heat-up, holding, emptying, and cleaning. They
also disagreed with the assumption that a control device needs to be
sized to handle emissions from only 5 vessels at a time. For example,
one commenter indicated that many facilities have dozens of process
vessels being filled simultaneously (as much as 50 to 75 percent of all
vessels onsite). Another commenter noted that each vessel would have to
have its own condenser because a common header poses safety and product
quality risks. One commenter objected to the assumption that condensers
can be used to control all process vessels because water cooled
condensers will not be effective for the low concentration (and high
flow) streams in the industry, and condensers are meant to operate for
long periods of time under steady-state conditions, not intermittently
during filling steps.
According to this commenter, our cost analysis included a number of
errors and deficiencies. For example, the analysis did not include the
cost to replace existing vessels with chemical reaction type tanks and
raw material addition equipment, which would be needed to even approach
100 percent capture. If cleaning emissions must be controlled, the
commenter indicated that a cost for automatic wash systems must be
included. Fire and safety instrumentation and systems would be needed
since the model operates with toluene in the flammable range.
Even if condensers are assumed to be applicable for all process
vessels (which

[[Page 69173]]

the commenter opposed), the commenter noted the following concerns with
the analysis: (1) Solvent recovery is not feasible because the
condensed solvent is contaminated with condensed water vapor (and must
be disposed of as hazardous waste); (2) the amount of coolant piping
and valves per condenser is underestimated; (3) baghouses will be
needed upstream of the condenser to remove particulate if solid
materials are added to the process vessel; (4) two-stage rather than
single stage condensers will be required to operate at the model
operating temperature of 32[deg]F; (5) the refrigeration unit needs to
be large enough to service 75 percent of the facility's condensers; and
(6) costs are needed for foundations and supports, electrical
components, instrumentation, insulation, site preparation, and
buildings.
The commenter also stated the analysis understates the incremental
cost effectiveness relative to the floor because it used uncontrolled
emissions rather than baseline emissions; the condenser count is
incorrect for more than 30 facilities; the costs for covers were not
included for the vessels that do not currently have them; the results
reported in $/Mg are actually in $/ton; and the saturation toluene
concentration is 37,370 ppmv, not 40,000 ppmv. Based on a sensitivity
analysis that incorporates some of these suggested changes and looks at
a range of emission stream flows, HAP concentrations, and control
devices, the commenter estimated that costs are at least 5 to 20 times
higher than our estimate. The commenter noted that these estimates are
conservatively low because they do not include costs for chemical
reaction tanks, raw material addition equipment, and fire safety
equipment; they also do not consider the impact of using a less
volatile surrogate HAP on emission reductions. Even without changing
the elements in the analysis, the commenter stated that we should
consider the average facility cost effectiveness value rather than the
nationwide value because a majority of the facilities in the analysis
have incremental costs above $3,500/Mg; typically, these facilities are
small or produce predominately water-based coatings.
Response: We agree that the EIIP guidance is appropriate for use in
estimating emissions from coating manufacturing process sources. We did
not use EIIP models because we did not have the level of detail
required to conduct emission estimates from the facilities in our
database. We considered the 1 to 2 percent solvent throughput values
contained in the Chapter 5 AP-42 documentation to be adequate in
characterizing the level of emissions for nationwide impacts. And,
although one commenter indicated that the EIIP methodology would result
in HAP emissions between 0.2 and 0.6 percent of HAP throughput for his
facilities, this commenter also calculated a loss of 1.3 percent for
one facility due to more conservative assumptions associated with that
facility's operations. While our 1 percent factor may be conservative,
it was a reasonable value for the impacts analysis. The commenters
noted that the AP-42 VOC emission factor is inappropriate because,
typically, half or less than half of the VOC is HAP; however, because
the factor is based on HAP throughput, only the portion of solvent that
is HAP is considered, and therefore, basing the emissions on HAP
throughput appropriately limits the estimates to HAP, not VOC.
Regarding the comment that our baseline emissions estimate exceeds
facility-wide TRI emissions, we note that one commenter indicated that
baseline HAP emissions total 6.3 million pounds for all 127 facilities
in the database, as compared to our estimate of 13.5 million pounds,
roughly a factor of two. Because of the uncertainty associated with
estimation methods, and varying operational practices from site to
site, these estimates are reasonable.
Regarding assumptions made in our cost analysis of the regulatory
alternative for stationary process vessels, we note that the low
overall control efficiency (75 percent) enables numerous control
scenarios for achieving compliance, including those scenarios where air
flows are increased to enable proper capture of emissions from opening
in vessels. While we did not cost out this alternative for presentation
of impacts, it would likely be a scenario employed by owners and
operators. As discussed previously, the two predominant types of
control devices are condensers and thermal incinerators. Therefore, to
further examine the cost effectiveness of the regulatory alternative,
we evaluated the cost effectiveness of applying a capture and control
system using thermal incineration. We started with the analyses
generated by one commenter, which are based on EPA's COST-AIR control
cost spreadsheets for regenerative thermal oxidizers and included the
commenter's estimated installation costs for ductwork, auxiliary
equipment, vapor collection systems and lids for tanks. The commenter
also noted that cost calculations did not include chemical reaction
type tanks to approach 100 percent capture, automatic cleaning systems,
raw material addition equipment, baghouses or fire control system
costs. We also excluded chemical reaction tanks and raw material feed
equipment because they would not be needed when high air flow rates and
a capture system are used to collect and route emissions from the
existing tanks to a thermal incinerator.
The commenter apparently generated an industry-wide cost
effectiveness estimate for thermal oxidizers from average flow and
concentration value ranges. The commenter did not provide enough
information to methodically step through the procedure to arrive at the
resulting value of $16,138/Mg. In fact, it was not clear whether the
commenter selected ranges of concentrations and flowrates corresponding
to 36 stack test data points and then calculated cost effectiveness
values from the midpoints of these ranges or whether the commenter
calculated the cost effectiveness of 36 stack test data points and
developed an arithmetic average. We note that the table supplied by the
commenter identifying concentration and flowrate ranges indicates that
flowrates and concentrations were considered to be independent of each
other and produced a counterintuitive result that flowrate and
concentrations would be directly proportional, as opposed to inversely
proportional. For example, the low flow rate range midpoint values were
listed as 300 cubic feet per minute (cfm) and 50 ppmv, while the high
flowrate range midpoints were listed as 7,500 cfm and 1,750 ppmv. We
would expect that as flowrates increased, concentrations would
decrease, and we concluded that an analysis resulting from the use of
these ranges would likely not represent the actual emission stream
characteristics. Further, we estimated the cost effectiveness of
incinerator controls for these 5 ranges and obtained values ranging
from $290,000/Mg for the 300 cfm, 50 ppmv concentration stream to $400/
Mg for the stream with 7,500 cfm and 1,750 ppmv, indicating a wide
range of cost effectiveness.
We reasoned that a more representative evaluation would be based on
a selected model emission stream. This model stream was based on a
common value resulting from the histogram presented by the commenter;
we selected as model emission stream characteristics a flowrate of
5,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) waste gas and a
concentration of 500 ppmv. Our analysis indicated that the cost
effectiveness value for this model stream would be $2,200/Mg, assuming
only 75 percent reduction of potential HAP emission was achieved. Based
on

[[Page 69174]]

this result, we concluded that an evaluation of capture and control
systems using thermal incineration would result in reasonable costs.
Our original analysis that was the basis for selecting the 75
percent regulatory alternative based on condenser control is still
valid and the total impacts, considering the emission reduction
achieved as well as cost, non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements, are reasonable. Thus, we continue to
base the standard for stationary process vessels at existing sources on
the regulatory alternative. However, the commenter has pointed out
valid concerns regarding our assumptions. Upon review, we agree that we
mistakenly overestimated reductions from the regulatory alternative by
approximately 15 percent from the uncontrolled levels. Therefore, our
estimated total reductions for the regulatory alternative should be on
the order of 4,400 Mg/yr, not 5,000 Mg/yr. The revised incremental HAP
reduction achieved by the regulatory alternative is about 1,000 Mg/yr,
and it reduces costs by an estimated $130/Mg of HAP controlled. The
incremental electricity consumption to operate the refrigeration unit
for the condensers is about 1.7 million kilowatt hours per year (kWh/
yr), and the fuel energy to generate the electricity is about 16
billion Btu/yr. Total CO, NO_X, and SO₂ emissions
from combustion of the additional fuel to generate the electricity is
14 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater, solid waste, or other non-air
quality health or environmental impacts.
Regarding concerns expressed by the commenter on the system design
requirements, such as the required size of the refrigeration units, the
amount of piping and valves per condenser, and various installation
cost elements, we recognize that these costs could be higher, depending
on the site specific situation. In general, the costs would increase
for the MACT floor condenser system as well as the regulatory
alternative condenser system. The basis for selecting the 75 percent
regulatory alternative is that the incremental cost between the MACT
floor of 60 percent and the regulatory alternative is reasonable when
considered in light of the non-air quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements. In our original analysis based on
condensation of toluene, the difference in total annual cost of the two
model systems, one rendering an exit gas temperature of 36[deg]F and
one rendering an exit gas temperature of 50[deg]F, was about the same,
$45,100 for the regulatory alternative, and $43,417 for the MACT floor
alternative; our costs did not specifically assume that the condenser
system rendering an outlet gas temperature of 36[deg]F would require a
precooler; however, our conservative approach to estimating condenser
costs based on a minimum surface area would account for the precooler
costs, since the calculated surface area of the model condenser system
was lower than the minimum size for which costs are available. Given
all the cost elements, we note that the significant factor in
annualized cost differences between the two alternatives is the
recovery credit, which for the regulatory alternative was $37,063 while
the recovery credit for the MACT floor alternative was $29,650. When
subtracted from the total annual cost, the annualized cost for the
regulatory alternative was $8,038, while the annualized cost for the
MACT floor alternative was $13,766. Because cost effectiveness is
expressed as total annualized cost divided by emissions reductions,
recovery credit factors in not only by lowering the total cost of the
option, but increases the denominator in the cost effectiveness term.
The incremental difference between the two models, and also between the
nationwide impacts that were essentially extrapolated from these two
models, is negative. Further, the effect of the recovery credit
essentially drives this decision, and is valid for our analysis. We
assumed that each vessel would be equipped with a condenser and the
condensed material could be returned directly to the vessel without
further refinement; we do not agree that cross contamination would be a
problem under this scenario; further, moisture generated from
condensation of humid air does not appear to be a concern currently as
indicated by the predominance of air systems and lack of nitrogen
blanketing systems on storage tanks.
The commenters suggested that our cost analysis would have yielded
different conclusions had we designed the model condensation systems
for xylene, rather than toluene. We agree that cost effectiveness of
implementing the model condensation systems largely depends on emission
potential, which in turn varies according to the volatility of the HAP
materials. Therefore, we decided to expand the commenter's issue and
determine the HAP materials for which incremental costs for the 75
percent regulatory alternative are reasonable. We conducted an
additional analysis on a model set of emission events consisting of
identical processing steps, but processing a different HAP. For the
analysis we evaluated the following HAP: Toluene, xylene, cumene,
phenol, and ethylene glycol. These compounds represent a range of vapor
pressures for common HAP in the industry. We found that the incremental
cost impacts of going above the MACT floor are unreasonable for HAP
with vapor pressures less than that of cumene. Therefore, we revised
the regulatory alternative and standard for stationary process vessels
at existing sources to include a HAP vapor pressure threshold of 0.6
kPa at 25[deg]C. Emissions of HAP with vapor pressures above the
threshold must be controlled to the regulatory alternative level of 75
percent, whereas HAP with lower vapor pressures must be controlled to
the MACT floor level of 60 percent. About 1 percent of the total HAP
throughput in the industry consists of HAP with vapor pressures below
the threshold; thus, we did not revise the incremental impacts for the
regulatory alternative.
Note that we could not do a similar analysis for thermal
incinerators because the efficiency of incinerators is generally
assumed at 98 percent, and the analysis becomes dependent on
assumptions made about incremental costs of capture efficiency.
Instead, we assumed that the incremental analysis based on condenser
control alone could also be used to justify the regulatory alternative.
We examined the feasibility of a regulatory alternative for
portable process vessels with capacities greater than or equal to 250
gal at existing sources that would require the same 75 percent overall
control as the regulatory alternative for stationary process vessels
with capacities greater than or equal to 250 gal at existing sources.
Using the same condenser cost analysis, we concluded that the total
impacts of this option are unreasonable in light of the emissions
reductions achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by this
beyond-the-floor option is approximately 400 Mg/yr, and the incremental
cost was estimated to be approximately $21,000/Mg of HAP controlled. In
addition, electricity consumption to operate refrigeration units would
increase from zero at the MACT floor to nearly 2.0 million kwh/yr. Fuel
consumption (coal) to generate the electricity would increase by more
than 19.0 billion Btu/yr; collectively, CO, NO_x, and
SO₂ emissions would increase by about 16.5 Mg/yr; and there
would be no wastewater, solid waste, or other non-air quality health or
environmental impacts.
We also evaluated a regulatory alternative for portable and
stationary process vessels smaller than 250 gal at existing sources
that would require the

[[Page 69175]]

same 75 percent overall control as the regulatory alternative for
stationary process vessels larger than 250 gal at existing sources. We
do not know the number of such vessels or their size distribution.
Therefore, we conducted the analysis for a model 250 gal vessel with a
tightly-fitting vented cover at baseline that is used in the production
of a coating that is manufactured using toluene. As for the other
analyses, we assumed the vessel is controlled using a condenser to meet
the regulatory alternative, and the condenser can be served by the same
refrigeration unit as for the stationary process vessels. We concluded
that the total impacts of this alternative are unreasonable in light of
the emission reduction achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved
by this beyond-the-floor alternative is 0.07 Mg/yr, and the incremental
cost is over $25,000/Mg of HAP controlled. If the vessel at baseline
does not have a tightly-fitting vented cover, the baseline emissions
would be greater by an unknown amount, but the total costs would still
be unreasonable. We also assumed that there would be no additional
electricity or energy impacts because they are based on sized
refrigeration systems, and addition of one or more vessels smaller than
250 gal would not require additional refrigeration capacity. Also,
there would be no wastewater, solid waste, or other non-air quality
health or environmental impacts.
Comment: One commenter requested flexibility in the control
requirements for process vessels. The commenter noted that the proposed
standard was tailored to the use of condensers on every process vessel,
but it is not suited for the use of other control technologies or
varying control levels among process vessels. The commenter also urged
us to provide flexible averaging provisions that would allow different
levels of control on different vessels while achieving overall control
equivalent to that achieved by requiring the same control efficiency
for each vessel. Furthermore, the commenter stated the proposed
emissions averaging provisions are not useful because most vessels are
not larger than 10,000 gallons; too few emission points are allowed in
the average; it is too complex and burdensome; submitting a plan in the
precompliance report 18 months before the compliance date is infeasible
because facilities would not have determined how to comply by that
date, and the requirement to obtain approval prior to making changes is
cumbersome and restricts operations; it does not account for changes in
the mix of processes being run; and it should be available for use at
anytime, not just when demonstrating initial compliance.
Response: The final rule includes an emissions averaging option for
stationary process vessels at existing sources that may address the
commenter's concerns. To demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions averaging option, an owner or operator must estimate three
sets of emissions for each vessel in the averaging group. First, the
owner or operator must determine the uncontrolled emissions. Procedures
for estimating uncontrolled emissions are specified in Sec.
63.1257(d)(2), except that for purging events the final subpart HHHHH
specifies a procedure for estimating the specific partial pressure of
each HAP rather than allowing an assumption of saturation or 25 percent
of saturation. Second, the owner or operator must estimate emissions
from each vessel in the averaging group as if it were controlled in
accordance with the percent reduction standard (i.e., 60 percent or 75
percent reductions depending on the vapor pressure of the HAP in the
emission stream). Third, the owner or operator must determine the
actual emissions, which may range from uncontrolled for some vessels to
control levels significantly higher than those determined in the
previous step. The owner or operator must include these data and
calculations in the precompliance report along with rationale for why
the sum of the actual emissions on a quarterly basis will be less than
the sum of the emissions if 60 percent or 75 percent, as applicable,
were achieved for each individual vessel. To demonstrate ongoing
compliance, the owner or operator must track the number of batches
produced, calculate the quarterly actual emissions and emissions under
the regular percent reduction standard for each vessel, and sum the two
sets of quarterly emissions. Compliance is demonstrated if the sum of
the actual emissions is lower than the sum of emissions under the
regular percent reduction standard.

