WPCX  %K |uuKB+]5D]_츪֢l>c@.) n(u#w.(A++sq4vI$MNJkhkB;_MOv.D#*m9Wj&Jq\̹ttUW>5rZҸ+6s 6 t~~a#&VFyl^>m;+Me>BGXX4 /w ~O$SDT% WkذEZ;+)xwNs] ÊR2AFQdAU:PTC(t Ed9Ǧ ~jg"a/h"هZpNyN/lʝe2S'l셭qA ߊU}"%Rw<I~Cq?V#UpNu % 0Y^ " 1u.N 0uw42A mCNZN\N^N` 0b 0P 0; 0# 1 0 0w 0V 02 0 0 0! 0" 0l# 0?$ 0% 0% 1& 0/' 0' 0( 0) 0m* 0B+ 0, 0, 0- 0x. 0>/ B0 B-0MK0 0O0 0 w0 0Nv1 0AA1 12 0 2 03 0 3 0 S4 0 5 0 5 0 6 0D7N7M7 0Z7 0)<9Ne9Ng9Ni9Nk9 D3m9M9M9 A9 CS:(m:U>:M: B: 1:U:;N;N;;< BI=f=f? D5?a@ 11@ 07L@A 0ANKBMBC BJ*CND D3D B8D D5UD BD D5D BD D1D D5*EU:_E D5E B*EMEMEMF 0uF 0KyFNFNF 1FMSG 0=WGMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMHMH D+HMHMIMIM I 72I 0qTAIMI IMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMI ASIM.JU:2J AlJ: KFEKM 0udO 0CcOUNA C 0 0cMM 0 0a 04 0 09 0 02 0 0: 0_  0 x  0k! 0" 0$a& 0+&a'a&' 06:' 0p' 0:x( 0h(p ) 0F$@Mj@Mn@U6r@U*@@@@@@@@@o@p{D{D{D{D{D{D{D{D{D{D{D{D{D{D{D{D{D{D{D{D.QX\\US_EPA\ESD_C531 HP4050.MUTUAL.OAQPS.RTP.EAST.EPA,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$JgWIXX 4/s 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(M3$ !J;IXX   /( 3|xU 2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  (CEMU]emu}AutoList1(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)(i)2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  379:;<=xږGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2   d)Hairline d<::@3:QuickFormat13! 3!  3! 3!  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(O$(Vm$0   379:;<=h.EGKOSW[_cAutoList1122222222)1)a)(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(M(3$ !J;IXX       0  (xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(#$  0   <e:HTML Preform  A7  !&),/25AXXX  A7  !&),/25A(& _////'dxdTrs&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK d\  `&Times New RomanK Kd379:;<=xhIcgkosw{Large BulletLarge Bullet<  9`("Courier 10cpiLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d 4Monitoring,recordkeepingChrisman AAM RVIAcommenterNESHAP MACTSCAQMD MRR MMPPrulemaking MSDSminimis CFRrecirculatei AAMA PPP TVH TOCoversprayHc RACT Auby TSDF BLP SSMPVetter RTO non-production HVLPexceedenceexceedencesHAP:VOCCOSATIHVVVV)!dxdxTABLE A379:;<=x?[_cgkoswSquaresSquare Bullet>c$"Small Circle"0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 56&)4Hyperlink            Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5&0 d deeee'dxdP Pdgggg)!dxdx diiii)!dxdx dee)! dxdxbbbb)!dxdx.\  `"TimesNewRomannnnn)!dxdx&P d d(M3$ !J;IXX   ( $ Figure  1  8 CSY_ekqw}Numbers 2Numbers1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.64Body Text    Ol.\  `"TimesNewRomanO  XXXSM\  `&Times New RomanS  'dxdi)(,!$0  0` (#(#  5rM -, dc,  AZ"Arial RegularTrs I&mage <=8C HKKKKmailto:(auby.susan@epa.gov). < 8$J9IXX     1    _XXIJ9MemorandumfromPalmer,Brian,ERG,Inc.,toTeal,Kim,EPA/ESD.August2003.   AnalysisofStatevolatileorganiccompound(VOC)rulelimitsandactualVOCemissionsfor  metalpartsurfacecoatingfacilitiesintheEPAmiscellaneousmetalpartsandproductssurvey  database.(DocketIDNo.OAR20030116).#J9IXX#  8$J9IXX     2    _XXIJ9MemorandumfromPalmer,Brian,ERG,Inc.,toTeal,Kim,EPA/ESD.August2003.   AnalysisofcleaningmaterialsreportedintheEPAmiscellaneousmetalpartsandproducts  surveydatabase.(DocketIDNo.OAR20030116).#J9IXX#(M3$ !J;IXX   (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular  8$J9IXX     4    _Oversprayisthedropletsofcoatingthatdonotadheretothesubstratebeingcoatedorthe  surfacesofthesprayboothandarecarriedintheexhauststreamofthespraybooth.Inorganic  HAPs,becauseoftheirlackofvolatility,arecontainedinthesedroplets.(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX4 )J9IXX   _XJ)]IIJ9^e)\IJ)]EPAForm2220-1(Rev.a-77) ` PREVIOUSEDITIONISOBSOLETE j (J9IXX   _J9IIJ9XXIJ9@  TABLE1.DOCKETA9734(Continued)  @#CATEGORY:IVD #XXXX^##J9IXX}#(M3$ !J;IXX    N'J"IXX   _@   TABLE1.DOCKETA____(CONTINUED)@@*  @#CATEGORY:IVD  = '  _@**OLE*WPC<< Z Z ! Z  h& Z &&#TNPP0 & TNPP &&TNPP   Z  - "-- !` -- "-&? 1 & - &G? I1 & &I bC "--% _@ _    4 4  _ _ K --&& = & = "--% Y: : Y "   : : Y Y: --&&E ^= "-- %G G: [: --&& = "--%   O  : : X     --&& = "--% :  M M    : :  M M: : --&& = "--%    : :  --&&J n= "--% r L: :   : k: 4 r --&&&U& "--$--&&$V "--$RR&&&&RR--&&f "--$hhhh--&& "--$--&&-- $--&&-- $--&&PU "--%RR--&&--Vj0-- "Arial- . 2 P0E3.&_--'------------------&:--$E9999998887766544310/.,+)(&%$"!   !"#$%&'()*+,-//12346789--&&--`$.             --&----&:--$F999999888776 6 5 4 4310/.,+)(&%$"!    ! " # $%&'()*+,-//12346789--&--U`--  . 2 N`P3.--U--  . 2 NA7.&&pm&r49 "--%t66--&&rgm "--%tij--&--hEv-- "Arial- . 2 dvAir .--Rq--  .2 q United States    .-- p--  .+2 pEnvironmental Protection      .--- q--  .2 )qAgency.--d--  .'2 dOffice of Air Quality     .-- c--  .(2 cPlanning and Standards      .--- `--  .62 )`Research Triangle Park NC 27711        .&--x-- "Arial- .62 KxNational Emission Standards for=.34.8K/.348/34.!3/4 . .+2 xHazardous Air Pollutants=.*/ 434.< 834.4.. .32 x(NESHAP): Surface Coating of=88<=883!./.<4.344. .32 zxMiscellaneous Metal Parts andF././3/34.F./8.!..43. .02 xProducts--Summary of Public8!343/.84JK.!.3834.. .-2 DxComments and Responses on=3KJ/3//34=./343/./43. .2 x Proposed Rule8!343/.4=3..--"System-&TNPP &WPWin 6.0/OLE 1.0 Prefix Information MarkerPowerPoint.Show.8~ࡱ> =$  !"#&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<Root EntrydO)O*fUOle CompObj{Pictures  dO)"Microsoft PowerPoint PresentationMSPresentationPowerPoint.Show.89q)_M/bERG - Morrisville ՜.+,D՜.+,$   BOlePartOlePres000 Current User1SummaryInformation(<*x6 h& Z &&#TNPP0 & TNPP &&TNPP   Z  - "-- !` -- "-&? 1 & - &G? I1 & &I bC "--% _@ _    4 4  _ _ K --&& = & = "--% Y: : Y "   : : Y Y: --&&E ^= "-- %G G: [: --&& = "--%   O  : : X     --&& = "--% :  M M    : :  M M: : --&& = "--%    : :  --&&J n= "--% r L: :   : k: 4 r --&&&U& "--$--&&$V "--$RR&&&&RR--&&f "--$hhhh--&& "--$--&&-- $--&&-- $--&&PU "--%RR--&&--Vj0-- "Arial- . 2 P0E3.&_--'------------------&:--$E9999998887766544310/.,+)(&%$"!   !"#$%&'()*+,-//12346789--&&--`$.             --&----&:--$F999999888776 6 5 4 4310/.,+)(&%$"!    ! " # $%&'()*+,-//12346789--&--U`--  . 2 N`P3.--U--  . 2 NA7.&&pm&r49 "--%t66--&&rgm "--%tij--&--hEv-- "Arial- . 2 dvAir .--Rq--  .2 q United States    .-- p--  .+2 pEnvironmental Protection      .--- q--  .2 )qAgency.--d--  .'2 dOffice of Air Quality     .-- c--  .(2 cPlanning and Standards      .--- `--  .62 )`Research Triangle Park NC 27711        .&--x-- "Arial- .62 KxNational Emission Standards for=.34.8K/.348/34.!3/4 . .+2 xHazardous Air Pollutants=.*/ 434.< 834.4.. .32 x(NESHAP): Surface Coating of=88<=883!./.<4.344. .32 zxMiscellaneous Metal Parts andF././3/34.F./8.!..43. .02 xProducts--Summary of Public8!343/.84JK.!.3834.. .-2 DxComments and Responses on=3KJ/3//34=./343/./43. .2 x Proposed Rule8!343/.4=3..--"System-&TNPP & Oh+'0  hp   $No Slide TitleERG - MorrisvilleeERG - Morrisvillee10 Microsoft PowerPointP@- @9&@|@eU.G o h& &&#TNPP0 & TNPP &&TNPP    - "-- !-- "-&9h& - &h& &k "--% iOK@@ --&&Hi&Hi "--% igIgIi~~g~gi@ig--&&i "-- %gg--&&pi "--% 5NISglgl#5 nn--&&|i "--% }g}  ggIIg}g--&&Li "--%MInIngOgO--&&Ai "--% gg II%g?g/--&&&? &@ ' "--$A$A$A A   $$--&&B*; "--$C8C8C+C+++88--&&B>J "--$CGCGC?C???GG--&&@RZ "--$AWAWASASSSWW--&&?bg-- $fcAcAf--&&?rw-- $AsAvvs--&&@ "--%A--&&--n\-- "Arial- . 2 \E.&B--TE----SO----PL----MI----JE--&BM--$ELLLKKKJIIIHHHGGFFFEEDDDCCCCBBBBBBBBBBCCDDDEEFFFGGHHHIIIJJJKKKKKLLLLLL--&&FT--`$.FFFFFFFFFGGGGHHIIJJJKKLLMMNNOOPPPQQQRRRRRSSSSF--&--OJ--&LW--$FLLLMMNNOOOPPPQQRRSSSTTUUUUUVVVVVVVVVVVUUUTTSSRRRQQPPPOOONNNNMMMMMLLLLL--&--}k--  . 2 jP.--w--  . 2 wA.&&:p&]` "--%^^--&&mp "--%nn--&--nb-- "Arial- . 2 lAir.--E:--  .2 D United States.--Q<F--  .+2 OEnvironmental Protection .--\P--  .2 ZAgency.--F:T--  .'2 DTOffice of Air Quality.--QFT--  .(2 OTPlanning and Standards.--\PS--  .62 ZSResearch Triangle Park NC 27711.&--]-- "Arial- .62 National Emission Standards for    . .+2 Hazardous Air Pollutants    . .32 (NESHAP): Surface Coating of   . .32 Miscellaneous Metal Parts and  . .02 ,Products--Summary of Public   . .-2 KComments and Responses on. .2 i Proposed Rule .--"System-&TNPP &PowerPoint Document( %q/DocumentSummaryInformation8(  / 0DTimes New Romanbbb0,b,b~0DArialNew Romanbbb0,b,b~0" DMonotype Sortsbbb0,b,b~0  @n?" dd@  @@`` |0/0c $@ g4dddd8b~00b hp` p ? % E2  ZA`Pb 0` ̙33` ` ff3333f` 333MMM` f` f` 3>?" dd@,|?" dd@   " @ ` n?" dd@   @@``PR    @ ` ` p>> o(    <ĥ **$  T Click to edit Master title style! !  6$ .*$Q  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  0 p`  =*  0  `   ?*  0D  `  ?*H  0vn ? " 0  ,"$" )/!(     S B*CDE,F4#? ))66qq9 9 ))@\8 \K  PCt  S B5CDE,F4#? bb44b@\  S B*CDE F#?)@\  S B@CDE,F4#? *m44??@9\y $   S B+CDE4F<#? bb**bb@ \    S BCDEF$#?  @7\K   S B@CDE$F,#? MX?M@ \8 KO  2f"   6G#?KOf"  6G#?:Of"  6G#?Of"  6G#?nOZB B s *g{?OZB  s *g{?nOnZB  s *#?O   fT ? `   *, 8   `2  0?"XZ2  s *?   7Z2  s *?  7Z2  s *? 7Z2  s *? 7  BCCGDEF$?GGBFBFAF>F;E9E5D2C0C.B*@(?'>$=!;9740-+ ( %        !$')+/02 3#5%8(9*:-;/<3>6@7A:B>B@BCBFBF@@  BXC-DEF?//,,(&"       #'),0369=>BE G I LNOQRTT V"V&V(W,,,_`@#*Z2  s *?+  BDCGDEF$?GGFFFFE EDCCB@?>=";%9(7+4.01-3+4(8%: ;=>@AAB C CCCCA@=<8641.* ( % " #% ( *-/367:>@CFF@@:  N? 1 [P0 ZA`*  N?  [A0 ZA`*F   / `B ! 0#?`B " 0#?   # T4?G ]Air0 ZA`* $ Tt? g United States0 ZA` * % TT?!( rEnvironmental Protection0 ZA`* & T?,{ `Agency0 ZA`* ' T4?P  oOffice of Air Quality0 ZA`* ( Tt? ( pPlanning and Standards0 ZA`* ) T?,1 | yResearch Triangle Park NC 277110  ZA`* - NT?  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products--Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule6 Z 1*KSB  s *vn ? r0 5/ 0  On-screen ShowEastern Research Groupoq/ 1 Times New RomanArialMonotype SortsDefault DesignNo Slide Title  Fonts UsedDesign Template Slide Titles 6> _PID_GUIDAN{9CE2A441-C0ED-11D7-8FAE-B565D2F9F460} METAFILEPICT**x6 h& Z &&#TNPP0 & TNPP &&TNPP   Z  - "-- !` -- "-&? 1 & - &G? I1 & &I bC "--% _@ _    4 4  _ _ K --&& = & = "--% Y: : Y "   : : Y Y: --&&E ^= "-- %G G: [: --&& = "--%   O  : : X     --&& = "--% :  M M    : :  M M: : --&& = "--%    : :  --&&J n= "--% r L: :   : k: 4 r --&&&U& "--$--&&$V "--$RR&&&&RR--&&f "--$hhhh--&& "--$--&&-- $--&&-- $--&&PU "--%RR--&&--Vj0-- "Arial- . 