D. Standards for Storage Tanks

Comment: One commenter stated the MACT floor for storage tanks was
determined incorrectly because we did not consider the actual
performance of scrubber controls. The commenter also stated that the
standard must be revised because tank capacity and HAP partial pressure
cutoffs are illegal.
Response: None of the storage tanks containing organic HAP at the
surveyed facilities was controlled with a scrubber. Therefore, the MACT
floors for both existing and new sources are based on the actual
reported performance of sources' controls and our consideration of
whether sources are reducing emissions by other means besides controls.
Regarding tank capacity cutoffs, we considered two subcategories of
storage tanks in our floor analysis: tanks with capacities less than
10,000 gal and storage tanks with capacities greater than or equal to
10,000 gal. We did not specifically request information for storage
tanks with capacities less than 10,000 gal, and we did not receive any
information about such smaller tanks. However, since the costs relative
to the amount of control achieved tend to increase as the size of the
storage tank decreases, we consider it highly unlikely that the
industry is reducing emissions from tanks with capacities smaller than
10,000 gal when they are not reducing emissions from tanks with larger
capacities. Thus, we concluded that the existing source and new source
MACT floors for storage tanks with capacities less than 10,000 are no
emissions reduction. We did not set beyond-the-floor standards for
these smaller tanks because the total impacts to reduce emissions from
storage tanks smaller than 20,000 gal were found to be unreasonable,
and impacts for smaller tanks would be even less favorable.
With respect to storage tanks with capacities greater than or equal
to 10,000 gal, fewer than 6 percent of the storage tanks in our
database use controls or reduce emissions by any other means. Thus, we
concluded that the existing source MACT floor for all storage tanks
with capacities greater than or equal to 10,000 gal is no emissions
reduction.
In setting the MACT floor for existing sources, we considered
whether some facilities may implement emission reduction measures to
reduce emissions from storage tanks, instead of using control
technologies. Internal and external floating roofs are used to minimize
emissions in many other industries, and vapor balancing when filling
the tank is another common technique in other industries. However, we
did not obtain any information in the responses to the ICR or from
other resources that such measures are being used in the miscellaneous
coating manufacturing industry. Another factor that can affect the
emissions level is the color of the tank, but we have no information to
suggest that any facilities are not already using the most favorable
color scheme. Also, we have no information that any other measures are
being used to reduce emissions. Therefore, because we lack information
indicating that a sufficient number of storage tanks employ measures
other

[[Page 69176]]

than control technologies to reduce HAP emissions to set a floor, we
were unable to set a MACT floor based on emission reduction measures.
We examined two regulatory alternatives for storage tanks with
capacities greater than or equal to 10,000 gal at existing sources,
both of which would require the use of either a floating roof or
venting to a control device that reduces emissions by 90 percent. The
first alternative would apply to storage tanks with capacities greater
than or equal to 20,000 gal that store material with a HAP partial
pressure greater than or equal to 1.9 psia. The second alternative uses
a size cutoff of 10,000 gal with the same HAP partial pressure cutoff.
We set the standard at the level of the first regulatory alternative
because, considering the level of emission reduction achieved, the
total impacts of that alternative were determined to be reasonable,
whereas the total impacts of the second alternative were determined to
be unreasonable. Specifically, the first regulatory alternative reduces
HAP emissions by 2.5 Mg/yr at an incremental cost of $2,700 to $4,900
per Mg of HAP controlled, depending on the characteristics of the tank.
In addition, because this option can be achieved by using floating
roofs, there are no non-air quality health or environmental impacts,
including wastewater impacts and solid waste impacts, and no energy
impacts. The second alternative reduces emissions by 7.5 Mg/yr at an
incremental cost of at least $17,000 per Mg of HAP controlled,
depending on the characteristics of the tank. The second regulatory
alternative also has no non-air quality health or environmental
impacts, including wastewater impacts and solid waste impacts, and no
energy impacts for tanks that can be controlled with floating roofs.
However, horizontal tanks (all of which in our database are smaller
than 20,000 gal) must be controlled with an add-on control device such
as a condenser. The incremental electricity consumption to run the
condensers and fuel energy consumption to generate electricity would be
31,000 kwh/yr and 300 million Btu/yr, respectively. Total CO,
NO_X, and SO₂ emissions from combustion of
additional fuel to generate the electricity would be about 0.26 Mg/yr.
There would be no wastewater, solid waste, or other non-air quality
health and environmental impacts.
The new source MACT floor for storage tanks is based on the control
achieved by the best-performing source. The proposed floor consisted of
90 percent control of emissions from storage tanks with capacities
greater than or equal to 20,000 gal that store material with a HAP
partial pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 psia and 90 percent
control of emissions from storage tanks with capacities greater than or
equal to 25,000 gal that store material with a HAP partial pressure
greater than or equal to 0.1 psia. However, another facility reduces
emissions by 80 percent from storage tanks with capacities of 10,000
gal that store material with a HAP vapor pressure of 0.02 psia. Upon
further consideration since proposal, we determined that we cannot
exclude these tanks from the floor analysis simply because the HAP
vapor pressure is extremely low. Thus, the revised new source MACT
floor for storage tanks consists of venting through a closed-vent
system to a control device that reduces HAP emissions by at least 80
percent for storage tanks with a capacity greater than or equal to
10,000 gal that store material with a HAP partial pressure greater than
or equal to 0.02 psia; the new source floor also consists of venting
emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device that reduces
HAP emissions by at least 90 percent for storage tanks with either
capacities greater than or equal to 20,000 gal that store material with
a HAP partial pressure greater than or equal to 0.1 psia or capacities
greater than or equal to 25,000 gal that store material with a HAP
partial pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 psia. Each of these new
source standards reflects, or is equivalent to, the performance of the
best-controlled source because the control levels for existing tanks
increase with both increasing tank capacity and increasing HAP partial
pressure.
The revised emission limits for storage tanks at new sources are
based on the MACT floor because the MACT floor is more stringent than
the second regulatory alternative for existing sources, which we
determined to have unreasonable impacts.

E. Standards for Wastewater

Comment: Four commenters disagreed with our determination that the
MACT floor for wastewater is HON-equivalent management and treatment
procedures for wastewater that contains more than 4,000 ppmw of HAP
listed in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G. One commenter stated
that the floor should be recalculated to be based on the actual
performance of the best sources, not simply set at the median
concentration of controlled streams. According to one commenter, the
floor should be no control because no add-on control is used by more
than 6 percent of all wastewater streams. One commenter indicated that
we have obtained accurate information on 30 wastewater streams, and all
of the data must be used in setting the floor, including data for
streams that contain less than 1,000 ppmw of HAP and streams that
contain only inorganic HAP. Further, the commenter stated that flow is
needed as well as concentration to determine the best performers. Flow
is needed to convert concentrations to mass loadings, and it, or total
volume, has been used to determine applicability in past rules and is
the determining factor in disposal costs. According to the commenter,
our assumptions that coating manufacturing facilities are only small
quantity generators, and only the concentration drives the cost of
disposal, are incorrect. The commenter noted that our database includes
wastewater streams that have higher flows than the five top-performing
streams that we used to set the MACT floor, but these streams are not
sent offsite for treatment because the cost to do so would be
prohibitive. In addition, if our assumption that concentration drives
the cost of disposal were true, the commenter stated that other streams
in the database with concentrations similar to those of the top 5
streams would also be treated offsite, but they are actually treated
onsite, sent to a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), or sent
offsite for solidification. Taking all of these factors into account,
the commenter concluded the floor should be no control.
The commenter also provided additional comments in the event that
we maintain that a floor exists and develop a standard, despite their
objections noted above. First, the commenter stated that applicability
thresholds must be based on the mean rather than the median because our
hierarchy is to use the mean first when it results in a standard that
matches real world technology. Second, if the standard still requires
management and treatment procedures like those in the HON, the
commenter requested an exemption from the steam stripping requirement
for streams containing soluble HAP because steam stripping is
inefficient and expensive for such streams; the commenter also stated
that enclosed sewers are unnecessary for such streams. Third, two
commenters requested that offsite RCRA waste treatment facilities not
be required to certify that they will meet the requirements for
wastewater in the final rule because such facilities are already
stringently controlled. One commenter was concerned that RCRA
facilities may

[[Page 69177]]

decline to accept wastewater if they are unnecessarily burdened with
compliance requirements under the final rule. The commenter noted that
a similar change was made recently to the NESHAP for Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW) in response to litigation.
Response: The miscellaneous coating manufacturing database contains
ten streams from nine facilities. The 30 streams cited by one commenter
was a preliminary draft value that was subsequently changed because it
was incorrect.
After consideration of the comments, we decided to make two changes
to the MACT floor analysis. First, to simplify the analysis, we have
focused on only the actual management and treatment techniques used for
the top performing five streams rather than calling them HON-
equivalent. All five of these streams are collected and shipped offsite
for destruction by combustion at a RCRA hazardous waste treatment
facility. Second, we have decided that specifying only a concentration
cutoff for determining which streams are subject to control is
insufficient. Specifying only the concentration means even very small
streams would be subject to control as long as the concentration of HAP
listed on Table 9 of the HON (i.e., partially soluble and soluble HAP
in the final rule) is greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw, but this is
inconsistent with the statutory requirement to base the floor on the
average of the top five streams. We considered specifying either load
or flow rate in addition to the concentration, and we decided that load
is the best choice. For the top five streams, the load tracks better
with the concentration (i.e., ranking the controlled streams by
increasing load is the same as ranking by increasing concentration).
Of the top five streams, the median stream has a HAP concentration
of 4,000 ppmw and a HAP load of 750 lb/yr. We continue to use the
median rather than the mean because the median better represents the
central tendency of the data. The top five streams (as well as the
other five streams in the database) are skewed towards low
concentrations; three of the five have relatively similar low
concentrations, but the other two streams have concentrations ten or
more times higher. A mean would be closer to the midpoint of the range,
but it would not represent the bulk of the data. Therefore, the revised
existing source MACT floor for wastewater consists of treatment as a
hazardous waste for all streams with partially soluble and soluble HAP
at a concentration greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw and a load
greater than or equal to 750 lb/yr. We estimate that a standard based
on the MACT floor will reduce HAP emissions by 12.9 Mg/yr (14.2 tpy) at
a cost of $306,000 per year.
The revised new source MACT floor is based on the requirements for
the best performing stream, which is a stream that contains 1,600 ppmw
and 12 lb/yr of partially soluble and soluble HAP. Since this load is
negligible, the new source MACT floor consists of treatment as a
hazardous waste for wastewater streams that contain partially soluble
and soluble HAP at a concentration greater than or equal to 1,600 ppmw
at any load.
In setting the MACT floor, we considered whether some facilities
may implement emission reduction measures other than control
technologies to reduce HAP emissions from wastewater. We requested
information on emission reduction measures in our CAA section 114
information collection request. Several facilities reported that they
have implemented changes in the type or quantity of cleaning solution
used, or in the method of cleaning. However, we do not know how
effective these changes were in reducing HAP emissions, and we have no
information to conclude that similar measures could be implemented by
the facilities that reported HAP in their wastewater. Further, some HAP
in the wastewater is HAP that is used in coatings products, and this
HAP cannot be reduced without impacting the coating products produced.
Therefore, we were unable to set a MACT floor based on emission
reduction measures other than treatment.
We examined one regulatory alternative beyond the floor for
existing sources that would require treatment as a hazardous waste for
wastewater containing partially soluble and soluble HAP at a
concentration greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw and a load greater
than or equal to 100 lb/yr. We concluded that the total impacts of this
alternative are unreasonable because the incremental cost would be
about $280,000/Mg; it would increase electricity consumption by 640
kwh/yr; increase fuel consumption by 182 million Btu/yr; and increase
CO, NO_X, and SO₂ emissions by 0.02 Mg/yr. There
would be no wastewater or solid waste impacts. Therefore, the standard
for wastewater in the final rule is based on the revised MACT floor.
In addition, analyses for the HON and other projects concluded that
enhanced biotreatment for soluble HAP compounds could achieve
reductions as high as 99 percent. Because wastewater containing soluble
HAP is generated at miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities, the
final rule also allows onsite or offsite treatment in an enhanced
biological treatment unit as an effectively equivalent alternative for
soluble HAP. This alternative also may prove to be less costly than
treatment as a hazardous waste for high-volume wastewater streams.
Finally, we agree with the comment that Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities do not need to certify that they are
meeting the requirements of subpart HHHHH; therefore, the final rule
requires affected sources that ship their wastewater to an offsite
facility for treatment as a hazardous waste to note this fact along
with the name of the facility to which the wastewater is shipped in
their notification of compliance status report.

F. Standards for Equipment Leaks

Comment: One commenter objected to our determination that the MACT
floor is a LDAR program. According to the commenter, the actual
performance of the best sources was not determined, and the selected
program was simply borrowed from another rulemaking. If we make a
determination of the floor based on the actual performance of relevant
sources, the commenter noted that we must provide the public an
opportunity to comment on it, or the rule would be unlawful, and
arbitrary and capricious.
Response: The proposed floor was based on actual performance, but
this concept takes a different form for equipment leak controls than
for controls on other types of emission points because equipment leaks
are essentially malfunctions, which are not predictable. However, a
program of inspections and repair will ensure that any leaks that do
occur are identified and fixed. We rate the performance of different
LDAR programs based on the type of leak detection method, leak
definition, and leak frequency. Specifically, performance is higher for
instrument-based programs (i.e., using portable organic vapor analyzers
and EPA Method 21 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60) than sensory
programs, lower leak definitions, and increased inspection frequency.
Based on the ICR responses from coating manufacturers, more than 12
percent of the facilities are implementing some type of LDAR program.
One facility reported using an organic vapor analyzer (OVA), a 10,000
ppmv leak definition, and various monitoring frequencies for the
different types of components; this program appears to be similar to
the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT (National Emission
Standards for

[[Page 69178]]