2 P0E3.&_--'------------------&:--$E9999998887766544310/.,+)(&%$"!   !"#$%&'()*+,-//12346789--&&--`$.             --&----&:--$F999999888776 6 5 4 4310/.,+)(&%$"!    ! " # $%&'()*+,-//12346789--&--U`--  . 2 N`P3.--U--  . 2 NA7.&&pm&r49 "--%t66--&&rgm "--%tij--&--hEv-- "Arial- . 2 dvAir .--Rq--  .2 q United States    .-- p--  .+2 pEnvironmental Protection      .--- q--  .2 )qAgency.--d--  .'2 dOffice of Air Quality     .-- c--  .(2 cPlanning and Standards      .--- `--  .62 )`Research Triangle Park NC 27711        .&--x-- "Arial- .62 KxNational Emission Standards for=.34.8K/.348/34.!3/4 . .+2 xHazardous Air Pollutants=.*/ 434.< 834.4.. .32 x(NESHAP): Surface Coating of=88<=883!./.<4.344. .32 zxMiscellaneous Metal Parts andF././3/34.F./8.!..43. .02 xProducts--Summary of Public8!343/.84JK.!.3834.. .-2 DxComments and Responses on=3KJ/3//34=./343/./43. .2 x Proposed Rule8!343/.4=3..--"System-&TNPP & v 8$J9IXX     3    _XXIJ9MemorandumfromPalmer,Brian,ERG,Inc.,toTeal,Kim,EPA/ESD.August2003.   Analysisoftheemissionratesforsurfacecoatingoperationsforoffshoreoilplatforms,oilfield  pipeinteriors,railcars,andreusabledrumsreportedintheEPAmiscellaneousmetalpartsand  productssurveydatabase.(DocketIDNo.OAR20030116).#J9IXX#XXIJ9  3*OLE*WPC@@ @ @! @x ;  .1  @ &@  & MathType  "-\\\f\;  Times New Roman -2 @FacilityYYYY 2 ?-i2  Specific EYiYP2  mission LiY||YPY 2 :mit YYP 2 = 2 @ P2  (1.7)(40,0iPiiP 2 00) iP 2 *+2  (12.4)(2,PiPiiP2  000) iP 2 +2  (2.6)(58,PiPiiP2 E000) iP2   (40,0PPPPPiP 2 4 00 P 2  +2   2,000 PPP 2 +2  58,000)PPi2 | 2.4 lb HAPPPYP2 > lb solidsYP|YY|Symbol- 2 [= & "Systemn- i)0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definitiondd('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEK7<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSM\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis<:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K7<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXSM\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K7<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSM\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of =k( **=  B  ?8%2A`Arial?- -  XXXSM\  `&Times New RomanS<:zTop of For=k(**=  B  ?8%2A`Arial?- -  XXXSM\  `&Times New RomanSTABLE A0Kl.SampleK7<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanSTABLE BTABLE C0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK7<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSM\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      WPWin 6.0/OLE 1.0 Prefix Information Marker Equation.COEE2ࡱ> Root EntryF`C_Ole 7CompObjjBOlePart 'F! WP 7 [9] FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS EquationEquation.COEE29qXjK#v ;  .1  @ &@  & MathType  "-\\\f\OlePres000Equation Native ;  Times New Roman -2 @FacilityYYYY 2 ?-i2  Specific EYiYP2  mission LiY||YPY 2 :mit YYP 2 = 2 @ P2  (1.7)(40,0iPiiP 2 00) iP 2 *+2  (12.4)(2,PiPiiP2  000) iP 2 +2  (2.6)(58,PiPiiP2 E000) iP2   (40,0PPPPPiP 2 4 00 P 2  +2   2,000 PPP 2 +2  58,000)PPi2 | 2.4 lb HAPPPYP2 > lb solidsYP|YY|Symbol- 2 [= & "Systemn-CլkCI Facility-Specific Emission Limit = (1.7)(40,000) + (12.4)(2,000) + (2.6)(58,000)      (40,000 + 2,000 + 58,000)=2.4 lb HAPlb solids METAFILEPICT#~# ;  .1  @ &@  & MathType  "-\\\f\;  Times New Roman -2 @FacilityYYYY 2 ?-i2  Specific EYiYP2  mission LiY||YPY 2 :mit YYP 2 = 2 @ P2  (1.7)(40,0iPiiP 2 00) iP 2 *+2  (12.4)(2,PiPiiP2  000) iP 2 +2  (2.6)(58,PiPiiP2 E000) iP2   (40,0PPPPPiP 2 4 00 P 2  +2   2,000 PPP 2 +2  58,000)PPi2 | 2.4 lb HAPPPYP2 > lb solidsYP|YY|Symbol- 2 [= & "Systemn-2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial@A*OLE*WPC00!0D   .1  &@ & MathType "-@p Times New Roman\-2 0V 0.16 lb HAPPYP 2 0P2 h lb solidsYP|YY| 2  P 2  P2 0 10.5 lb soPPYP| 2 0 lidsYY|2  gal solidsYP|YY| 2  P 2  P2 0 1.7 lb HAPPPYP2 9 gal solidsYP|YY|Symbol- 2  2 = & "Systemn-WPWin 6.0/OLE 1.0 Prefix Information MarkerEquation.COEE2ࡱ> Root EntryF|_Ole 7CompObjjBOlePart 'F! WP 7 [3] FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS EquationEquation.COEE29qe4#B   .1  &@ & MathType "-@OlePres000jEquation Native Hp Times New Roman\-2 0V 0.16 lb HAPPYP 2 0P2 h lb solidsYP|YY| 2  P 2  P2 0 10.5 lb soPPYP| 2 0 lidsYY|2  gal solidsYP|YY| 2  P 2  P2 0 1.7 lb HAPPPYP2 9 gal solidsYP|YY|Symbol- 2  2 = & "Systemn-C,kCI  e@ Times New Roman e@0.16 lb HAP  e@lb solids  e@10.5 lb solids  e@gal solids=  e@1.7 lb HAP  e@gal solids METAFILEPICT%J   .1  &@ & MathType "-@p Times New Roman\-2 0V 0.16 lb HAPPYP 2 0P2 h lb solidsYP|YY| 2  P 2  P2 0 10.5 lb soPPYP| 2 0 lidsYY|2  gal solidsYP|YY| 2  P 2  P2 0 1.7 lb HAPPPYP2 9 gal solidsYP|YY|Symbol- 2  2 = & "Systemn- $     !J9IXX   _XXIJ9XX  UpJ<,(`~0   `9$.E(#,(#,=#-p L%%L%%X%X% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% L%%L%%L%%L%% .k+-L%%L%% U U   U  XX  ;(#EPA453/R03008  &&@(#August2003   XXX  NationalEmissionStandardsforHazardousAirPollutants(NESHAP):  *  SurfaceCoatingofMiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsSummaryof J  PublicCommentsandResponsesonProposedRule @  @   @x  @ #XXXV#  j  u  XXX#XXX#XXX#XXX2 # XXX#XXXx # @ U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency > OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards 5 EmissionStandardsDivision , | ResearchTrianglePark,NorthCarolina27711  #!s 8XXdd8@@!!