Equipment Leaks--Control Level 1) and 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV
(Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry). The others reported using a
sensory-program, with most of them conducting inspections monthly. No
facilities are capturing all of their equipment leak emissions and
venting them through a closed-vent system to a control device. Thus,
the MACT floor for existing sources was determined to be a sensory-
based LDAR program with monthly inspections of all components. The new
source MACT floor was determined to be an LDAR program based on 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TT, consistent with the program implemented by the
best-performing source.
Comment: One commenter objected to the standard being based on an
LDAR program because it is a work practice standard rather than an
emission limit. According to the commenter, the CAA requires us to set
an emission limit rather than a work practice standard unless it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission limit, and the commenter
found no evidence or analysis in the record suggesting that it
infeasible to do so.
Response: We determined that an LDAR program is the most reasonable
option for control of leaking components. Unlike other emission
sources, leaking components are not deliberate emission sources but
rather result from mechanical limitations associated with process
piping and machinery. A well-managed facility follows a preventive
maintenance program to minimize leaks but in all practicality cannot
guarantee that no leaks will occur. Therefore, an emission standard for
equipment leaks would be difficult to enforce or prescribe. In order to
develop such an option, all processes and equipment containing process
piping that could potentially leak would require complete capture and
control. While the practice of enclosing components and venting to
control is allowed as an alternative to LDAR, it is not practiced
except in limited cases.
Comment: Many commenters stated the standard should be based on the
MACT floor (i.e., a sensory-based LDAR program). According to the
commenters, we assumed leak frequencies and leak rates that are too
high and costs that are too low; changing these assumptions will show
the regulatory alternative (i.e., an LDAR program requiring monitoring
using Method 21) is not cost effective. According to the commenters,
the SOCMI average factors are not representative of the coatings
manufacturing industry because coatings processes generally use less
volatile HAP, operate at lower temperatures and pressures, and all
operation is in the liquid phase. The commenters considered coatings
process conditions to be similar to those for gasoline distribution
facilities, which they noted are required to comply with a sensory-
based LDAR program. To support their position that leak frequencies and
emission rates for coatings manufacturing processes are low, one
commenter provided monitoring data for 13 facilities in the industry,
including bagging sample data for a few of the pumps, valves, and
connectors at one facility.
Response: We reviewed the leak data submitted by the commenter for
13 facilities, including three facilities from which data was recently
collected by a fugitive emissions contractor. The three-facility study
was well documented and conducted by the same contractor and using the
same monitoring instrument that was calibrated on methane. Data from
the remaining ten facilities was not as well documented and in some
cases, the monitoring data appear to have been based on various
instruments and that were calibrated on compounds other than methane.
While these data may have been adequate for the individual facility
purposes, we did not consider them in our analysis because we felt
these data were not consistently obtained. The commenter also conducted
a bagging study at one of the three plants for which screening data was
collected. Using the results of the bagging study, the commenter
calculated emission factors that are 0.00054 kilograms per hour (kg/
hr)-source for valves, 0.0025 kg/hr-source for pumps, and 0.0000422 kg/
hr-source for connectors. In developing the emission factors, the
commenter essentially took an arithmetic average of the VOC emission
rates for all components in the bagging study.
After reviewing the information, we decided to recalculate the
emission factors according to the method documented in both American
Petroleum Institute (API) and EPA publications (``Development of
Fugitive Emission Factors for Petroleum Marketing Terminals,''
Publication Number 4588, March 1993, Prepared by Radian Corporation for
API; and ``Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates,'' EPA
Publication EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995). Using the bagging study
and the corresponding screening data, we developed emission rate
equations for pumps, valves, and connectors that relate the VOC
emission rate (in kg/hr) to the average screening value (in ppmv) for
each component. As a second step, we used the data from the three-
facility screening study to calculate average emission factors. Our
analysis resulted in average emission factors of 0.000412 kg/hr-source
for valves, 0.0042 kg/hr-source for pumps, and 0.000015 kg/hr-source
for connectors. When we applied these emission factors to our model
plant that was the basis for the cost analysis, we found that the
uncontrolled HAP emissions are 0.70 tpy, versus the 4.03 tpy that was
used in the original analysis. For comparison, if we had used the
commenter's calculated emission factors, we would have estimated 0.66
tpy HAP, a slightly lower value but well within the same order of
magnitude as the factor we developed. In either case, we note that the
revised estimate is only about 20 percent of the previous uncontrolled
estimate.
We revised our impacts calculation by conservatively assuming that
the relative reductions achieved by the MACT floor sensory LDAR program
and the regulatory alternative (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU program)
would be the same as assumed in prior analyses. For the model
facilities, our previous analysis assumed a 29 percent reduction from
uncontrolled baseline for the MACT floor and a 62 percent reduction for
the subpart UU regulatory alternative. We multiplied the previously
estimated nationwide reductions of implementing the MACT floor and the
regulatory alternative by the ratio of model facility revised
uncontrolled emission over the earlier estimate of uncontrolled
emissions, or 0.7/4.03, to obtain revised emissions reductions. We
assumed that the capital and total annual cost estimates would be
unchanged from the previous analysis. The incremental cost
effectiveness of going beyond the floor using this analysis was
estimated to be $15,800, and there are essentially no energy impacts or
non-air quality health and environmental impacts associated with the
regulatory alternative. Therefore, we cannot justify going beyond the
floor in the final rule.

G. Standards for Transfer Operations

Comment: One commenter stated we must set a MACT floor for transfer
operations at existing sources. According to the commenter, not setting
a MACT floor because no State regulations apply to transfer operations
is unlawful.
Response: In setting the MACT floor for existing sources, we
considered the available information. We did not specifically request
information for transfer operations in our CAA section 114 information
request. Based on

[[Page 69179]]

follow-up conversations with representatives from five facilities with
high solvent throughput rates that potentially are the most likely to
control emissions from transfer operations, we determined that these
facilities are not controlling their emissions from transfer
operations. We also examined State regulations and determined that they
apply only to throughput rates above those at coating manufacturing
facilities, and they apply only to loading of tank trucks and railcars,
which is less common than filling of smaller containers at coating
manufacturing facilities. There are no other known means by which
sources may be reducing emissions from transfer operations. Therefore,
we concluded that the MACT floor for transfer operations at existing
sources is no emissions reductions. Because we lack information
indicating that any source is implementing or required to implement any
measures to reduce HAP emissions from transfer operations, we concluded
that the new source MACT floor also is no emissions reductions.
Comment: One commenter opposed the beyond-the-floor standard for
existing and new sources. This commenter also claimed that we have not
demonstrated that emissions from transfer operations warrant regulation
because the facility on which impacts were estimated is not
representative of the industry. The commenter contacted that facility
and learned they primarily repackage and distribute paint stripper,
thinners, and spray gun cleaning solvent. According to the commenter,
we generally overestimated emissions from transfer operations because
we assumed that the industry transfers pure solvents or mixtures with
high vapor pressures when in fact the industry transfers primarily
materials with low vapor pressures, including waterborne products.
Furthermore, the commenter stated that the regulatory alternative
cannot be justified based on cost because the impacts are based on
incorrect assumptions. For example, the commenter suggested the
following changes: (1) Use the AP-42 saturation factor of 0.6 for
submerged loading in dedicated vapor balance service instead of the
assumption that displaced vapors are saturated; (2) use a tank truck
filling rate of 25 gal/min instead of 150 gallons per minute (gal/min);
(3) use characteristics of toluene (or better yet, xylene) instead of
an arbitrary HAP with a molecular weight of 80 and a vapor pressure of
3.93 psia; (4) use a gas flow rate of 100 scfm instead of less than 4
scfm; (5) include capital costs for a refrigeration unit and auxiliary
equipment such as a precooler, ductwork, a fan, and pump for collected
solvent; and (6) conduct the analysis over a range of coating
throughput rates to bracket the actual operations in the industry.
Taking these changes into account, the commenter estimated a cost of
more than $30,000/Mg for bulk loading tank trucks at rates between 1.8
million gal/yr and 7.3 million gal/yr. Another commenter stated that
the standard should be no control.
Response: It appears that the first commenter thinks we used the
results of the impacts analysis for one facility as the basis for our
decision to set the existing and new source standards at a level beyond
the floor. This is not correct. We actually conducted two analyses. The
first was a sensitivity analysis, comparable to that suggested by the
commenter, to determine the characteristics of emission streams for
which the total impacts associated with a regulatory alternative that
reduces emissions by 75 percent (the same level as the standard for
stationary process vessels at existing sources) was reasonable. The
second analysis involved estimating the impacts for existing facilities
that met the characteristics from the first analysis.
Based on the results of our sensitivity analysis, we concluded that
the total impacts are reasonable in light of the emissions reductions
achieved if the coating products that are bulk loaded contain at least
3.0 million gal/yr of HAP with a partial pressure of at least 1.5 psia.
The incremental HAP reduction achieved to meet the regulatory
alternative for a model facility with these characteristics was
estimated to be 10.8 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost was estimated to
be $3,200/Mg of HAP removed. These estimates assume the emissions are
controlled using a condenser, and that the refrigeration unit used in
the process vessels analysis can be replaced by one with a slightly
larger capacity to accommodate all of the condensers. The incremental
electricity consumption to operate the enlarged refrigeration unit is
3,200 kwh/yr, and the incremental fuel energy consumption to generate
the electricity is 31 million Btu per year. Total CO, NO_x,
and SO ₂ emissions from combustion of the additional fuel is
0.03 Mg/yr. The condensed HAP would be a hazardous waste. There would
be no wastewater or other non-air quality health or environmental
impacts.
At the maximum product loading volume cited by the commenter, we
estimate the HAP or solvent throughput would be about 2.0 million gal/
yr (i.e., based on an average 1.75 lb HAP/gal coating); thus, none of
the bulk loading scenarios evaluated by the commenter would be subject
to control under the standard. However, we provide the following
discussion of the analysis in the event that a facility may expand
production beyond the rates used in the commenter's analysis, or the
quantity of HAP in their product is higher than the average value that
we used.
In our analysis, we assumed the emission stream is saturated
because emissions occur only as a result of vapor displacement, and the
vent from the tank truck or rail car can be hard-piped to a control
device. Because our analysis assumes that the control is a condenser
with coolant supplied from the same refrigeration unit that we assumed
would be used with condensers for process vessel emissions, we did not
include the cost of a separate refrigeration unit in this analysis. We
also included a smaller maintenance labor factor than would be used for
a separate refrigerated condenser system. These assumptions mean the
costs for overhead, taxes, and capital recovery are lower in our
analysis than the commenter's.
Although we agree that adding costs for a precooler, ductwork, and
a pump would be reasonable, we note that the overall cost of the
auxiliary equipment in our analysis equals more than 50 percent of the
cost for all auxiliary equipment in the commenter's analysis, even
though we have a much smaller condenser. Furthermore, based on the
commenter's data, it appears that we overestimated the cost of the
condenser and waste solvent storage tank, which offsets our lack of
costs for other auxiliary equipment.
We assumed a fill rate of 30 gal/min, which we consider to be
consistent with the commenter's suggested rate of 25 gal/min. This rate
also defines the gas flow into the condenser in our analysis because
the system can be hard-piped, and there is no need to include
supplemental dilution air at a rate 25 times the flow of the displaced
volume. As the commenter noted, we assumed the coating product consists
only of HAP solvent and solids. This was done to simplify the analysis.
Also, products that contain little HAP or less volatile HAP are not
likely to meet the thresholds that we set. Finally, we note that our
analysis likely overestimates the actual costs because we assumed a
waste disposal unit cost four times higher than the cost the commenter
considers to be realistic. Therefore, we maintain that for transfer
operations meeting the specified flow rate and partial pressure levels
in the regulatory alternative, the incremental cost to

[[Page 69180]]

control emissions (relative to the floor of no emissions reduction) is
reasonable.
In our second analysis, we searched the database for any facilities
with HAP throughput and partial pressure that meet the cutoffs
established for the regulatory alternative. We identified only one
facility that potentially met the criteria. The estimated impacts for
this facility are comparable to those for the model facility. Assuming
the commenter is correct that most of the reported throughput at this
facility is not associated with coating manufacturing, then the impacts
of the standard may be lower than we estimated.

H. Pollution Prevention

Comment: One commenter stated that the exemption for equipment that
contain less than 5 percent HAP is not a viable pollution prevention
alternative. Several commenters consider the lack of a viable pollution
prevention alternative to be a serious shortcoming in the rule as
proposed, and they suggested several options for consideration. First,
numerous commenters favored an option that allows manufacturers to take
credit for reductions achieved by voluntarily choosing to manufacture
lower HAP coatings or making other changes in production technology.
Second, two commenters suggested exempting any compliance coating
manufacturing from subpart HHHHH if the facility certifies that the
coatings are manufactured to meet the surface coating rules. Third, one
commenter suggested that we consider allowing delayed implementation of
subpart HHHHH or provide an opt-out provision for facilities whose
emissions drop below major source thresholds; this would minimize the
impact of the ``once-in, always-in'' policy. Fourth, if none of the
preceding options is acceptable, one commenter requested that the
stringency of the standards be reduced because the industry has already
achieved reductions as great as or greater than those expected by the
proposed standards. Many commenters cited numerous changes in the
industry over the past few years that have reduced emissions from
coating manufacturing and have not been accounted for in setting the
standards. For example, the shift in production to waterborne, UV cure,
and high solids coatings, some of which has been driven by other
regulatory requirements, contribute to reducing emissions from coating
manufacturing as well as from coating application. One commenter
estimated that the shift to manufacturing compliant coatings to meet
the surface coating MACT will reduce HAP content of coatings by 265,000
tpy, which also translates into the same reduction in HAP throughput
for the manufacturing processes. Assuming 0.5 to 1.0 percent of the
throughput is emitted during manufacturing means this reduction in
throughput has already achieved a significant fraction of the expected
reductions under subpart HHHHH. Other changes that have reduced
emissions include the shift to using low vapor pressure solvents,
making coatings exclusively in one vessel, and the production of
smaller batch sizes with shorter lead times. Finally, the commenters
noted that the industry has undertaken various voluntary efforts to
reduce emissions including the paint industry's Coatings Care program,
ACC's Responsible Care program, EPA's National Environmental Track
program, and various State and local programs.
Response: We do not agree that facilities can demonstrate that any
of the suggested alternatives are comparable to the specified emission
standards. A percent reduction in the HAP content of products may not
necessarily yield an equivalent percent reduction in emissions. A
format such as a demonstration in reduction of HAP content at coatings
manufacturers is not easily linked to overall HAP usage upon
application.

I. Initial Compliance

Comment: One commenter has encountered difficulty in applying
existing EPA stack sampling methods to determine condenser inlet
concentrations of VOC and HAP for use in demonstrating the control
efficiency of the condenser. The commenter manufactures adhesives and
sealants in closed vessels to which solvent is introduced through
closed piping systems, and solids are introduced via closed screw
conveyors. Nitrogen is used to purge the conveyors and vessels, and the
exhaust gas is vented to a chilled water condenser. The commenter noted
that the vapor space in the process vessels is typically saturated with
solvent vapor, which quickly overwhelms the sampling equipment. The
commenter noted that the sampling equipment also artificially increases
the emissions by drawing off vapor from the precondenser headspace that
would not otherwise represent emissions. Furthermore, the commenter
stated that the method and volume of nitrogen inerting dramatically
affects the sampling effectiveness without actually altering total
emissions. Therefore, the commenter supported the proposed option that
would allow compliance to be demonstrated by documenting operation at a
suitable outlet temperature, but the commenter recommended modifying
the option to consider the combined effect of covers and other vessel
sealing devices as well as the efficiency of the condenser.
Response: Without additional details regarding operation of the
equipment, characteristics of the gas stream(s), and modifications to
the testing protocol that have already been attempted, we cannot
provide constructive suggestions for modifying the sampling methods.
However, we note that performance testing is only one of three options
for demonstrating initial compliance for condensers. As the commenter
indicated, a second option is to demonstrate that the condenser
operates below a specified temperature, where the required level is
based on the HAP partial pressure of the gas stream entering the
condenser. The third option is to determine the percent reduction based
on calculations of the uncontrolled and controlled emissions using the
equations specified in Sec. 63.1257(d).

J. Ongoing Compliance

Comment: According to one commenter, the monitoring provisions are
arbitrary and capricious because they exempt sources with the greatest
emissions (i.e., those that fall outside of the MACT floor due to size
have the loosest monitoring).
Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertions. The final
rule, like the proposed rule, requires monitoring of all control
devices. In some cases, to minimize the burden on small operations
(e.g., small control devices controlling process vessel vents), the
final rule has different monitoring requirements for lower-emitting
sources; however, these sources are not sources with the greatest HAP
emissions as asserted by the commenter.
Comment: One commenter considered the proposed quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) requirements for continuous parameter monitors
to be unduly burdensome and stated that they contravene existing EPA
standards and test methods. The commenter recommended that sources be
required to develop preventive maintenance programs that are based on
manufacturer's recommendations and actual operating/maintenance history
of the instruments. Another commenter recommended adding a provision
that allows sources to request approval, using the precompliance
report, of alternatives to the QA/QC procedures

[[Page 69181]]

specified in Sec. 63.8035 of the proposed rule.
Response: The final rule references the QA/QC requirements for
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS. We deleted the proposed requirements for the same reasons
we decided not to implement similar proposed QA/QC requirements in
subpart SS (67 FR 46260, July 12, 2002). Specifically, we are currently
developing performance specifications for CPMS to be followed by owners
and operators of all sources subject to standards under 40 CFR part 63,
which includes subpart HHHHH. Also, subpart SS currently specifies
requirements for CPMS, and the requirements of subpart SS are
referenced by the final rule. Even though they may not be as specific
as those proposed, we decided it would be premature to promulgate
performance specifications for subpart HHHHH when the performance
specifications that would ultimately be promulgated for all 40 CFR part
63 may be significantly different. Until those performance
specifications are ready, we consider the requirements in subpart SS to
be the best choice because they are consistent with other rules applied
to source categories containing similar control and monitoring
equipment as in this source category. Further, references to these
standard standards streamline compliance requirements for facilities
with operations in numerous source categories. The procedures in
subpart SS require monitoring equipment to be installed, calibrated,
maintained, and operated according to manufacturer's specifications or
other written procedures that provide adequate assurance that the
equipment would reasonably be expected to monitor accurately. These
provisions are consistent with the commenters' suggestions.