% Disclaimer   ThisreporthasbeenreviewedbytheEmissionStandardsDivisionoftheOfficeofAirQuality  PlanningandStandards,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,andapprovedforpublication.  Mentionoftradenamesorcommercialproductsisnotintendedtoconstituteendorsementor  recommendationforuse.CopiesofthisreportareavailablethroughtheLibraryServicesOffice   (C26701),U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,ResearchTrianglePark,N.C.27711,(919) z  5412777,fromNationalTechnicalInformationServices,5285PortRoyalRoad,Springfield, q  Virginia22161,(703)6056000,orfromtheInternet(  www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg5). h    _    @" TABLEOFCONTENTS      5Vm  5Vm0     1.00(#(#INTRODUCTION#""J(#. (#(##15Vm݌  Ќ  5Vm  5Vm0     2.00(#(#PUBLICCOMMENTS#""J(#.ff(#(##25Vm݌   Ќ  5Vm  5Vm0     3.00(#(#THEMACTFLOORANALYSIS#""J(#.&(#(##75Vm݌ q  Ќ  !  !0  0` (#(#    3.10` ` (#` (#TheHAPtoVOCRatio#`"`"I(#.(` (#` (##10!݌ h  Ќ  !  !v0  0` (#(#    3.20` ` (#` (#HAPfromCleaningMaterials#`"`"I(#./` (#` (##11!v݌ _   Ќ  !  !m0  0` (#(#    3.30` ` (#` (#PollutionPrevention#`"`"I(#.(` (#` (##14!m݌ V  Ќ  !  !]0  0` (#(#    3.40` ` (#` (#RubbertoMetalBonding#`"`"I(#.~~+` (#` (##14!]x݌ M  Ќ  !  !O0  0` (#(#    3.50` ` (#` (#AerospaceFacilities#`"`"I(#.(` (#` (##15!Oj݌ D  Ќ  5Vm  5Vm>0     4.00(#(#OPTIONSMORESTRINGENTTHANTHEMACTFLOOR:#`"`"I(#.:(#(##165Vm>Z݌ 2  Ќ  5Vm  5Vm10     5.00(#(#UNITSFORTHENUMERICALEMISSIONLIMITS#`"`"I(#.VV7(#(##185Vm1M݌  p Ќ  5Vm  5Vm!0     6.00(#(#OVERLAPWITHOTHERNESHAP#`"`"I(#.((#(##245Vm!=݌ ^ Ќ  !  !0  0` (#(#    6.10` ` (#` (#DepartmentofDefenseCoatings#`"`"I(#.2` (#` (##24!݌ U Ќ  !  !0  0` (#(#    6.20` ` (#` (#ExclusionofActivitiesSubjecttoOtherSurfaceCoatingNESHAP#`"`"I(#.^^S` (#` (##27!݌ L Ќ  !  !0  0` (#(#    6.3 ` ComplyingWiththeRuleRepresentingtheMajorityoftheSubstrate!0݌C` (#` (# Ќ  !  !0  0` (#(#    0` ` (#` (#(PlasticorMetal)onPreassembledParts#`"`"I(#.PP=` (#` (##29!*݌ : Ќ  !  !0  0` (#(#    6.4 ` ComplywiththemoststringentNESHAP#`"`"I(#.||9` (#` (##34!+݌ 1 Ќ  !  !0  0` (#(#    6.5 ` AssembledOnRoadVehicleCoating#`"`"I(#.5` (#` (##39!#݌ ( Ќ  !  !0  0` (#(#    6.60` ` (#` (#MiscellaneousCommentsonCompliancewithMultipleNESHAP #`"`"I(#.  M` (#` (##41!݌  Ќ  5Vm  5Vm 0     7.00(#(#SCOPEANDAPPLICABILITYOFTHEMISCELLANEOUS   METALPARTSANDPRODUCTSSOURCECATEGORY#`"`"I(#.::7(#(##455Vm 3 ݌  Ќ  !  !J!0  0` (#(#    7.10` ` (#` (#GeneralApplicabilityComments#`"`"I(#.2` (#` (##45!J!e!݌   Ќ  !  !D"0  0` (#(#    7.2 ` TypesofMaterialsThatareCoatings#`"`"I(#.8` (#` (##49!D"_"݌ ! Ќ  !  !<#0  0` (#(#    7.30` ` (#` (#RegulatedPollutants#`"`"I(#.(` (#` (##53!<#W#݌ " Ќ  !  !,$0  0` (#(#    7.40` ` (#` (#GallonsUsedApplicabilityThresholdandtheSmallVolumeExemption#`"`"I(#.( ( W` (#` (##54!,$G$݌ #  Ќ  !  !K%0  0` (#(#    7.50` ` (#` (#JanitorialOperations,FacilityMaintenance,andHandheldNonrefillable!K%f%݌$!` (#` (# Ќ  !  !U&0  0` (#(#    0` ` (#` (#AerosolCans#`"`"I(#. ` (#` (##61!U&p&݌ ~% " Ќ  !  !9'0  0` (#(#    7.60` ` (#` (#ResearchandDevelopmentFacilities#`"`"I(#.7` (#` (##67!9'T'݌ u&!# Ќ  !  !8(0  0` (#(#    7.70` ` (#` (#HighPerformanceCoatings#`"`"I(#.-` (#` (##68!8(S(݌ l'"$ Ќ  5Vm  5Vm-)0     8.00(#(#NEWSOURCEAPPLICABILITY#`"`"I(#.'(#(##755Vm-)I)݌ Z)$& Ќ  5Vm  5Vm *0     9.00(#(#EMISSIONLIMITS#`"`"I(#.p p (#(##795Vm *)*݌ H+&( Ќ  5Vm  5Vm*0     5Vm*+݌ 6-(*(#(# Ќ  @  TABLEOFCONTENTS(Continued)   5Vm  5Vm+0     10.00(#(#COMPLIANCEOPTIONS#`"`"I(#.!(#(##855Vm++݌  Ќ  !  !,0  0` (#(#    10.10` ` (#` (#GeneralCommentsonComplianceOptions#`"`"I(#.  :` (#` (##85!,,݌  Ќ  !  !-0  0` (#(#    10.20` ` (#` (#CompliantMaterialsOption#`"`"I(#.00.` (#` (##88!--݌  Ќ  !  !.0  0` (#(#    10.30` ` (#` (#EmissionRateWithoutAddonControlsOption#`"`"I(#.@` (#` (##90!..݌   Ќ  !  !/0  0` (#(#    10.40` ` (#` (#EmissionRatewithAddonControlsOption #`"`"I(#.VV=` (#` (##92!//݌ z  Ќ  5Vm  5Vm00     11.00(#(#COMPLIANCEDATESANDAVERAGINGPERIOD#`"`"I(#.||4(#(##945Vm00݌ h  Ќ  5Vm  5Vm10     12.00(#(#COMPLIANCECALCULATIONS#`"`"I(#.66&(#(##975Vm11݌ V  Ќ  5Vm  5Vm|20     13.00(#(#TESTMETHODS#!!H(#. (#(##1025Vm|22݌ D  Ќ  !  !R30  0` (#(#    13.10` ` (#` (#ASTMMethods#!!H(#.zz ` (#` (##102!R3m3݌ ;  Ќ  !  !<40  0` (#(#    13.20` ` (#` (#ComparingFormulationDataandDefaultHAPContentstoEPA!<4W4݌2 ` (#` (# Ќ  !  !850  0` (#(#    0` ` (#` (#TestMethods#!!H(#. ` (#` (##103!85S5݌ )y Ќ  !  !60  0` (#(#    13.30` ` (#` (#UsingOSHAReportingCutoffsWhenDeterminingHAPContent#!!H(#.M` (#` (##105!686݌  p Ќ  !  !470  0` (#(#    13.40` ` (#` (#ReactiveCoatings#!!H(#.%` (#` (##107!47O7݌ g Ќ  !  !#80  0` (#(#    13.50` ` (#` (#UsingVOCasSurrogateforHAP#!!H(#.2` (#` (##107!#8>8݌ ^ Ќ  5Vm  5Vm90     14.00(#(#MONITORING,RECORDKEEPING,ANDREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS#!!H(#.D(#(##1095Vm9;9݌ L Ќ  15.00  ADDONCONTROLS#!!H(#.hh(#(##124 : 0  15.10` (#(#GeneralComments#!!H(#.ll$` (#` (##124 1 !  !:0  0` (#(#    15.20` ` (#` (#PerformanceTestingRequirements#!!H(#.jj4` (#` (##125!:;݌ ( Ќ  !  !;0  0` (#(#    15.30` ` (#` (#WorkPracticesRequirements#!!H(#./` (#` (##133!;<݌  Ќ  !  !<0  0` (#(#    15.40` ` (#` (#OperatingLimitsandMonitoringforEmissionCaptureSystems#!!H(#.ppP` (#` (##134!<<݌  Ќ  !  !=0  0` (#(#    15.50` ` (#` (#OperatingLimitsandMonitoringforAddonControls#!!H(#.ZZG` (#` (##136!=>݌   Ќ  !  !?0  0` (#(#    15.60` ` (#` (#AddonControlFailures,Bypasses,andDeviations#!!H(#.hhE` (#` (##143!?#?݌  Ќ  !  !@0  0` (#(#    15.70` ` (#` (#ComplianceDuringStartup,Shutdown,andMalfunctionPeriods#!!H(#.Q` (#` (##147!@1@݌   Ќ  !  !0A0  0` (#(#    15.80` ` (#` (#MiscellaneousCommentsonAddOnControlDeviceProvisions#!!H(#.N` (#` (##150!0AKA݌ ! Ќ  5Vm  5VmGB0     16.00(#(#MAGNETWIRE#!!H(#. (#(##1535VmGBcB݌ #  Ќ  5Vm  5VmC0     17.00(#(#DEFINITIONS#!!H(#. (#(##1585VmC8C݌ ~% " Ќ  5Vm  5VmC0     18.00(#(#IMPLEMENTATION#!!H(#. (#(##1615VmC D݌ l'"$ Ќ  5Vm  5VmD0     19.00(#(#CLARIFICATIONS#!!H(#.b b (#(##1645VmDD݌ Z)$& Ќ  5Vm  5VmE0     20.00(#(#GENERALCOMMENTS#!!H(#.HH(#(##1685VmEE݌ H+&( Ќ    ?,') 5Vm  5VmF0      5VmFF݌ (#(# Ќ  @OO"  1.0INTRODUCTION  vGԈ  k  G   OnAugust13,2002,theU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)proposednational  N  emissionstandardsforhazardousairpollutants(NESHAP)forSurfaceCoatingofMiscellaneous `  MetalPartsandProducts.TheproposedrulefulfillstherequirementsoftheCleanAirAct   (CAA),whichrequiresEPAtoregulateemissionsofhazardousairpollutants(HAP)listedin $t  section112(b)oftheCAA.    Thisdocumentcontainssummariesofthe66publiccommentsthatEPAreceivedonthe 8 August13,2002proposaltoestablishNESHAPforSurfaceCoatingofMiscellaneousMetal J PartsandProducts.Inthisdocument,EPArespondstothepubliccomments.Thissummaryof  publiccommentsandEPAresponsesservesasthebasisforrevisionsmadetotheSurface ^ CoatingofMiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsNESHAPbetweenproposaland p promulgation.  "    @   2.0PUBLICCOMMENTS  _LԈ  `   TheEPAreceived66commentlettersfortheAugust13,2002proposedrulebeforethe  8  commentperiodclosedonOctober15,2002.ThesecommentsarecontainedincategoryIVDof J  DocketIDNo.OAR20030116(formerlyDocketNo.A9734).Thecommenter,affiliation,   anditemnumberinDocketIDNo.OAR20030116arelistedinTable1. ^  @8 8  TABLE1.DOCKETIDNO.OAR20030116 " @#CATEGORY:IVD   *XVZwddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,dd ,Qdd +  )bb 4) @dd Doc.Number )bVbb )   Commenter,Addressee,TitleorDescription,etc. =Vb.,  40  bV =IVD01 )VV6Vb )J.Bardi,AdministrativeAssistant,ASTMInternational,West 6 Conshohocken,PA )Vb"rVV )IVD02 )VVVb )A.N.Zoulin,Safety&EnvironmentalManager,UnifabInternationalInc.,   NewIberia,LA )Vb!VV )IVD03 )VV^"Vb )A.N.Zoulin,Safety&EnvironmentalManager,UnifabInternational,Inc., ^# NewIberia,LA -VbJ$VV 4-IVD04 )VVJ!%Vb )FloridaStateClearinghouse,DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection, J!& Tallahassee,FL /Vb 6"' 40 VV /IVD05 )VV#(Vb )J.JayGrove,Director,Environment,Health&Safety,GeneralAmerican #) TransportationCorporation,(GATX)RailCorporation,ChicagoIL -Vb$*VV 4-IVD06 )VV%B!+Vb )D.J.Krueger,SeniorEnvironmentalEngineer,EnvironmentalTechnology %B!, andSafetyServices,3MCompany,St.Paul,MN 3Vb$&."- 40 VV 43IVD07 )VV.(~#.Vb )W.A.Leasure,Jr.,President,TruckManufacturersAssociation(TMA), .(~#/ Washington,D.C. 3Vb$)j$0 40 VV 43IVD08 )VVj*%1Vb )C.L.Pettit,VicePresident,RegulatoryandTechnicalAffairs,Reusable j*%2 IndustrialPackagingAssociation(RIPA),Landover,MD 3Vb$"V+&3 40  VV 3IVD09 )VV dVb )L.Luna,SeniorEngineer,EarthTech,WarnerRobins,GA[representing  d  clientsalsosubjecttotheAerospaceManufacturingandRework  P NESHAP] )Vb <VV )IVD10 )VV3Vb )T.P.Feldman,VicePresident,GovernmentAffairs,NationalElectrical 3 ManufacturersAssociation(NEMA),Rosslyn,VA )VbVV )IVD11 )VV(Vb )T.P.Feldman,VicePresident,GovernmentAffairs,NationalElectrical (  ManufacturersAssociation(NEMA),Rosslyn,VA )Vb VV )IVD12 )VV  Vb )NeilChrisman,President,SpectrumMetalFinishing,Youngstown,OH. -Vb  VV 4-IVD13 )VV[ Vb )JimSerne,P.E.,ProjectDirector,TRC,Raleigh,NC[representing [  membersoftheTruckManufacturersAssociation] /Vb G  40 VV /IVD14 )VVP Vb )StephenYohay,ArentFoxKintnerPlotkin&Kahn,PLLC,Washington, P  DC[representinganunnamedclient] )Vb< VV )IVD15 )VV3Vb )ThomasR.Julien,GeneralManufacturingUnit,PermitSection,Air 3 QualityDivision,MichiganDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality )VbVV )IVD16 )VV(Vb )RandA.Baldwin,President,AluminumExtrudersCouncil,Wauconda, ( IL )VbVV )IVD17 )VV Vb )RobertJ.Nelson,SeniorDirector,EnvironmentalAffairsandAlison   Keane,Counsel,GovernmentAffairs,NationalPaint&Coatings  Association -Vb lVV 4-IVD18 )VV3"Vb )DavidV.Snyder,AirProgramsHealth,Safety,Environmental& 3" Remediation,HoneywellInternational,Inc.,Morristown,NJ /Vb # 40 VV /IVD19 )VV$( Vb )BillJuris,Supervisor,VOCControlUnit,DepartmentofAirPollution $(! Control,OhioEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Columbus,OH )Vb%"VV )IVD20 )VV '#Vb )DavidC.Foerter,InstituteofCleanAirCompanies,(ICAC)Washington,  '$ D.C. )Vb'%VV )IVD21 )VVw)&Vb )ScottF.Belcher,ManagingDirector,EnvironmentalAffairsand w)' AssistantGeneralCounsel,AirTransportAssociation. )Vbc*(VV )IVD22 )VV+l )Vb )JackH.Goldman,Ph.D.,GeneralCounsel/DirectorofGovernment +l * Affairs,PatioandBarbecueAssociation. )Vb,X!