K. Recordkeeping and Reporting

Comment: According to one commenter, the initial notification
requirements are unnecessary because facilities in the miscellaneous
coating source category have already submitted an initial notification
under CAA section 112(j). Another commenter considers the notification
to be unnecessary because it is already required under title V.
Response: The requirement to submit an initial notification is part
of the General Provisions, which apply to all NESHAP. If the required
information is already in the sources' title V permit applications, the
requirement for sources to copy this information into their one-time
initial notifications should not be unduly burdensome. Having this
information will help the regulatory authorities and the public better
understand what is being regulated, especially since a source's initial
notification may be submitted before its title V permit is issued or
renewed.
Comment: Three commenters requested that the notification of
compliance status report be due no earlier than 150 days or 180 days
after the compliance date, as in other rules and the General
Provisions. According to the commenters, facilities will need the full
3 years (if not longer) after the promulgation date to respond to
actions taken by their customers and to evaluate their own compliance
options, particularly to determine whether they can make changes such
that they are no longer major sources.
Response: We accept the argument that some facilities may need the
full 3 years after the effective date to bring controls online or to
make product formulation changes to meet new customer requirements in
response to the surface coating MACT rules. Therefore, we have decided
to change the due date for the notification of compliance status
report. In the final rule, the report is due no later than 150 days
after the compliance date, as in many other rules.

L. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction

Comment: According to one commenter, the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) provisions are unlawful because they allow sources to
avoid enforcement actions merely by complying with their startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP), but the CAA requires compliance
continuously except for unavoidable deviations during SSM.
Response: We recently adopted final amendments to the General
Provisions which address the concerns raised by the commenter (68 FR
32586, May 30, 2003). The final amendments clarify that Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(i) establishes a general duty to minimize emissions. During
a period of SSM, that general duty requires an owner or operator to
reduce emissions to the greatest extent consistent with safety and good
air pollution control practices. However, ``during an SSM event, the
general duty to minimize emissions does not require an owner or
operator to achieve the levels required by the applicable MACT standard
at other times, or to make further efforts to reduce emissions if such
levels have been successfully achieved.'' As discussed in the preamble
to the final amendments, we disagree with the commenter's legal
position that sources' compliance with SSMP requirements in lieu of
applicable emission standards is permissible only where violations of
emission limitations are unavoidable. As stated in the preamble to the
final amendments to the General Provisions, ``we believe that we have
discretion to make reasonable distinctions concerning those particular
activities to which the emission limitations in a MACT standard apply *
* *. However, we note that the general duty to minimize emissions is
intended to be a legally enforceable duty which applies when the
emission limitations in a MACT standard do not apply, thereby limiting
exceedances of generally applicable emission limitations to those
instances where they cannot be reasonably avoided.'' We further
explained that the general duty to minimize emissions requires that
owners or operators review their SSMP on an ongoing basis and make
appropriate improvements to ensure that excess emissions are avoided.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that ``startup'' be defined as
in the Amino and Phenolic Resins NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO).
According to the commenters, the proposed definition more accurately
defines a ``new process.''
Response: We clarified the definition of ``startup'' for the final
rule. However, we did not use the definition from the Amino and
Phenolic Resins final rule because we do not consider the language
regarding flexible operation units and continuous processes to be
appropriate for the miscellaneous coatings manufacturing source
category. For the final rule, we removed the term ``family of
coatings,'' and we removed the list of actions that are not startup so
that the definition focuses only on items that are startup. In
addition, since it is possible that actions taken to bring equipment
back online after it has been configured and used to produce a
different product, we also decided to specify that the first time
equipment is put into operation at the start of a campaign, even if the
same product has been produced in the past, is startup if the actions
taken differ from routine operation.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we clearly apply the SSMP
to the emission control equipment rather than to individual process
vessels on a batch to batch basis. According to the commenter, tracking
the startup and shutdown of individual process vessels would require
thousands of records, it would be nearly impossible to insure that all
information is collected properly, and

[[Page 69182]]

the tracking adds no environmental value.
Response: Startup and shutdown do apply to control equipment
because the definitions specify that they apply to ``equipment required
or used to comply with this subpart.'' Similarly, the definition of
``malfunction'' in Sec. 63.2 specifies that it applies to control
equipment. However, startup, shutdown, and malfunction also apply to
the processing equipment. We disagree with the commenter's
characterization that applying startup, shutdown, and malfunction to
process vessels will result in the need to generate thousands of
records because startup only applies to new sources, new equipment, and
possibly the start of campaigns; and malfunctions, by definition, are
infrequent failures of equipment. In addition, the definition of
shutdown has been changed to specify that shutdown applies to the
cessation of operation of process vessels only if the steps taken to
cease operation differ from routine procedures for removing the vessel
or equipment from service. This change also makes the definition of
shutdown consistent with the revised definition of startup.
Comment: Several commenters recommended excluding periods of SSM
from the definition of ``deviation'' and reporting deviations
separately from reporting of SSM events. One commenter noted that
periods of SSM are exempt from compliance under the rule as proposed
and concluded that the proposed requirements are redundant and provide
no useful information regarding compliance. Another commenter also
noted that requirements in previous rules and the General Provisions
differentiate between SSM events and deviations (or exceedances and
excursions, in the terminology of previous rules). According to the
commenter, changing the terminology and requirements for the final rule
will at a minimum be confusing for facilities that also must comply
with previous rules.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's contention that the
proposed requirements are redundant. Section 63.6(e) of the General
Provisions requires operation at all times (including during periods of
SSM) in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions to the levels required by the
relevant standards (i.e., meet the standards or comply with the SSMP).
Nothing in the General Provisions says the standards do not apply
during periods of SSM, but compliance with the SSMP is allowed in the
event the standard cannot otherwise be met. Furthermore, although a
deviation may occur for a day during which an SSM event also occurs,
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the
deviation differ from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
the SSM event; thus, there is no redundancy. Information about all
periods during which an emission limit, operating limit, or work
practice standard is not met and the reasons for noncompliance is
important. Thus, we have not changed the intent of the requirements for
the final rule.
Comment: One commenter considers the proposed requirement for
immediate reporting of actions taken that are inconsistent with the
SSMP to be overly burdensome. According to the commenter, reporting
these events with other SSM events on a semi-annual basis in the
compliance report is sufficient, and the commenter noted that this
approach has been used in 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJ (Polymers and
Resins) and subpart PPP (Polyether Polyols).
Response: We agree that immediate notifications are not necessary.
The industries covered by this source category generally have extensive
upset/SSM reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and state reporting
requirements that should be adequate in supplying timely notification
of events. Further, the final rule requires information regarding
actions inconsistent with the SSMP to be submitted in semiannual
compliance reports. For these reasons, and to maintain consistency with
the HON and the Consolidated Air Rule (CAR), we have overridden the
immediate SSM reporting required by Sec. Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iv) and
63.10(d)(5)(ii) of the General Provisions.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this action
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in the final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information requirements are not enforceable
until OMB approves them. The ICR number is 2115.01.
The information 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
owners or operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 112 of
the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7412). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The final NESHAP require maintenance inspections of the control
devices but do not require any notifications or reports beyond those
required by the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
The recordkeeping requirements collect only the specific information
needed to determine compliance.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the final rule) is estimated to average 79 labor
hours per year at an annual cost of $3,500 for 129 respondents. These
estimates include one-time submissions of notifications and
precompliance reports, preparation of an SSMP with

[[Page 69183]]

semiannual reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were
not followed, preparation of semiannual compliance reports, and
recordkeeping. Total annualized capital/startup costs associated with
the monitoring requirements for the 3-year period of the ICR are
estimated at $10,000/yr. Average operation and maintenance costs
associated with the monitoring requirements for the 3-year period are
estimated at $34,000/yr.
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 purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel 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 number for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are in 40 CFR part 9. When the ICR is approved by
OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved
information collection requirements contained in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule. The
EPA has also determined that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes
of assessing the impact of today's rule on small entities, small entity
is defined as: (1) A small business having up to 500 employees, (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less
than 50,000, and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Our economic analysis identified as small businesses 32 of the 58
companies owning affected coating manufacturing facilities. This
constitutes 55 percent of the affected businesses. Although small
businesses represent 55 percent of the companies withing the source
category, they are expected to incur 24 percent of the total industry
compliance costs of $16 million. According to EPA's economic
assessment, there are two small firms with compliance costs equal to or
greater than 3 percent of their sales. In addition, there are five
small firms with cost-to-sales ratios between 1 and 3 percent.
An economic impact analysis was performed to estimate the changes
in product price and production quantities for the firms affected by
subpart HHHHH. The analysis shows that of the 70 facilities owned by
affected small firms, one is expected to shut down after implementation
of the NESHAP.
The baseline economic condition of the facility predicted to close
affects the closure estimate provided by the economic model. Facilities
that are already experiencing adverse economic conditions will be more
severely impacted than those that are not, and the facility predicted
to close currently has low profitability levels.
Although the NESHAP will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
limit the impact of the final rule on small entities. We have worked
closely with the National Paint and Coatings Association, the National
Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers, and the Adhesives and
Sealants Council. These trade organizations, which represent the
majority of facilities covered by subpart HHHHH, have represented their
members at stakeholder meetings throughout the standards development
process. We worked with the coating manufacturers to minimize the
overlap of MACT standards and provide several alternative ways to
comply with the standards to allow as much flexibility as possible. The
multi-process vessel alternative emission limit and the pollution
prevention option help those small entities that have been proactive in
reducing their HAP emissions and usage, respectively.

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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that the final rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. The maximum total annual costs of the
final rule for any year is estimated to be less than $16 million. Thus,
the final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.
In addition, the NESHAP contain no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because they
contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose
obligations upon them. Therefore, the final rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that

[[Page 69184]]

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.''
The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the sources are owned or
operated by State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to the final rule.

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

Executive Order 13175 (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.'' The final rule does not have tribal
implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments
own or operate miscellaneous coating operations. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to the final rule.

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

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 1985, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not
subject to the Executive Order because it is based on technology
performance and not health or safety risks.

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

The final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Approximately 3.0 million kwh/yr of
electricity will be needed to operate fans and pumps for control
systems. Generating this amount of electricity will consume about 1,000
tpy of coal. If owners and operators elect to use combustion-based
control devices, a small amount of natural gas will also be used.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory
and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The final rule involves technical standards. The final rule uses
EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2G, 2F, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 25, 25A,
26, 26A, 305, 320, 624, 625, 1624, 1625, 1666, 1671, 8260, and 8270.
Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. The
search and review results have been documented and placed in the docket
for the NESHAP (Docket ID No. OAR-03-0178). The search for emissions
monitoring procedures for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates
subject to emission limitations in these NESHAP identified 19 voluntary
consensus standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA
standard reference methods. However, after reviewing the available
standards, EPA determined that 13 of the candidate consensus standards
would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, and
validation data. The 13 standards are: ASME C00031 or Performance Test
Code 19-10-1981, ASTM D3154-91 (1995), ASTM D3464-96, ASTM D3796-90
(1998), ASTM D5835-95, ASTM D6060-96, ASTM E337-84 (Reapproved 1996),
CAN/CSA Z2232.2-M-86, European Norm (EN) 12619 (1999), EN 1911-1,2,3
(1998), ISO 9096:1992, ISO 10396:1993, and ISO 10780:1994. Of the six
remaining candidate consensus standards, the following five are under
development or under EPA review: ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ASME/BSR MFC 13m,
ASTM D5790-95 (1995), ISO/DIS 12039, and ISO/FDIS 14965. The EPA plans
to follow, review, and consider adopting these candidate consensus
standards after their development and further review by EPA is
completed.
One consensus standard, ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases
described below for inclusion in these NESHAP in addition to the
currently available EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A for measurement of organic compounds. Therefore, the standard ASTM
D6420-99 is cited in the final rule.
Similar to EPA's performance based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also
a performance based method for measurement of gaseous organic
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 (Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178) is a
suitable alternative to Method 18 only where the target compound(s) are
those listed in section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99; and the target
concentration is between 150 ppb(v) and 100 ppm(v).
For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99,
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run,
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed,
met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water
soluble. For target

[[Page 69185]]

compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, and not
amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 does not
apply.
As a result, EPA cites ASTM D6420-99 in subpart HHHHH of part 63.
The EPA also cites Method 18 as a gas chromatography (GC) option in
addition to ASTM D6420-99. This will allow the continued use of GC
configurations other than GC/MS.
Some EPA testing methods and performance standards are specified in
Sec. 63.8000(d)(1) of subpart HHHHH. Most of the standards have been
used by States and industry for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, under
Sec. 63.7(f), the final rule also allows any State or source to apply
to EPA for permission to use an alternative method in place of any of
the EPA testing methods or performance standards listed in the NESHAP.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. The EPA will submit a report containing the final rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. The final rule is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. -- Dated: August
29, 2003.

Dated: August 29, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.

? For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

? 2. Part 63 is amended by adding a new subpart HHHHH to read as follows:

Subpart HHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

Sec.

What this Subpart Covers

63.7980 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7985 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?
63.7990 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

Compliance Dates

63.7995 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limits, Work Practice Standards, and Compliance Requirements

63.8000 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
63.8005 What requirements apply to my process vessels?
63.8010 What requirements apply to my storage tanks?
63.8015 What requirements apply to my equipment leaks?
63.8020 What requirements apply to my wastewater streams?
63.8025 What requirements apply to my transfer operations?
63.8030 What requirements apply to my heat exchange systems?

Alternative Means of Compliance

63.8050 How do I comply with emissions averaging for stationary
process vessels at existing sources?
63.8055 How do I comply with a weight percent HAP limit in coating
products?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8070 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8075 What reports must I submit and when?
63.8080 What records must I keep?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8090 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?
63.8095 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8100 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8105 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work
Practice Standards for Process Vessels
Table 2 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work
Practice Standards for Storage Tanks
Table 3 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Equipment
Leaks
Table 4 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work
Practice Standards for Wastewater Streams
Table 5 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work
Practice Standards for Transfer Operations
Table 6 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Heat Exchange
Systems
Table 7 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Partially Soluble Hazardous Air
Pollutants
Table 8 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Soluble Hazardous Air
Pollutants
Table 9 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 10 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart HHHHH

Subpart HHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

What This Subpart Covers

Sec. 63.7980 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for miscellaneous coating manufacturing. This
subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and
continuous compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and
work practice standards.

Sec. 63.7985 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?