+VV )IVD23 )VV dVb )MatthewFrank,TheBoeingCompany,Arlington,VA )Vb dVV )IVD24 )VV[ Vb )BruceHopkins,VicePresident,StandardsandEducation,Recreation [  VehicleIndustryAssociation,Reston,VA )VbGVV )IVD25 )VVPVb )AjayBhari,ProjectEngineer,ShawEnvironmental&Infrastructure,Inc, P Cincinnati,OH[representingnumerouscommercialandgovernment < clients] -Vb( VV 4-IVD26 )VVx Vb )TerryA.Noteboom,CorporateEnvironmentalEngineer,Pella x  Corporation /Vb d  40 VV /IVD27 )VV[ Vb )DavidA.Buff,P.E.,PrincipalEngineer,GolderAssociatesInc. [  [representingseveralindustrialclients] )VbG VV )IVD28 )VVP Vb )TraceyJ.Norberg,VicePresident,EnvironmentalandResource P  Recovery,RubberManufacturersAssociation )Vb< VV )IVD29 )VV3Vb )ThomasE.Hutch,Jr.President,AeroliteExtrusionCompany )Vb3VV )IVD30 )VV<Vb )JordanJacobsen,ActingGeneralCounsel,AlyeskaPipelineService < Company,Anchorage,AK )Vb(VV )IVD31 )VVVb )RobertT.Marlow,VicePresident,GovernmentDivision,Aerospace  IndustriesAssociationofAmerica,Inc.,Washington,D.C. )Vb VV )IVD32 )VV Vb )KarenM.Bond,EnvironmentalComplianceSpecialist,LORD   Corporation,Erie,PA -Vbw!VV 4-IVD33 )VV"PVb )DonaldR.Schregardus,DeputyAssistantSecretaryoftheNavy, "P (Environment) /Vb #<  40 VV /IVD34 )VV3%!Vb )KennethR.Meashey,VicePresident,CorporateEnergy,Environment, 3%" Safety&Health,LockheedMartinCorporation,Bethesda,MD )Vb&#VV )IVD35 )VV'($Vb )DeanneM.Ottaviano,ArentFoxKintnerPlotkin&Kahn,PLLC, '(% WashingtonD.C.[representingtheMotorandEquipmentManufacturers (& Association(MEMA)] )Vbw)'VV )IVD36 )VV*(Vb )ValerieUghetta,Director,StationarySources,AllianceofAutomobile *) Manufacturing,WashingtonD.C. )Vb+l *VV )IVD37 )VV dVb ) KevinS.Barnett,Alcoa,Inc.,Pittsburgh,PA )Vb dVV )IVD38 )VV[ Vb )AllenWeidman,ExecutiveDirector,FluoropolymerDivision,The [  SocietyofthePlasticsIndustry,Inc,Washington,D.C. )VbGVV )IVD39 )VVPVb )OlgaM.Dominguez,Director,EnvironmentalManagementDivision, P NationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration,Washington,D.C. )Vb<VV )IVD40 )VV3 Vb )R.E.Lide,EH&SRegulatoryManagement,UnionCarbideCorporation, 3  TexasCity,TX )Vb VV )IVD41 )VV( Vb )TerryStimmel,VicePresident,ManufacturingandOperations,PDWire (  &Cable,FortWayne,IN )Vb VV )IVD42 )VV  Vb )RobertJ.Morehouse,ExxonMobilRefiningandSupplyCompany,    Houston,TX )Vb VV )IVD43 )VVwVb )R.DonaldMurphy,ManagingDirector,SteelJoistInstitute,Myrtle w Beach,SC )VbcVV )IVD44 )VVlVb )MichaelJohnson,Director,RegulatoryAffairs,MichiganManufacturers l Association )VbXVV )IVD45 )VVOVb )NeilChrisman,President,SpectrumMetalFinishing,Youngstown,OH )VbOVV )IVD46 )VVXVb )JohnMcKnight,Director,EnvironmentalandSafetyCompliance, X NationalMarineManufacturersAssociation,Washington,D.C. )Vb DVV )IVD47 )VV;"Vb )DavidL.Chapman,Manager,GlobalEnvironmentalServices,Goodyear ;" Tire&RubberCompany -Vb'#VV 4-IVD48 )VVw$ Vb )JudyO,NeilP.E.,ProjectSupervisor,TrinityConsultants[representing w$! variousaerospaceclients] /Vb c%" 40 VV /IVD49 )VV&l#Vb )MichaelRobinson,VicePresident,Environmental,SafetyandSecurity, &l$ AlliantTechSystemsInc.,Edina,MN -Vb'X%VV 4-IVD50 )VV)&Vb )ScottF.Belcher,ManagingDirector,EnvironmentalAffairsand )' AssistantGeneralCounsel,AirTransportAssociationofAmerica,Inc. /Vb  *( 40 VV /IVD51 )VV+ )Vb )JerryWatkins,VicePresidentofManufacturing,NorthAmerica + * Operations,ThyssenKruppElevatorManufacturing,Inc -Vbw,!+VV 4-IVD52 )VV 4Vb )RodgerTalbert,President,ChemicalCoatersAssociationInternational /Vb  4 40 VV /IVD53 )VV+ Vb )BillJuris,Supervisor,VOCControl,DepartmentofAirPollution +  Control,OhioEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Columbus,OH )VbVV )IVD54 )VV Vb )SallyB.Mann,Director,OfficeofIntergovernmentalPrograms,Florida   DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,Tallahassee,FL )Vb VV )IVD55 )VV Vb )JohnA.Dege,Director,AirPrograms,DuPontSHEExcellenceCenter,   Wilmington,DE -Vbx VV 4-IVD56 )VV? Vb )KennethH.Meashey,VicePresident,CorporateEnergy,Safety& ?  Health,LockheedMartinCorporation /Vb +  40 VV /IVD57 )VV4 Vb )RobertB.Ballard,Director,Health,SafetyandEnvironmental,Varco 4  International,Inc.,Houston,TX )Vb VV )IVD58 )VV Vb )JimSell,SeniorCounsel,NationalPaintandCoatingsAssociation,   Washington,D.C. )VbVV )IVD59 )VV Vb )RonaldC.Methier,Chief,AirProtectionBranch,GeorgiaDepartmentof   NaturalResources,Atlanta,GA )VboVV )IVD60 )VVxVb )LeonJoyner,Manager,SafetyandRegulatoryCompliance,Hatteras x Yachts,NewBern,NC )VbdVV )IVD61 )VV[ Vb )MyronHafele,SupervisorEHSAirGroup,KOHLER,Kohler,WI )Vb[ VV )IVD62 )VV!dVb )ScottBergeron,P.E.,GroupHealth,SafetyandEnvironmentalManager, !d J.RayMcDermott,Inc.,Houston,TX )Vb"PVV )IVD63 )VVG$ Vb )RobertW.Schenker,ManagerAirPollutionControl,GeneralElectric G$! Company,Fairfield,Connecticut )Vb3%"VV )IVD64 )VV&<#Vb )JeffreyT.Silva,CorporateEnvironmentalEngineer,TycoHealthcare &<$ GroupL.P.,Mansfield,MA&G%XX )Vb'(%VV )IVD65#XX%&G$#&G%XX )VV)&Vb )EricTrauner,P.E.,SuperiorEssex,Inc.,FortWayne,IN )Vb)'VV )IVD66#XX%&G# )VV*(Vb )StevenMoore,Supervisor,RuleDevelopmentSection,SanDiegoAir *) PollutionControlDistrict(w+ * B VV (  ,!