(a) You are subject to the requirements in this subpart if you own
or operate miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations, as defined
in paragraph (b) of this section, that meet the conditions specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Are located at or are part of a major source of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) emissions, as defined in section 112(a) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA).
(2) Manufacture coatings as defined in Sec. 63.8105.
(3) Process, use, or produce HAP.
(4) Are not part of an affected source under another subpart of
this part 63.
(b) Miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations include the
facilitywide collection of equipment described in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section that is used to manufacture coatings as
defined in Sec. 63.8105. Miscellaneous coating manufacturing
operations also include cleaning operations.
(1) Process vessels.
(2) Storage tanks for feedstocks and products.
(3) Components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure
relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or
lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems.
(4) Wastewater tanks and transfer racks.
(c) If the predominant use of a transfer rack loading arm or
storage tank

[[Page 69186]]

(including storage tanks in series) is associated with miscellaneous
coating manufacturing, and the loading arm or storage tank is not part
of an affected source under a subpart of this part 63, then you must
assign the loading arm or storage tank to the miscellaneous coating
manufacturing operations. If the predominant use cannot be determined,
and the loading arm or storage tank is not part of an affected source
under a subpart of this part 63, then you must assign the loading arm
or storage tank to the miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations.
If the use varies from year to year, then you must base the
determination on the utilization that occurred during the year
preceding December 11, 2003 or, if the loading arm or storage tank was
not in operation during that year, you must base the use on the
expected use for the first 5-year period after startup. You must
include the determination in the notification of compliance status
report specified in Sec. 63.8075(d). You must redetermine the
predominant use at least once every 5 years after the compliance date.
(d) The requirements for miscellaneous coatings manufacturing
sources in this subpart do not apply to operations described in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Research and development facilities, as defined in section
112(c)(7) of the CAA.
(2) The affiliated operations located at an affected source under
subparts GG (National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing
and Rework Facilities), KK (National Emission Standards for the
Printing and Publishing Industry), JJJJ (NESHAP: Paper and Other Web
Coating), future MMMM (National Emission Standards for Miscellaneous
Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating Operations) and SSSS (NESHAP:
Surface Coating of Metal Coil) of 40 CFR part 63. Affiliated operations
include, but are not limited to, mixing or dissolving of coating
ingredients; coating mixing for viscosity adjustment, color tint or
additive blending, or pH adjustment; cleaning of coating lines and
coating line parts; handling and storage of coatings and solvent; and
conveyance and treatment of wastewater.
(3) Ancillary equipment such as boilers and incinerators (only
those not used to comply with the emission limits in Tables 1 through 5
to this subpart), chillers and refrigeration systems, and other
equipment that is not directly involved in the manufacturing of a
coating (i.e., it operates as a closed system, and materials are not
combined with materials used to manufacture the coating).
(4) Quality assurance/quality control laboratories.

Sec. 63.7990 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each miscellaneous coating
manufacturing affected source as defined in Sec. 63.7985(a).
(b) The miscellaneous coating manufacturing affected source is the
miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations as defined in Sec.
63.7985(b).
(c) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced
construction or reconstruction after April 4, 2002, and you met the
applicability criteria at the time you commenced construction or
reconstruction.

Compliance Dates

Sec. 63.7995 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a) If you have a new affected source, you must comply with this
subpart according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) If you start up your new affected source before December 11,
2003, then you must comply with the requirements for new sources in
this subpart no later than December 11, 2003.
(2) If you start up your new affected source after December 11,
2003, then you must comply with the requirements for new sources in
this subpart upon startup of your affected source.
(b) If you have an existing affected source on December 11, 2003,
then you must comply with the requirements for existing sources in this
subpart no later than December 11, 2005.
(c) If you add equipment to your existing affected source after
December 11, 2003 you must comply with the requirements for existing
sources in this subpart upon startup of the added equipment.
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8070
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.8070 and in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are
required to comply with the emission limits, operating limits, and work
practice standards in this subpart.

Emission Limits, Work Practice Standards, and Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.8000 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limits and work
practice standards in Tables 1 through 5 to this subpart at all times,
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must
meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section. You must meet the requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 63.8005
through 63.8025 (or the alternative means of compliance in Sec.
63.8050), except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. You
must meet the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements
specified in Sec. Sec. 63.8070, 63.8075, and 63.8080.
(b) General requirements. (1) If an emission stream contains
halogen atoms, you must determine whether it meets the definition of a
halogenated stream by calculating the concentration of each organic
compound that contains halogen atoms using the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.115(d)(2)(v), multiplying each concentration by the number of
halogen atoms in the organic compound, and summing the resulting
halogen atom concentrations for all of the organic compounds in the
emission stream. Alternatively, you may elect to designate the emission
stream as halogenated.
(2) Opening of a safety device, as defined in Sec. 63.8105, is
allowed at any time conditions require it to avoid unsafe conditions.
(c) Compliance requirements for closed vent systems and control
devices. If you use a control device to comply with an emission limit
in Table 1, 2, or 5 to this subpart, you must comply with the
requirements in subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63 as specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) of this section, except as specified in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(1) If you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions
through a closed-vent system to any combination of control devices
(except a flare), you must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.982(c) and
the requirements referenced therein.
(2) If you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions
through a closed-vent system to a flare, you must meet the requirements
of Sec. 63.982(b) and the requirements referenced therein. You may not
use a flare to control halogenated vent streams or hydrogen halide and
halogen HAP emissions.
(3) If you use a halogen reduction device to reduce hydrogen halide
and halogen HAP emissions that are generated by combusting halogenated
vent streams, you must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.994 and the
requirements referenced therein. If you use a halogen reduction device
before a combustion device, you must determine the halogen atom
emission rate prior to

[[Page 69187]]

the combustion device according to the procedures in Sec.
63.115(d)(2)(v).
(d) Exceptions to the requirements specified in other subparts of
this part 63. (1) Requirements for performance tests. The requirements
specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (v) of this section apply
instead of or in addition to the requirements for performance testing
of control devices as specified in subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63.
(i) Conduct gas molecular weight analysis using Method 3, 3A, or 3B
in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
(ii) Measure moisture content of the stack gas using Method 4 in
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
(iii) As an alternative to using Method 18, Method 25/25A, or
Method 26/26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to comply with any of the
emission limits specified in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart, you
may use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. When using Method
320, you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of
Method 320, unless you demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure
has been conducted at a similar source.
(iv) Section 63.997(c)(1) does not apply. For the purposes of this
subpart, results of all initial compliance demonstrations must be
included in the notification of compliance status report, which is due
150 days after the compliance date, as specified in Sec.
63.8075(d)(1).
(v) The option in Sec. 63.997(e)(2)(iv)(C) to demonstrate
compliance with a percent reduction emission limit by measuring total
organic carbon (TOC) is not allowed.
(vi) If you do not have a closed-vent system as defined in Sec.
63.981, you must determine capture efficiency using Method 204 of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for all stationary process vessels subject
to requirements of Table 1 to this subpart.
(2) Design evaluation. To determine the percent reduction of a
small control device, you may elect to conduct a design evaluation as
specified in Sec. 63.1257(a)(1) instead of a performance test as
specified in subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63. You must establish the
value(s) and basis for the operating limits as part of the design
evaluation.
(3) Periodic verification. For a control device with total inlet
HAP emissions less than 1 ton per year (tpy), you must establish an
operating limit(s) for a parameter(s) that you will measure and record
at least once per averaging period (i.e., daily or block) to verify
that the control device is operating properly. You may elect to measure
the same parameter(s) that is required for control devices that control
inlet HAP emissions equal to or greater than 1 tpy. If the parameter
will not be measured continuously, you must request approval of your
proposed procedure in the precompliance report. You must identify the
operating limit(s) and the measurement frequency, and you must provide
rationale to support how these measurements demonstrate the control
device is operating properly.
(4) Continuous emissions monitoring systems. Each continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) must be installed, operated, and
maintained according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8 and paragraphs
(d)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according
to the applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
B, and according to paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section, except as
specified in paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section. For any CEMS
meeting Performance Specification 8, you must also comply with appendix
F, procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60.
(A) If you wish to use a CEMS other than a Fourier Transform
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) meeting the requirements of Performance
Specification 15 to measure hydrogen halide and halogen HAP before we
promulgate a Performance Specification for such CEMS, you must prepare
a monitoring plan and submit it for approval in accordance with the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.8.
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) You must determine the calibration gases and reporting units
for TOC CEMS in accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A), (B), or (C) of
this section.
(A) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 9 or 15
requirements, determine the target analyte(s) for calibration using
either process knowledge of the control device inlet stream or the
screening procedures of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream.
(B) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor
performance of a combustion device, calibrate the instrument on the
predominant organic HAP and report the results as carbon
(C₁), and use Method 25A or any approved alternative as the
reference method for the relative accuracy tests.
(C) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor
performance of a noncombustion device, determine the predominant
organic HAP using either process knowledge or the screening procedures
of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream, calibrate the monitor
on the predominant organic HAP, and report the results as
C₁. Use Method 18, ASTM D6420-99, or any approved
alternative as the reference method for the relative accuracy tests,
and report the results as C₁.
(iii) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and according to the
applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B,
except that the schedule in Sec. 63.8(e)(4) does not apply, and the
results of the performance evaluation must be included in the
notification of compliance status report.
(iv) The CEMS data must be reduced to operating day or operating
block averages computed using valid data consistent with the data
availability requirements specified in Sec. 63.999(c)(6)(i)(B) through
(D), except monitoring data also are sufficient to constitute a valid
hour of data if measured values are available for at least two of the
15-minute periods during an hour when calibration, quality assurance,
or maintenance activities are being performed. An operating block is a
period of time from the beginning to end of batch operations in the
manufacturing of a coating. Operating block averages may be used only
for process vessel data.
(5) Continuous parameter monitoring. The provisions in paragraphs
(d)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section apply in addition to the
requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) in
subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63.
(i) You must record the results of each calibration check and all
maintenance performed on the CPMS as specified in Sec.
63.998(c)(1)(ii)(A).
(ii) When subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63 uses the term a range or
operating range of a monitored parameter, it means an operating limit
for a monitored parameter for the purposes of this subpart.
(iii) As an alternative to measuring pH as specified in Sec.
63.994(c)(1)(i), you may elect to continuously monitor the caustic
strength of the scrubber effluent.
(6) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Sections 63.998(b)(2)(iii)
and (b)(6)(i)(A), which apply to the exclusion of monitoring data
collected during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM)
from daily averages, do not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(7) Reporting. (i) When Sec. Sec. 63.8005 through 63.8025
reference other subparts in this part 63 that use the term periodic
report, it means compliance report for the purposes of this subpart.

[[Page 69188]]

(ii) When there are conflicts between this subpart and referenced
subparts for the due dates of reports required by this subpart, reports
must be submitted according to the due dates presented in this subpart.
(iii) Excused excursions, as defined in subpart SS of 40 CFR part
63, are not allowed.

Sec. 63.8005 What requirements apply to my process vessels?

(a) You must meet each emission limit and work practice standard in
Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you, except as specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.8050 and 63.8055, and you must meet each applicable
requirement specified in Sec. 63.8000(b). For each control device used
to comply with Table 1 to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS
of this part 63 as specified in Sec. 63.8000(c), except as specified
in Sec. 63.8000(d) and paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section.
(b) When subpart SS of this part 63 refers to process vents, it
means process vessel vents for the purposes of this section.
(c) Process condensers, as defined in Sec. 63.1251, are not
considered to be control devices for process vessels.
(d) Initial compliance. (1) To demonstrate initial compliance with
a percent reduction emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must
conduct the performance test or design evaluation under conditions as
specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1), except that the performance test or
design evaluation must be conducted under worst-case conditions. Also,
the performance test for a control device used to control emissions
from process vessels must be conducted according to Sec.
63.1257(b)(8), including the submittal of a site-specific test plan for
approval prior to testing. The requirements in Sec. 63.997(e)(1)(i)
and (iii) also do not apply for performance tests conducted to
determine compliance with the emission limits for process vessels.
(2) For the initial compliance demonstration for condensers, you
must determine uncontrolled emissions using the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.1257(d)(2), and you must determine controlled emissions using
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B) and (iii).
(3) You must demonstrate that each process condenser is properly
operated according to the procedures specified in Sec.
63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(4)(ii) and (d)(3)(iii)(B). The reference in Sec.
63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B) to the alternative standard in Sec. 63.1254(c)
does not apply for the purposes of this subpart. As an alternative to
measuring the exhaust gas temperature, as required by Sec.
63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B), you may elect to measure the liquid temperature
in the receiver.
(4) You must conduct a performance test or compliance demonstration
equivalent to an initial compliance demonstration within 360 hours of a
change in operating conditions that are not considered to be within the
previously established worst-case conditions.
(e) Establishing operating limits. You must establish operating
limits under the conditions required for your initial compliance
demonstration, except you may elect to establish operating limit(s) for
conditions other than those under which a performance test was
conducted as specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section and, if
applicable, paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(1) The operating limits may be based on the results of the
performance test and supplementary information such as engineering
assessments and manufacturer's recommendations. These limits may be
established for conditions as unique as individual emission episodes.
You must provide rationale in the precompliance report for the specific
level for each operating limit, including any data and calculations
used to develop the limit and a description of why the limit indicates
proper operation of the control device. The procedures provided in this
paragraph (e)(1) have not been approved by the Administrator and
determination of the operating limit using these procedures is subject
to review and approval by the Administrator.
(2) If you elect to establish separate operating limits for
different emission episodes, you must maintain records as specified in
Sec. 63.8085(g) of each point at which you change from one operating
limit to another, even if the duration of the monitoring for an
operating limit is less than 15 minutes.
(f) Averaging periods. If you elect to establish separate operating
limits for different emission episodes, you may elect to determine
operating block averages instead of the daily averages specified in
Sec. 63.998(b)(3). An operating block is a period of time that is
equal to the time from the beginning to end of an emission episode or
sequence of emission episodes.
(g) Flow indicators. If flow to a control device could be
intermittent, you must install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator
at the inlet or outlet of the control device to identify periods of no
flow. Periods of no flow may not be used in daily or block averages,
and it may not be used in fulfilling a minimum data availability
requirement.

Sec. 63.8010 What requirements apply to my storage tanks?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to your storage tanks, and you must meet each applicable
requirement specified in Sec. 63.8000(b). For each control device used
to comply with Table 2 to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS
of this part 63 as specified in Sec. 63.8000(c), except as specified
in Sec. 63.8000(d) and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(b) Exceptions to subparts SS and WW of this part 63. (1) If you
conduct a performance test or design evaluation for a control device
used to control emissions only from storage tanks, you must establish
operating limits, conduct monitoring, and keep records using the same
procedures as required in subpart SS of this part 63 for control
devices used to reduce emissions from process vents instead of the
procedures specified in Sec. Sec. 63.985(c), 63.998(d)(2)(i), and
63.999(b)(2).
(2) When the term storage vessel is used in subparts SS and WW of
this part 63, the term storage tank, as defined in Sec. 63.8105
applies for the purposes of this subpart.
(c) Planned routine maintenance. The emission limits in Table 2 to
this subpart for control devices used to control emissions from storage
tanks do not apply during periods of planned routine maintenance.
Periods of planned routine maintenance of each control device, during
which the control device does not meet the emission limit specified in
Table 2 to this subpart, must not exceed 240 hours per year (hr/yr).
You may submit an application to the Administrator requesting an
extension of this time limit to a total of 360 hr/yr. The application
must explain why the extension is needed, it must indicate that no
material will be added to the storage tank between the time the 240 hr/
yr limit is exceeded and the control device is again operational, and
it must be submitted at least 60 days before the 240 hr/yr limit will
be exceeded.
(d) Vapor balancing alternative. As an alternative to the emission
limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you may elect to implement
vapor balancing in accordance with Sec. 63.1253(f), except as
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) To comply with Sec. 63.1253(f)(6)(i), the owner or operator of
an offsite cleaning and reloading facility must comply with Sec. Sec.
63.7995 through 63.8105 instead of complying with Sec.
63.1253(f)(7)(ii).
(2) You may elect to set a pressure relief device to a value less
than the 2.5

[[Page 69189]]

psig required in Sec. 63.1253(f)(5) if you provide rationale in your
notification of compliance status report explaining why the alternative
value is sufficient to prevent breathing losses at all times.

Sec. 63.8015 What requirements apply to my equipment leaks?

(a) You must meet each requirement in Table 3 to this subpart that
applies to your equipment leaks, except as specified in paragraphs (b)
through (d) of this section.
(b) The requirement in Sec. 63.424(a) to inspect each piece of
equipment during the loading of a gasoline cargo tank means when the
equipment is operating in organic HAP service for the purposes of this
subpart.
(c) When Sec. 63.1036 refers to batch processes, any part of the
miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations applies for the purposes
of this subpart.
(d) For the purposes of this subpart, pressure testing for leaks in
accordance with Sec. 63.1036(b) is not required after reconfiguration
of an equipment train if flexible hose connections are the only
disturbed equipment.

Sec. 63.8020 What requirements apply to my wastewater streams?

(a) You must meet each requirement in Table 4 to this subpart that
applies to your wastewater streams, and you must meet each applicable
requirement specified in Sec. 63.8000 and paragraphs (b) through (d)
of this section.
(b) For each wastewater stream that you generate, you must either
designate the wastewater stream as a Group 1 wastewater stream
according to the procedures in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or you
must determine whether the wastewater stream is a Group 1 wastewater
stream according to the procedures in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(1) You may designate any wastewater stream as a Group 1 wastewater
stream. You do not have to determine the concentration for any
designated Group 1 wastewater stream.
(2) For wastewater streams that you do not designate as Group 1
wastewater streams, you must use the procedures specified in Sec.
63.144(b) to establish the concentrations, except as specified in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) References to Table 8 compounds in Sec. 63.144 do not apply
for the purposes of this subpart.
(ii) Alternative test methods. (A) As an alternative to the test
methods specified in Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(i), you may use Method 8260 or
8270 as specified in Sec. 63.1257(b)(10)(iii).
(B) As an alternative to using the methods specified in Sec.
63.144(b)(5)(i), you may conduct wastewater analyses using Method 1666
or 1671 of 40 CFR part 136, appendix A, and comply with the sampling
protocol requirements specified in Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(ii). The
validation requirements specified in Sec. 63.144(b)(5)(iii) do not
apply if you use Method 1666 or 1671 of 40 CFR part 136, appendix A.
(c) For each enhanced biological treatment unit used to comply with
the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must monitor total
suspended solids (TSS), biological oxygen demand (BOD), and the biomass
concentration. In the precompliance report you must identify and
provide rationale for proposed operating limits for these parameters,
methods for monitoring, the frequency of monitoring, and recordkeeping
and reporting procedures that will demonstrate proper operation of the
enhanced biological treatment unit. Alternatively, you may use the
precompliance report to request to monitor other parameters, and you
must include a description of planned reporting and recordkeeping
procedures and the basis for the selected monitoring frequencies and
the methods that will be used.
(d) If you transfer the wastewater offsite for enhanced biological
treatment, you must obtain written certification from the offsite
facility stating that the offsite facility will comply with the
requirements of this subpart. The certifying entity may revoke the
certification by providing 90 days notice. Upon expiration of the
notice period, you may not transfer wastewater to that treatment
facility.

Sec. 63.8025 What requirements apply to my transfer operations?

(a) You must comply with each emission limit and work practice
standard in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to your transfer
operations, and you must meet all applicable requirements specified in
Sec. 63.8000(b). For each control device used to comply with Table 5
to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS of this part 63 as
specified in Sec. 63.8000(c), except as specified in Sec. 63.8000(d)
and paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) If you have Group 1 transfer operations, as defined in Sec.
63.8105, then all transfer racks used for bulk loading coatings must
meet the requirements for high throughput transfer racks in subpart SS
of this part.

Sec. 63.8030 What requirements apply to my heat exchange systems?

(a) You must comply with the requirements specified in Table 6 to
this subpart that apply to your heat exchange systems, except as
specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
(b) The phrase a chemical manufacturing process unit meeting the
conditions of Sec. 63.100(b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section in
Sec. 63.104(a) means the miscellaneous coating manufacturing
operations defined in Sec. 63.7985(b) for the purposes of this
subpart.
(c) The reference to Sec. 63.100(c) in Sec. 63.104(a) does not
apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(d) The reference to Sec. 63.103(c)(1) in Sec. 63.104(f)(1) does
not apply. For the purposes of this subpart, records must be retained
as specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(e) The reference to the periodic report required by Sec.
63.152(c) of subpart G of this part means the compliance report
required by Sec. 63.8075(e) for the purposes of this subpart.

Alternative Means of Compliance

Sec. 63.8050 How do I comply with emissions averaging for stationary
process vessels at existing sources?

(a) As an alternative to complying with the requirements in Table 1
to this subpart for each individual stationary process vessel, you may
elect to comply with emissions averaging for stationary process vessels
greater than or equal to 250 gallons (gal) at your existing affected
source as specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
(b) General requirements. (1) A State may prohibit averaging of HAP
emissions and require the owner or operator of an existing affected
source to comply with the emission limits and work practice standards
in Table 1 to this subpart.
(2) All stationary process vessels in an emissions averaging group
must be equipped with a tightly-fitting vented cover.
(c) Initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions averaging alternative, you must comply with the provisions in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Estimate uncontrolled emissions from each affected stationary
process vessel in pounds per batch using the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.1257(d)(2), except as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and
(ii) of this section. For the purposes of this section, uncontrolled
emissions means the emissions from the vessel if it were equipped only
with a tightly-fitting vented cover. You must identify the range of
typical operating parameters and perform the calculation using the
values that result in the highest emissions, and you must document the
operating parameters and

[[Page 69190]]

resulting emissions calculations in the precompliance report.
(i) When you are required to calculate uncontrolled emissions from
heating, you may not calculate emissions using Equation 13 of subpart
GGG of this part 63.
(ii) The statement in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(B) that ``the partial
pressure of HAP shall be assumed to be 25 percent of the saturated
value if the purge flow rate is greater than 100 scfm'' does not apply.
For the purposes of this subpart, multiply the HAP partial pressure in
Equation 12 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG by a HAP-specific saturation
factor determined in accordance with Equations 1 through 3 of this
section. Solve equation 1 of this section iteratively beginning with
saturation factors (in the right-hand side of the equation) of 1.0 for
each condensable compound. Stop iterating when the calculated
saturation factors for all compounds are the same to two significant
figures for subsequent iterations. Note that for multi-component
emission streams, saturation factors must be calculated for all
noncondensables in the emission stream.

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR11DE03.001
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR11DE03.002
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR11DE03.003

where:

S₁=saturation factor for individual condensable compounds in
the emission stream
P_i=partial pressure of individual condensable compounds in
the emission stream calculated using Raoult's Law or other appropriate
methods
P_T=pressure of the vessel vapor space
A=surface area of liquid
V=purge flow rate as used in Equation 12 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG
V_isat=volumetric flowrate of condensable
compounds in the emission stream
K_i=mass transfer coefficient of individual condensable
compounds in the emission stream
K_o=mass transfer coefficient of a reference compound (e.g.,
0.83 cm/s for water)
M_o=molecular weight of reference compound (e.g., 18.02 for
water)
M_i=molecular weight of individual condensable compounds in
the emission stream
n=number of condensable compounds in the emission stream

(2) Estimate controlled emissions in pounds per batch for each
vessel as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Except as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this
section, estimate controlled emissions as if the vessel were controlled
in compliance with entry 2.b.i. in Table 1 to this subpart.
(ii) Estimate the controlled emissions using the control level
achieved on November 15, 1990 if that value is greater than the
applicable control level required by entry 2.b.i in Table 1 to this
subpart.
(iii) Estimate the controlled emissions using the control level
required to comply with a State or Federal rule other than this subpart
if that level is greater than the applicable control level required by
entry 2.b.i in Table 1 to this subpart and the other rule was in effect
before the date when you request approval to comply with emissions
averaging.
(3) Determine actual emissions in pounds per batch for each vessel
in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii), as applicable.
(i) If emissions are routed through a closed-vent system to a
condenser control device, determine controlled emissions using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(3).
(ii) If emissions are routed through a closed-vent system to any
control device other than a condenser, determine actual emissions after
determining the efficiency of the control device using the procedures
in subpart SS of this part 63 as specified in Sec. 63.8000(c).
(iii) If the vessel is vented to the atmosphere, then actual
emissions are equal to the uncontrolled emissions estimated in
accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(4) Provide rationale in the precompliance report for why the sum
of the actual emissions will be less than the sum of emissions from the
vessels if they had been controlled in accordance with Table 1 to this
subpart. The approved actual emissions calculated according to
paragraph (c)(3) of this section are emission limits that must be
incorporated into your operating permit.
(d) Continuous compliance. (1) Maintain a monthly log of the number
of batches produced that can be correlated with the emissions estimates
per batch developed in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Sum the actual emissions for all of the process vessels in the
emissions averaging group every three months, with the first 3-month
period beginning on the compliance date, and compare the resulting
total with the total emissions for the vessels calculated in accordance
with paragraph (c)(2) of this section. Compliance is demonstrated if
the sum of the actual emissions is less than the emissions estimated in
accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(3) For control devices, establish operating limits and monitor as
specified in Sec. 63.8000.
(e) Recordkeeping and reporting. Comply with Sec. Sec. 63.8070,
63.8075, and 63.8080.

Sec. 63.8055 How do I comply with a weight percent HAP limit in
coating products?

(a) As an alternative to complying with the requirements in Table 1
to this subpart for each individual stationary process vessel at an
existing source, you may elect to comply with a 5 weight percent HAP
limit for process vessels at your affected source that are used to
manufacture coatings with a HAP content of less than 0.05 kg per kg
product as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) You may only comply with the alternative during the production
of coatings that contain less than 5 weight percent HAP, as determined
using any of the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3)
of this section.
(1) Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 63).
(2) Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). You may use Method 24
to determine the mass fraction of volatile matter and use that value as
a substitute for the mass fraction of HAP.
(3) You may use an alternative test method for determining mass
fraction of HAP if you obtain prior approval by the Administrator. You
must follow the procedure in Sec. 63.7(f) to submit an alternative
test method for approval.

Notification, Reports, and Records

Sec. 63.8070 What notifications must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.
63.6(h)(4) and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (6), 63.9(b)
through (h) that apply to you by the dates specified.
(b) Initial notification. (1) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if
you have an existing affected source on December 11, 2003, you must
submit an initial notification

[[Page 69191]]

not later than 120 calendar days after December 11, 2003.
(2) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new
affected source on or after December 11, 2003, you must submit an
initial notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become
subject to this subpart.
(c) Notification of performance test. If you are required to
conduct a performance test, you must submit a notification of intent to
conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the
performance test is scheduled to begin as required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
For any performance test required as part of the initial compliance
procedures for process vessels in Table 1 to this subpart, you must
also submit the test plan required by Sec. 63.7(c) and the emission
profile with the notification of the performance test.

Sec. 63.8075 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit each report in Table 9 to this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
as specified in Table 9 to this subpart and paragraphs (b)(1) and (2)
of this section.
(1) The compliance reports must be submitted semiannually. The
first report must be submitted no later than 240 days after the
applicable compliance date and shall cover the 6-month period beginning
on the compliance date. Each subsequent compliance report must cover
the 6-month period following the preceding period.
(2) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of according to the dates in Table 9.
(c) Precompliance report. You must submit a precompliance report to
request approval of any of the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(4) of this section. We will either approve or disapprove the report
within 90 days after we receive it. If we disapprove the report, you
must still be in compliance with the emission limitations and work
practice standards in this subpart by the compliance date.
(1) Requests for approval to set operating limits for parameters
other than those specified in Sec. Sec. 63.8005 through 63.8025,
including parameters for enhanced biological treatment units.
Alternatively, you may make these requests according to Sec. 63.8(f).
(2) Descriptions of daily or per batch demonstrations to verify
that control devices subject to Sec. 63.8000(d)(3) are operating as
designed.
(3) A description of the test conditions, data, calculations, and
other information used to establish operating limits according to Sec.
63.8005(e)(1).
(4) If you comply with emissions averaging in Sec. 63.8050, the
data and results of emission calculations as specified in Sec.
63.8050(c)(1) through (3), and rationale for why the sum of actual
emissions will be less than the sum of emissions if the process vessels
were controlled in accordance with Table 1 to this subpart as specified
in Sec. 63.8050(c)(4).
(d) Notification of compliance status report. You must submit a
notification of compliance status report according to the schedule in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, and the notification of compliance
status report must include the information specified in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section.
(1) You must submit the notification of compliance status report no
later than 150 days after the applicable compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.7995.
(2) The notification of compliance status report must include the
information in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) The results of any applicability determinations (e.g., HAP
content of coating products; halogenated vent stream determinations;
group determinations for storage tanks, wastewater, and transfer
operations; and equipment that is in organic HAP service).
(ii) The results of performance tests, engineering analyses, design
evaluations, flare compliance assessments, inspections and repairs, and
calculations used to demonstrate initial compliance according to
Sec. Sec. 63.8005 through 63.8025 and 63.8055. For performance tests,
results must include descriptions of sampling and analysis procedures
and quality assurance procedures.
(iii) Descriptions of monitoring devices, monitoring frequencies,
and the operating limits established during the initial compliance
demonstrations, including data and calculations to support the levels
you establish.
(iv) Identification of parts of the affected source that are
subject to overlapping requirements described in Sec. 63.8090 and the
authority under which you will comply.
(v) Identify storage tanks for which you are complying with the
vapor balancing alternative in Sec. 63.8010(e).
(vi) If you transfer Group 1 wastewater stream to an offsite
facility for treatment, include the name and location of the transferee
and a description of the Group 1 wastewater stream that is sent to the
treatment facility. If the offsite facility provides enhanced
biological treatment, also include the certification required by Sec.
63.8020(d) that the offsite facility will comply with the requirements
of this subpart.
(e) Compliance report. The compliance report must contain the
information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) Applicable records and information for periodic reports as
specified in referenced subparts F, SS, TT, UU, and WW of this part 63.
(5) For each SSM during which excess emissions occur, the
compliance report must include the information specified in paragraphs
(e)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Records that the procedures specified in your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) were followed or documentation of
actions taken that are not consistent with the SSMP.
(ii) A description of each malfunction.
(6) The compliance report must contain the information on
deviations, as defined in Sec. 63.8105, according to paragraphs
(e)(6)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section.
(i) If there are no deviations from any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard specified in this subpart, include a
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limits,
operating limits, or work practice standards during the reporting
period.
(ii) For each deviation from an emission limit, operating limit,
and work practice standard that occurs at an affected source where you
are not using a continuous monitoring system (CMS) to comply with the
emission limit or work practice standards in this subpart, you must
include the information in paragraphs (e)(6)(ii)(A) through (C) of this
section.
(A) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(B) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations

[[Page 69192]]

(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(C) Operating logs for the day(s) during which the deviation
occurred, except operating logs are not required for deviations of the
work practice standards for equipment leaks.
(iii) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit
occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply
with the emission limit in this subpart, you must include the
information in paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(A) through (K) of this section.
This includes periods of SSM.
(A) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(B) The date, time, and duration that each CEMS was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(C) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(D) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(E) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(F) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the
reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(G) An identification of each HAP that is known to be in the
emission stream or wastewater stream, as applicable.
(H) A description of the product being produced.
(I) Identification of the CMS.
(J) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(K) The operating day or operating block average values of
monitored parameters for each day(s) during which the deviation
occurred.
(7) If you use a CEMS, and there were no periods during which it
was out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), include a
statement that there were no periods during which the CEMS was out-of-
control during the reporting period.
(8) Notification of process change. (i) Except as specified in
paragraph (e)(8)(ii) of this section, whenever you change any of the
information submitted in either the notification of compliance status
report or any previously reported change to the notification of
compliance status report, you must document the change in your
compliance report. The notification must include all of the information
in paragraphs (e)(8)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) Revisions to any of the information reported in the original
notification of compliance status report under paragraph (d) of this
section.
(B) Information required by the notification of compliance status
report under paragraph (d) of this section for changes involving the
addition of processes or equipment at the affected source.
(ii) You must submit a report 60 days before the scheduled
implementation date of any of the changes identified in paragraphs
(e)(8)(ii)(A), (B), or (C) of this section.
(A) Any change to the information contained in either the
precompliance report or any previously reported change to the
precompliance report.
(B) A change in the status of a control device from small to large.
(C) A change in compliance status.

Sec. 63.8080 What records must I keep?