* @   3.0THEMACTFLOORANALYSIS  tԈ  `   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD08)supportedtheMACTfloorapproach,referringto  8  itasa novelbutnecessaryapproach.Anothercommenter(IVD63)supportedthefloor J  determinationapproachusedforgeneralusecoatingsasbeingtechnicallysound,plusthe   commenter(IVD63)supportedthevariouscomplianceoptionsandthe12monthcompliance ^  period. p   Response:TheEPAagreeswiththecommenterthattheMACTfloorapproachdescribed " inthepreambletotheproposedrulewasnecessaryforthesamereasonsasstatedinthepreamble 4 (67FR5279052793)andintheresponsetocommenterIVD14inthissection.    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD14)contendedthatEPAimproperlyusedStateVOC H emissionlimitsinsteadoflevels actuallyachievedbythebestperforming12percentofsources Z tosettheMACTfloor.Thecommenter(IVD14)arguedthatonelegalprecedent[SierraClub   v.U.S.EPA.,167F.3d658,664(D.C.Cir.1999)]hasfoundthattheuseofregulatorypermit n  datainplaceofactualperformancedataisonlypermissibleforsettingaMACTfloorwhena " rationalrelationshipexistsbetweenpermittedemissionsandactualemissions.Thecommenter 2$ arguedthatasignificantdifferenceexistedbetweentheallowableVOCemissionsunderState D!& rulesandactualHAPemissionsofthebestperformingfacilitiesbecauseEPAimproperly "( assumedthatallfacilitiesoperatedattheallowableVOClevelinthestaterules.Thatis,EPA $X* assumedthatVOCemissionswerenolowerthantheStateVOClimits. j% ,   InplaceofusingStateVOCrules,thecommenterarguedthatEPAshouldusethe &". averageemissionrateof0.1lbHAPpergalloncoatingsolidsthatwastheresultofapreliminary .(~#0 rankingpresentedinthepreambletotheproposedrule(67FR52791).Thecommenterfurther )$2 arguedthatunlessEPAseesaneedtoestablishadditionalsubcategories,thislimitshouldapply *B&4 toallsourcesinthegeneralusecoatingcategory. T,'6   Thecommenter(IVD14)notedthattheHAPlimitsforthegeneralusecategoryare  higherthantheactualemissionsof alargeportionoftheexistingsourcesthatwillberegulated b bytherule.Fromthisobservation,thecommenterconcludedthattherulewillallowseveral t hundredsourcestoincreaseHAPemissions. &   Thecommenter(IVD14)alsocontendedthatdatafromthemetalpartsindustry 8  indicatedthatcoatingformulationswithlessHAPdonotresultinlessVOCanditisincorrectto    assumethatVOCcontrolisaproxyforHAPcontrol.Thecommenterconcludedfromthis  L  observationthatusingStateVOCrulestodeveloptheMACTfloorforHAPemissionswas ^  inconsistentwiththeActbecausenorationalrelationshipexistedbetweenpermittedVOC   emissionsandactualHAPemissions. "r    Response:Formostofthef  sourcesg f  g Ԁinthissourcecategory,theStateVOCrules   constitutedtheonlyapplicableandmeasurableemissionlimitthatcouldbeusedinaMACT 6 floorrankingforsomesubcategories.Wedidnotadopttheemissionlevelindicatedbythe H preliminaryMACTrankingbecausethatlevelwasnotachievablefortheextremelydiverse  facilitiesintherelevantsubcategories,asrepresentedbythemiscellaneousmetalpartsand  \ productsdatabase.Alongwithvariousstakeholdergroups,wealsoconsideredMACTrankings n forindividualindustrysegments,buttheresultsforindividualsegmentswouldnotbeachievable    forallsourceswithinthosesegmentsbecauseofdiversityevenwithinthosesegments.Theonly 2" exceptionswerefortherubbertometalsubcategoryandthemagnetwiresubcategory,wherethe $ MACTemissionlimitsarebasedontheMACTdatabaserankingsforthesesegments. F& Therefore,wechosethefinalapproachofbasingHAPlimitsonStateVOClimitsf  g f  g forthegeneral X ( useandhighperformancecategories.f  g ԀStateVOClimitshavebeendemonstratedtobef  g achievable ! * emissionlimitf  g sf  g Ԁfortherangeofsourcesincludedwithinf  g f  g thesetwof  g Ԁmiscellaneousmetalpartsand #l, productsf  g f  g subcategoriesf  g . ~$.   WestartedourdevelopmentofHAPlimitswiththeStateVOClimitsandthenapplied %0!0 theappropriateHAPtoVOCratiotodetermineagoodrepresentationoftheHAPcontentof B'"2 coatingsthatmeettheVOClimits.IfwehadjustusedtheVOClimitsasHAPlimitswithout (#4 adjustingfortheHAPtoVOCratio,thentheassertioninthecommentwouldbemoreaccurate. *V%6   Althoughweagreethatsomef  sourcesg f  g Ԁachievednominallylowerf  g f  g HAPf  g Ԁemissionratesthan h+&8 thosederivedfromtheStateVOClimits,itisnotclearthatthoseloweremittingfacilities ,(: representtherangeofsourcesinthesourcecategoryorinanydistinctorclearlydefinable  subcategoryorindustrysegment. b   Contrarytothecommentersassertion,VOClimitsdoreduceHAPemissionsbecause t nearlyallorganicHAPusedincoatingsandrelatedsolventsarealsoVOC.LimitingVOC & reducesHAPbecausetheHAPcontentcannotexceedtheVOClimit,unlessafacilityisusinga 8  nonVOCHAP,suchasmethylenechloride.However,thatisnotthecaseinthevastmajorityof    metalpartssurfacecoatingoperations.Therefore,thosesourcessubjecttoVOClimitshavealso  L  reducedHAPemissionstocomplywiththeVOCemissionlimits.Likewise,thosesourcesthat ^  arestillsubjecttoVOClimitswillnotbeabletoincreaseVOCemissionsandwillalsonowneed   tocomplywithHAPlimits.ThosesourcesnotmeetingthefinalHAPemissionlimitswillneed "r  toreformulatetheircoatings(suchasswitchingtowaterborne,lowHAPsolventborne,or   powdercoatings)oruseaddoncontrolsthatwillreduceHAPandalsoprobablyVOCemissions. 