You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (g)
of this section.
(a) Each applicable record required by subpart A of this part 63
and in referenced subparts SS, TT, UU, and WW of this part 63.
(b) If complying with emissions averaging, records of the monthly
number of batches for each process vessel, the quarterly actual
emissions for each process vessel, the quarterly estimated emissions
for each process vessel if it had been controlled as specified in Table
1 to this subpart, and comparison of the sums of the quarterly actual
and estimated emissions as specified in Sec. 63.8050(d).
(c) A record of each time a safety device is opened to avoid unsafe
conditions in accordance with Sec. 63.8000(b)(2).
(d) Records of the results of each CPMS calibration check and the
maintenance performed, as specified in Sec. 63.8000(d)(5).
(e) For each CEMS, you must keep the records of the date and time
that each deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during
another period.
(f) In the SSMP required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3), you are not required
to include Group 2 or non-affected emission points. For equipment leaks
only, the SSMP requirement is limited to control devices and is
optional for other equipment.
(g) If you establish separate operating limits as allowed in Sec.
63.8005(e), you must maintain a log of operation or a daily schedule
indicating the time when you change from one operating limit to
another.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec. 63.8090 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?

(a) Compliance with 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts AA, BB, and/
or CC. (1) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.7995, if a
control device that you use to comply with this subpart is also subject
to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
264, subpart AA, BB, or CC; or the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart AA, BB, or CC; and you comply
with the periodic reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 264, subpart
AA, BB, or CC that would apply to the device if your facility had
final-permitted status, you may elect to comply either with the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart;
or with the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part
264 or 265 and the reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 264, as
described in this paragraph (a), which constitute compliance with the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart.
If you elect to comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in 40 CFR parts 264 and/or 265, you must report
the information required for the compliance report in Sec. 63.8075(e),
and you must identify in the notification of compliance status report
required by Sec. 63.8075(d) the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting authority under which you will comply.
(2) After the compliance dates specified in this section, if any
equipment at an affected source that is subject to this subpart is also
subject to 40 CFR part 264, subpart BB or to 40 CFR part 265, subpart
BB, then compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
of 40 CFR part 264 and/or 265 may be used to comply with the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Sec. 63.1255, to the
extent that the requirements of 40 CFR part 264 and/or 265 duplicate
the requirements of this subpart. You must identify in the notification
of compliance status report required by Sec. 63.8075(d) if you will
comply with the recordkeeping and reporting authority under 40 CFR part
264 and/or 265.

[[Page 69193]]

(b) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. After the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.7995, you are in compliance with
this subpart for any storage tank that is assigned to miscellaneous
coating manufacturing operations and that is both controlled with a
floating roof and in compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb. You are in compliance with this subpart if you have a
storage tank with a fixed roof, closed-vent system, and control device
in compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, you must comply with the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this subpart.
You must also identify in your notification of compliance status report
required by Sec. 63.8075(d) which storage tanks are in compliance with
40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.

Sec. 63.8095 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 10 to this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.

Sec. 63.8100 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated authority
such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal
agency, then that agency also has the authority to implement and
enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office
to find out if 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 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4)
of this section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and are
not delegated to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission limits and
work practice standards in Sec. 63.8000(a) under Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.

Sec. 63.8105 What definitions apply to this subpart?

(a) For an affected source complying with the requirements in
subpart SS of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and in
subpart SS of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec. 63.981,
except as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.8000(d)(5)(ii) and (7),
63.8010(c)(2), 63.8025(b), and paragraph (g) of this section.
(b) For an affected source complying with the requirements in
subpart TT of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and in
subpart TT of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec.
63.1001.
(c) For an affected source complying with the requirements in
subpart UU of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and in
subpart UU of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec.
63.1020.
(d) For an affected source complying with the requirements in
subpart WW of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and subpart
WW of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec. 63.1061, except
as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.8000(d)(7), 63.8010(c)(2), and paragraph
(g) of this section.
(e) For an affected source complying with requirements in
Sec. Sec. 63.1253, 63.1257, and 63.1258, the terms used in this
subpart and in Sec. Sec. 63.1253, 63.1257, and 63.1258 have the
meaning given them in Sec. 63.1251, except as specified in Sec.
63.8000(d)(7) and paragraph (g) of this section.
(f) For an affected source complying with the requirements of Sec.
63.104, the terms used in this subpart and in Sec. 63.104 have the
meaning given them in Sec. 63.101, except as specified in Sec.
63.8000(d)(7) and paragraph (g) of this section.
(g) All other terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in
40 CFR 63.2, and in this paragraph (g). If a term is defined in Sec.
63.2, Sec. 63.981, Sec. 63.1001, Sec. 63.1020, Sec. 63.1061, or
Sec. 63.1251 and in this paragraph (g), the definition in this
paragraph (g) applies for the purposes of this subpart.
Bulk loading means the loading, into a tank truck or rail car, of
liquid coating products that contain one or more of the organic HAP, as
defined in section 112 of the CAA, from a loading rack. A loading rack
is the system used to fill tank trucks and railcars at a single
geographic site.
Coating means any material such as a paint, ink, or adhesive that
is intended to be applied to a substrate and consists of a mixture of
resins, pigments, solvents, and/or other additives. Typically, these
materials are described by Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes
285 or 289 and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes 3255 and 3259.
Construction means the onsite fabrication, erection, or
installation of an affected source. Addition of new equipment to an
affected source does not constitute construction, but it may constitute
reconstruction of the affected source if it satisfies the definition of
reconstruction in Sec. 63.2.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limit, operating limit, or work
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart.
Enhanced biological treatment system means an aerated, thoroughly
mixed treatment unit(s) that contains biomass suspended in water
followed by a clarifier that removes biomass from the treated water and
recycles recovered biomass to the aeration unit. The mixed liquor
volatile suspended solids (biomass) is greater than 1 kilogram per
cubic meter throughout each aeration unit. The biomass is suspended and
aerated in the water of the aeration unit(s) either by submerged air
flow or mechanical agitation. A thoroughly mixed treatment unit is a
unit that is designed and operated to approach or achieve uniform
biomass distribution and organic compound concentration throughout the
aeration unit by quickly dispersing the recycled biomass and the
wastewater entering the unit.
Excess emissions means emissions greater than those allowed by the
emission limit.
Group 1a storage tank means a storage tank at an existing source
with a capacity greater than or equal to 20,000 gal storing material
that has a maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP greater
than or equal to 1.9 pounds per square inch, absolute (psia). Group 1a
storage tank also means a storage tank at a new source with either a
capacity greater than or equal to 25,000 gal storing material that has
a maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP greater than or equal to 0.1
psia or a capacity

[[Page 69194]]

greater than or equal to 20,000 gal and less than 25,000 gal storing
material that has a maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP greater
than or equal to 1.5 psia.
Group 1b storage tank means a storage tank at a new source that has
a capacity greater than or equal to 10,000 gal, stores material that
has a maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP greater than or
equal to 0.02 psia, and is not a Group 1a storage tank.
Group 2 storage tank means a storage tank that does not meet the
definition of a Group 1a or Group 1b storage tank.
Group 1 transfer operations means all bulk loading of coating
products if the coatings contain greater than or equal to 3.0 million
gallons per year (gal/yr) of HAP with a weighted average HAP partial
pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 psia.
Group 2 transfer operations means bulk loading of coating products
that does not meet the definition of Group 1 transfer operations.
Group 1 wastewater stream means a wastewater stream that contains
total partially soluble and soluble HAP at an annual average
concentration greater than or equal to 4,000 parts per million by
weight (ppmw) and load greater than or equal to 750 pounds per year
(lb/yr) at an existing source or greater than or equal to 1,600 ppmw
and any partially soluble and soluble HAP load at a new source.
Group 2 wastewater stream means a wastewater stream that does not
meet the definition of a Group 1 wastewater stream.
Halogenated vent stream means a vent stream determined to contain
halogen atoms in organic compounds at a concentration greater than or
equal to 20 ppmv as determined by the procedures specified in Sec.
63.8000(b).
Hydrogen halide and halogen HAP means hydrogen chloride, chlorine,
and hydrogen fluoride.
In organic HAP service means that a piece of equipment either
contains or contacts a fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 5 percent
by weight of total organic HAP as determined according to the
provisions of Sec. 63.180(d). The provisions of Sec. 63.180(d) also
specify how to determine that a piece of equipment is not in organic
HAP service.
Large control device means a control device that controls total HAP
emissions of greater than or equal to 10 tpy, before control.
Maximum true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial pressure
exerted by the total organic HAP in the stored or transferred liquid at
the temperature equal to the highest calendar-month average of the
liquid storage or transfer temperature for liquids stored or
transferred above or below the ambient temperature or at the local
maximum monthly average temperature as reported by the National Weather
Service for liquids stored or transferred at the ambient temperature,
as determined:
(1) In accordance with methods described in American Petroleum
Institute Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss From External Floating-
Roof Tanks (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 63.14 of
subpart A of this part 63); or
(2) As obtained from standard reference texts; or
(3) As determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials
Method D2879-83 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 63.14
of subpart A of this part); or
(4) Any other method approved by the Administrator.
Partially soluble HAP means HAP listed in Table 7 of this subpart.
Point of determination (POD) means each point where process
wastewater exits the miscellaneous coating operations.

Note to definition for point of determination: The regulation
allows determination of the characteristics of a wastewater stream
at the point of determination or downstream of the point of
determination if corrections are made for changes in flow rate and
annual average concentration of partially soluble and soluble HAP
compounds as determined in Sec. 63.144. Such changes include losses
by air emissions; reduction of annual average concentration or
changes in flow rate by mixing with other water or wastewater
streams; and reduction in flow rate or annual average concentration
by treating or otherwise handling the wastewater stream to remove or
destroy HAP.

Process vessel means any stationary or portable tank or other
vessel with a capacity greater than or equal to 250 gal and in which
mixing, blending, diluting, dissolving, temporary holding, and other
processing steps occur in the manufacturing of a coating.
Process vessel vent means a vent from a process vessel or vents
from multiple process vessels that are manifolded together into a
common header, through which a HAP-containing gas stream is, or has the
potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Emission streams that are
undiluted and uncontrolled containing less than 50 ppmv HAP, as
determined through process knowledge that no HAP are present in the
emission stream or using an engineering assessment as discussed in
Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(ii), test data using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, or any other test method that has been validated according
to the procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of this part, are not
considered process vessel vents. Flexible elephant trunk systems when
used with closed vent systems and drawing ambient air (i.e., the system
is not ducted, piped, or otherwise connected to the unit operations)
away from operators when vessels are opened are not process vessel
vents. Process vessel vents do not include vents on storage tanks,
wastewater emission sources, or pieces of equipment subject to the
requirements in Table 3 of this subpart. A gas stream going to a fuel
gas system is not a process vessel vent. A gas stream routed to a
process for a process purpose is not a process vessel vent.
Recovery device, as used in the wastewater provisions, means an
individual unit of equipment used for the purpose of recovering
chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating value), use,
reuse, or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. Examples of equipment
that may be recovery devices include organic removal devices such as
decanters, strippers, or thin-film evaporation units. To be a recovery
device, a decanter and any other equipment based on the operating
principle of gravity separation must receive only multi-phase liquid
streams. A recovery device is considered part of the miscellaneous
coating manufacturing operations.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Safety device means a closure device such as a pressure relief
valve, frangible disc, fusible plug, or any other type of device which
functions exclusively to prevent physical damage or permanent
deformation to a unit or its air emission control equipment by venting
gases or vapors directly to the atmosphere during unsafe conditions
resulting from an unplanned, accidental, or emergency event. For the
purposes of this subpart, a safety device is not used for routine
venting of gases or vapors from the vapor headspace underneath a cover
such as during filling of the unit or to adjust the pressure in
response to normal daily diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations. A
safety device is designed to remain in a closed position during normal
operations and open only when the internal pressure, or another
relevant parameter, exceeds the device threshold setting applicable to
the air emission control equipment as determined by the owner or
operator based on manufacturer recommendations, applicable regulations,
fire protection and prevention codes and practices, or other

[[Page 69195]]

requirements for the safe handling of flammable, combustible,
explosive, reactive, or hazardous materials.
Shutdown means the cessation of operation of an affected source,
any process vessels within an affected source, or equipment required or
used to comply with this subpart if steps taken to cease operation
differ from those under routine procedures for removing the vessel or
equipment from service. Shutdown also applies to the emptying and
degassing of storage tanks.
Small control device means a control device that controls total HAP
emissions of less than 10 tpy, before control.
Soluble HAP means the HAP listed in Table 8 of this subpart.
Startup means the setting in operation of a new affected source.
For new equipment added to an affected source, including equipment
required or used to comply with this subpart, startup means the first
time the equipment is put into operation. Startup includes the setting
in operation of equipment any time the steps taken differ from routine
procedures for putting the equipment into operation.
Storage tank means a tank or other vessel that is used to store
organic liquids that contain one or more HAP as raw material feedstocks
or products. The following are not considered storage tanks for the
purposes of this subpart:
(1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks,
railcars, barges, or ships;
(2) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere;
(3) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain HAP only as
impurities;
(4) Wastewater storage tanks; and
(5) Process vessels.
Total organic compounds or (TOC) means the total gaseous organic
compounds (minus methane and ethane) in a vent stream.
Wastewater storage tank means a stationary structure that is
designed to contain an accumulation of wastewater and is constructed
primarily of nonearthen materials (e.g., wood, concrete, steel,
plastic) which provide structural support.
Wastewater stream means water that is discarded from miscellaneous
coating manufacturing operations through a POD, and that contains an
annual average concentration of total partially soluble and soluble HAP
compounds of at least 1,600 ppmw at any flow rate. For the purposes of
this subpart, noncontact cooling water is not considered a wastewater
stream.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

Tables to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63

As required in Sec. 63.8005, you must meet each emission limit and
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your
process vessels:

Table 1 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
Standards for Process Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you must . . .
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Portable process vessel at an Equip the vessel Non applicable
existing source. with a cover or
lid that must be
in place at all
times when the
vessel contains a
HAP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Stationary process vessel at a. Equip the i. Considering
an existing source. vessel with a both capture and
cover or lid that any combination
must be in place of control
at all times when (except a flare),
the vessel reduce emissions
contains a HAP; by £=75
or. percent by weight
for each HAP with
a vapor pressure
£=0.6
kPa and by £=60
percent for each
HAP with a vapor
pressure <0.6
kPa.
b. Equip the i. Reduce
vessel with a emissions of each
tightly fitting HAP with a vapor
vented cover or pressure £
lid that must be =0.6 kPa by
closed at all £=75
times when the percent by weight
vessel contains and each HAP with
HAP. a vapor pressure
<0.6 kPa by £=60
percent by weight
by venting
emissions through
a closed-vent
system to any
combination of
control devices
(except a flare);
or
ii. Reduce
emissions of
total organic HAP
by venting
emissions from a
non-halogenated
vent stream
through a closed-
vent system to a
flare; or
iii. Reduce
emissions of
total organic HAP
by venting
emissions through
a closed-vent
system to a
condenser that
reduces the
outlet gas
temperature to:
<10[deg]C if the
process vessel
contains HAP with
a partial
pressure <0.6
kPa, or
<2[deg]C if the
process vessel
contains HAP with
a partial
pressure £0.6 kPa and
<17.2 kPa, or
<-5[deg]C if the
process vessel
contains HAP with
a partial
pressure £=17.2 kPa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69196]]

3. Portable and stationary a. Equip the i. Reduce
process vessel at a new source. vessel with a emissions of
tightly fitting total HAP by £
vented cover or =95
lid that must be percent by weight
closed at all by venting
times when the emissions through
vessel contains a closed-vent
HAP. system to any
combination of
control devices
(except a flare);
or
ii. Reduce
emissions of
total organic HAP
by venting
emissions from a
non-halogenated
vent stream
through a closed-
vent system to a
flare; or
iii. Reduce
emissions of
total organic HAP
by venting
emissions through
a closed-vent
system to a
condenser that
reduces the
outlet gas
temperature to:
<-4[deg]C if the
process vessel
contains HAP with
a partial
pressure <0.7
kPa, or
<20[deg]C if the
process vessel
contains HAP with
a partial
pressure £0.7 kPa and
<17.2 kPa, or
<-30[deg]C if the
process vessel
contains HAP with
a partial
pressure £17.2 kPa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Halogenated vent steam from a a. Use a halogen i. Reduce overall
process vessel subject to the reduction device emissions of
requirements of item 2 or 3 of after the hydrogen halide
this table for which you use a combustion and halogen HAP
combustion control device to control device; by £=95
control organic HAP emissions. or percent; or
ii. Reduce overall
emissions of
hydrogen halide
and halogen HAP
to <=0.45
kilogram per hour
(kg/hr).
b. Use a halogen Reduce the halogen
reduction device atom mass
before the emission rate to
combustion <=0.45 kg/hr.
control device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.8010, you must meet each emission limit in
the following table that applies to your storage tanks:

Table 2 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits for Storage Tanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . Then you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1a storage tank..... a. Comply with the requirements of
subpart WW of this part, except as
specified in Sec. 63.8010(b); or
b. Reduce total organic HAP emissions
from the storage tank by £=90
percent by weight by venting emissions
through a closed-vent system to any
combination of control devices
(excluding a flare); or
c. Reduce total organic HAP emissions
from the storage tank by venting
emissions from a non-halogenated vent
stream through a closed-vent system to a
flare.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Group 1b storage tank..... a. Comply with the requirements of
subpart WW of this part, except as
specified in Sec. 63.8010(b); or
b. Reduce total organic HAP emissions
from the storage tank by £=80
percent by weight by venting emissions
through a closed-vent system to any
combination of control devices
(excluding a flare); or
c. Reduce total organic HAP emissions
from the storage tank by venting
emissions from a non-halogenated vent
stream through a closed-vent system to a
flare.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.8015, you must meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to your equipment leaks:

Table 3 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Equipment Leaks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Equipment that is in a. Comply with the requirements in Sec.
organic HAP service at an Sec. 63.424(a) through (d) and
existing source. 63.428(e), (f), and (h)(4), except as
specified in Sec. 63.8015(b); or
b. Comply with the requirements of
subpart TT of this part; or
c. Comply with the requirements of
subpart UU of this part, except as
specified in Sec. 63.8015(c) and (d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Equipment that is in a. Comply with the requirements of
organic HAP service at a new subpart TT of this part; or
source. b. Comply with the requirements of
subpart UU of this part, except as
specified in Sec. 63.8015(c) and (d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.8020, you must meet each emission limit and
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your
wastewater streams:

[[Page 69197]]

Table 4 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
Standards for Wastewater Streams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wastewater tank used to Maintain a fixed roof, which may have
store a Group 1 wastewater openings necessary for proper venting of
stream. the tank, such as pressure/vacuum vent
or j-pipe vent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Group 1 wastewater stream. a. Convey using hard-piping and treat the
wastewater as a hazardous waste in
accordance with 40 CFR part 264, 265, or
266 either onsite or offsite; or
b. If the wastewater contains <50 ppmw of
partially soluble HAP, you may elect to
treat the wastewater in an enhanced
biological treatment system that is
located either onsite or offsite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.8025, you must meet each emission limit and
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your
transfer operations:

Table 5 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
Standards for Transfer Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must. . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 transfer operation a. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP
vent stream. by £=75 percent by weight by
venting emissions through a closed-vent
system to any combination of control
devices (except a flare); or
b. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP
by venting emissions from a non-
halogenated vent stream through a closed-
vent system to a flare; or
c. Use a vapor balancing system designed
and operated to collect organic HAP
vapors displaced from tank trucks and
railcars during loading and route the
collected HAP vapors to the storage tank
from which the liquid being loaded
originated or to another storage tank
connected by a common header.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Halogenated Group 1 a. Use a halogen reduction device after
transfer operation vent the combustion device to reduce
stream for which you use a emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen
combustion device to control HAP by £=95 percent by weight
organic HAP emissions. or to <=0.45 kg/hr; or
b. Use a halogen reduction device before
the combustion device to reduce the
halogen atom mass emission rate to
<=0.45 kg/hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.8030, you must meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to your heat exchange systems:

Table 6 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Heat Exchange
Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat exchange system, as Comply with the requirements in Sec.
defined in Sec. 63.101. 63.104, except as specified in Sec.
63.8030.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As specified in Sec. 63.8020, the partially soluble HAP in
wastewater that are subject to management and treatment requirements in
this subpart are listed in the following table:

Table 7 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Partially Soluble Hazardous Air
Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name . . . CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)............... 71556
2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane............................... 79345
3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane................................... 79005
4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride).............. 75354
5. 1,2-Dibromoethane....................................... 106934
6. 1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)................ 107062
7. 1,2-Dichloropropane..................................... 78875
8. 1,3-Dichloropropene..................................... 542756
9. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol................................... 95954
10. 2-Butanone (MEK)....................................... 78933
11. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene.................................... 106467
12. 2-Nitropropane......................................... 79469
13. 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)............................ 108101
14. Acetaldehyde........................................... 75070
15. Acrolein............................................... 107028

[[Page 69198]]

16. Acrylonitrile.......................................... 107131
17. Allyl chloride......................................... 107051
18. Benzene................................................ 71432
19. Benzyl chloride........................................ 100447
20. Biphenyl............................................... 92524
21. Bromoform (tribromomethane)............................ 75252
22. Bromomethane........................................... 74839
23. Butadiene.............................................. 106990
24. Carbon disulfide....................................... 75150
25. Chlorobenzene.......................................... 108907
26. Chloroethane (ethyl chloride).......................... 75003
27. Chloroform............................................. 67663
28. Chloromethane.......................................... 74873
29. Chloroprene............................................ 126998
30. Cumene................................................. 98828
31. Dichloroethyl ether.................................... 111444
32. Dinitrophenol.......................................... 51285
33. Epichlorohydrin........................................ 106898
34. Ethyl acrylate......................................... 140885
35. Ethylbenzene........................................... 100414
36. Ethylene oxide......................................... 75218
37. Ethylidene dichloride.................................. 75343
38. Hexachlorobenzene...................................... 118741
39. Hexachlorobutadiene.................................... 87683
40. Hexachloroethane....................................... 67721
41. Methyl methacrylate.................................... 80626
42. Methyl-t-butyl ether................................... 1634044
43. Methylene chloride..................................... 75092
44. N-hexane............................................... 110543
45. N,N-dimethylaniline.................................... 121697
46. Naphthalene............................................ 91203
47. Phosgene............................................... 75445
48. Propionaldehyde........................................ 123386
49. Propylene oxide........................................ 75569
50. Styrene................................................ 100425
51. Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene)................ 79345
52. Tetrachloromethane (carbon tetrachloride).............. 56235
53. Toluene................................................ 108883
54. Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-).............................. 120821
55. Trichloroethylene...................................... 79016
56. Trimethylpentane....................................... 540841
57. Vinyl acetate.......................................... 108054
58. Vinyl chloride......................................... 75014
59. Xylene (m)............................................. 108383
60. Xylene (o)............................................. 95476
61. Xylene (p)............................................. 106423
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As specified in Sec. 63.8020, the soluble HAP in wastewater that
are subject to management and treatment requirements of this subpart
are listed in the following table:

Table 8 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Soluble Hazardous Air Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name . . . CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Acetonitrile............................................ 75058
2. Acetophenone............................................ 98862
3. Diethyl sulfate......................................... 64675
4. Dimethyl hydrazine (1,1)................................ 58147
5. Dimethyl sulfate........................................ 77781
6. Dinitrotoluene (2,4).................................... 121142
7. Dioxane (1,4)........................................... 123911
8. Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether.......................... 110714
9. Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate................. 112072
10. Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate............... 110496
11. Isophorone............................................. 78591
12. Methanol............................................... 67561
13. Nitrobenzene........................................... 98953
14. Toluidine (o-)......................................... 95534

[[Page 69199]]

15. Triethylamine.......................................... 121448
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As required in Sec. 63.8075(a) and (b), you must submit each
report that applies to you on the schedule shown in the following
table:

Table 9 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit
You must submit a . . . contain . . . the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Precompliance report......... The information At least 6 months
specified in Sec. prior to the
63.8075(c). compliance date;
or for new
sources, with the
application for
approval of
construction or
reconstruction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Notification of compliance The information No later than 150
status report. specified in Sec. days after the
63.8075(d). compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Compliance report............ The information Semiannually
specified in Sec. according to the
63.8075(e). requirements in
Sec.
63.8075(b).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As specified in Sec. 63.8095, the parts of the General Provisions
that apply to you are shown in the following table:

Table 10 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart HHHHH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1............................. Applicability.............. Yes.
Sec. 63.2............................. Definitions................ Yes.
Sec. 63.3............................. Units and Abbreviations.... Yes.
Sec. 63.4............................. Prohibited Activities...... Yes.
Sec. 63.5............................. Construction/Reconstruction Yes.
Sec. 63.6(a).......................... Applicability.............. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)................... Compliance Dates for New Yes.
and Reconstructed sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)....................... Notification............... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)....................... [Reserved].................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)....................... Compliance Dates for New Yes.
and Reconstructed Area
Sources That Become Major.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)................... Compliance Dates for Yes.
Existing Sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)................... [Reserved].................
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)....................... Compliance Dates for Yes.
Existing Area Sources That
Become Major.
Sec. 63.6(d).......................... [Reserved].................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)................... Operation & Maintenance.... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(i), (ii), and (v) SSMP....................... Yes, except information regarding Group 2
through (viii). emission points and equipment leaks is
not required in the SSMP, as specified
in Sec. 63.8080(f).
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) and (iv)......... Recordkeeping and Reporting No, Sec. Sec. 63.998(d)(3) and
During Startup, Shutdown, 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) specify
and Malfunction (SSM). the recordkeeping requirement for SSM
events, and Sec. 63.8075(e)(5)
specifies reporting requirements.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)....................... Compliance Except During Yes.
SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)................... Methods for Determining Yes.
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)................... Alternative Standard....... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(h).......................... Opacity/Visible Emission Only for flares for which Method 22
(VE) Standards. observations are required as part of a
flare compliance assessment.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14).................. Compliance Extension....... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(j).......................... Presidential Compliance Yes.
Exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)................... Performance Test Dates..... Yes, except substitute 150 days for 180
days.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)....................... CAA Section 114 Authority.. Yes, and this paragraph also applies to
flare compliance assessments as
specified under Sec. 63.997(b)(2).
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)....................... Notification of Performance Yes.
Test.

[[Page 69200]]

Sec. 63.7(b)(2)....................... Notification of Yes.
Rescheduling.
Sec. 63.7(c).......................... Quality Assurance/Test Plan Yes, except the test plan must be
submitted with the notification of the
performance test if the control device
controls process vessels.
Sec. 63.7(d).......................... Testing Facilities......... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)....................... Conditions for Conducting Yes, except that performance tests for
Performance Tests. process vessels must be conducted under
worst-case conditions as specified in
Sec. 63.8005.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)....................... Conditions for Conducting Yes.
Performance Tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)....................... Test Run Duration.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(f).......................... Alternative Test Method.... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(g).......................... Performance Test Data Yes.
Analysis.
Sec. 63.7(h).......................... Waiver of Tests............ Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)....................... Applicability of Monitoring Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)....................... Performance Specifications. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)....................... [Reserved].................
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)....................... Monitoring with Flares..... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)....................... Monitoring................. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)................... Multiple Effluents and Yes.
Multiple Monitoring
Systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)....................... Monitoring System Operation Yes.
and Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).................... Maintain and operate CMS... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)................... Routine repairs............ Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii).................. SSMP for CMS............... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)................... Monitoring System Yes.
Installation.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)....................... Requirements............... Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
CFR part 63. This subpart does not
contain requirements for continuous
opacity monitoring systems (COMS).
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i).................... CMS Requirements........... No. This subpart does not require COMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii)................... CMS requirements........... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)....................... COMS Minimum Procedures.... No. This subpart does not contain opacity
or VE limits.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)....................... CMS Requirements........... Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
CFR part 63.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)................... CMS Requirements........... Only for CEMS. Requirements for CPMS are
specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
CFR part 63.
Sec. 63.8(d).......................... CMS Quality Control........ Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
CFR part 63.
Sec. 63.8(e).......................... CMS Performance Evaluation. Section 63.8(e)(6)(ii) does not apply
because this subpart does not require
COMS. Other sections apply only for
CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
CFR part 63.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)................... Alternative Monitoring Yes, except you may also request approval
Method. using the precompliance report.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)....................... Alternative to Relative Only for CEMS.
Accuracy Test.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(4)................... Data Reduction............. Only when using CEMS, except Sec.
63.8(g)(2) does not apply because data
reduction requirements for CEMS are
specified in Sec. 63.8000(d)(4)(iv).
The requirements for COMS do not apply
because this subpart has no opacity or
VE limits.
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)....................... Data Reduction............. No. Requirements for CEMS are specified
in Sec. 63.8000(d)(4).
Requirements for CPMS are specified in
referenced subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63.
Sec. 63.9(a).......................... Notification Requirements.. Yes.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5)................... Initial Notifications...... Yes.
Sec. 63.9(c).......................... Request for Compliance Yes.
Extension.
Sec. 63.9(d).......................... Notification of Special Yes.
Compliance Requirements
for New Source.
Sec. 63.9(e).......................... Notification of Performance Yes.
Test.
Sec. 63.9(f).......................... Notification of VE/Opacity No. This subpart does not contain opacity
Test. or VE limits.
Sec. 63.9(g).......................... Additional Notifications Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
When Using CMS. specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
CFR part 63.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6)................... Notification of Compliance Yes, except this subpart has no opacity
Status. or VE limits, and Sec. 63.9(h)(2) does
not apply because Sec. 63.8075(d)
specifies the required contents and due
date of the notification of compliance
status report.
Sec. 63.9(i).......................... Adjustment of Submittal Yes.
Deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j).......................... Change in Previous No, Sec. 63.8075(e)(8) specifies
Information. reporting requirements for process
changes.
Sec. 63.10(a)......................... Recordkeeping/Reporting.... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)...................... Recordkeeping/Reporting.... Yes.

[[Page 69201]]

Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(iv).............. Records related to SSM..... No, Sec. Sec. 63.998(d)(3) and
63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) specify
recordkeeping requirements for periods
of SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)................. Records related to Yes.
maintenance of air
pollution control
equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), and (xi)... CMS Records................ Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
CFR part 63.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)............ Records.................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)................. Records.................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)................ Records.................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)................. Records.................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)...................... Records.................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6),(9)-(15)......... Records.................... Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
CFR part 63.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8).................. Records.................... No. Recordkeeping requirements are
specified in Sec. 63.8080.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)...................... General Reporting Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)...................... Report of Performance Test Yes.
Results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)...................... Reporting Opacity or VE No. This subpart does not contain opacity
Observations. or VE limits.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)...................... Progress Reports........... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i)................... SSM Reports................ No, Sec. 63.8075(e)(5) and (6) specify
the SSM reporting requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).................. Immediate SSM reports...... No.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2).................. Additional CMS Reports..... Only for CEMS, but Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(ii)
does not apply because this subpart does
not require COMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)...................... Reports.................... No. Reporting requirements are specified
in Sec. 63.8075.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii)............. Reports.................... No. Reporting requirements are specified
in Sec. 63.8075.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v).............. Excess Emissions Reports... No. Reporting requirements are specified
in Sec. 63.8075.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(vi-viii)............. Excess Emissions Report and No. Reporting requirements are specified
Summary Report. in Sec. 63.8075.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)...................... Reporting COMS data........ No. This subpart does not contain opacity
or VE limits.
Sec. 63.10(f)......................... Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Yes.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11............................ Flares..................... Yes.
Sec. 63.12............................ Delegation................. Yes.
Sec. 63.13............................ Addresses.................. Yes.
Sec. 63.14............................ Incorporation by Reference. Yes.
Sec. 63.15............................ Availability of Information Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 03-22928 Filed 12-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

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: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

Local Navigation