6   TheEPAhasestablishedforthissourcecategorythatareasonablerelationshipexists H betweenStateVOCrulelimitsandactualVOCemissionsformostfacilities.Usingthemetal  partssurveydata,EPAcalculatedtheaverageVOCcontent(inlbVOCpergallonofcoating,  \ lesswater)foreachfacilitysubjecttoastateVOCrulelimit.TheaverageVOCcontentforeach n facilitysubjecttoaStateVOClimitisnominallylowerthantheapplicableStateVOClimit,    consistentwithareasonablemarginforcompliance >#  1      . 2"   AlthoughthegeneraluseHAPemissionlimitsarehigherthantheactualHAPemissions $ fromaboutathirdoftheexistingsourcesinthemetalpartsdatabase,theselimitswillnotallow F& severalhundred,ifany,sourcestoincreaseemissions.Itisimportanttonotethatthemetalparts X ( databaseincludedonlyasampleofthe1,500orsomajorsourcesthatareexpectedtobesubject ! * tothisrule.TheEPAearlierdeterminedthatthisdatabasedidnotadequatelyrepresentthe #l, diversityofsourcesforthepurposesofsettingaMACTemissionlimitforthegeneraluse ~$. subcategory.Forthisreason,EPAadoptedtheMACTapproachbasedonStateVOCrules.For %0!0 thesamereason,themetalpartsdatabasecannotbeusedtoinferthatanysources,muchless B'"2 severalhundred,willbeallowedtoincreaseemissions.AsdescribedintheEPAscostand  economicimpactsanalysis,EPAexpectsthemajorityofsourceswillneedtospendsignificant b resourcestoreduceemissionstocomplywiththesestandards. t   3.10  TheHAPtoVOCRatio &(#(#    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD36)supportedtheHAPtoVOCratiothatwasusedto 8  converttheVOClimitsinStatecoatingrulestoHAPlimits.      Anothercommenter(IVD14)arguedagainstusingtheaverageHAPtoVOCratiofor  L  allsourcesinsettingtheMACTfloor,statingthatamongthebestperformingsources,theHAP ^  toVOCratioismuchlessthanthe43percentoverallaverageratiousedbyEPA.The   commenterdidnotprovidespecificHAPtoVOCratiosforanyoftheloweremittingfacilities. "r  ThecommenterarguedthatifEPAdecidestobasetheruleonStateVOClimits,EPAshould   replacethe43percentHAPtoVOCratiowiththeaverageHAPtoVOCratioforthebest 6 performing12percentofsources. H    Anothercommenter(IVD24)notedthattheEPAdatabaseandtheRecreationalVehicle  IndustryAssociation(RVIA)databasedidnotincludeoraccountforHAPcontainedinsolvent  \ blends.ThecommenternotedthatTables3and4intheruleadddefaultfractionsforthese n productsandcould significantlyimpactthebaseline.ThecommenterrequestedthattheVOC    toHAPconversionfactorbereviewedtoensurethatthesedefaultfactorsareaddressed.The 2" commenterestimatedthattheHAPconcentrationperpoundofsolidswasunderestimatedinthe $ RVIAdatabaseby5percentcomparedtoifHAPfromsolventblendswereincluded.  F&   Response:AssuggestedbycommenterIVD14,EPAassessedtheHAPtoVOCratioof X ( thosefacilitiesthatrepresentedtheMACTfloorandassuggestedbycommenterIVD24,EPA ! * reviewedthesolventblendsthatwereusedbythefacilitiesthataresubjecttothemoststringent #l, StateVOCcoatingrules.ContrarytocommenterIVD14scontention,wefoundthattheHAP ~$. toVOCratioforsourcessubjecttoStateVOCruleswasnotlowerthanorsubstantiallydifferent %0!0 fromthe0.43ratiousedtodeveloptheproposedemissionlimits. B'"2   AssuggestedbycommenterIVD24,EPAassessedtheamountofHAPthatisfoundin (#4 solventblendsanddeterminedwhetherthiswouldaffecttheHAPtoVOCratiothatwasusedin *V%6 establishingthegeneraluseemissionlimits.Wereviewedthesolventblendsinthecoating h+&8 materialsusedbythe67facilitiesintheMMPPdatabasesubjecttothemoststringentStateVOC ,(: rulesandfoundthatsolventblendsaccountedforabout2percentofallHAP.Therefore,the  HAPtoVOCratiousedforcalculatingthegeneraluselimitshasbeenincreasedfrom0.43to b 0.44toaccountforthef  g organicf  g HAPinsolventblends,andthegeneraluselimitswere t recalculatedandthenroundedtotwosignificantfigures.Therevisedexistingsourcelimitis2.6 & lbf  g organicf  g HAP/gal(0.31kgf  g Ԁorganicf  g ԀHAP/liter)coatingsolidsf  g Ԁused,whichisthesameasthe 8  proposedlimitf  g .Therevisednewsourcelimitis1.9lbf  g organicf  g HAP/gal(0.23kgf  g Ԁorganicf  g     HAP/liter).Someoftheemissionlimitschangedslightlyduetoroundingtheproposedemission  L  limitstotwoorthreesignificantfigures. ^  Xv XXX  Sincethehighperformance,magnetwire,andrubbertometalcoatingemissionlimits   werenotdevelopedusingtheHAPtoVOCratioof0.43,theemissionlimitsforthesecoating "r  operationswerenotrecalculated.f  g ԀForthehighperformancelimit,aratioof0.70providedby   industrywasused.Formagnetwireandrubbertometal,HAPcontentfromthesurveydatabase 6 wereusedtoestablishthefloor,sonoHAPtoVOCratiowasneededforthesesubcategories. H #XX XXv#  3.20  HAPfromCleaningMaterials " \(#(#   Comment:Severalcommenters(IVD02,IVD09,IVD12,IVD16,IVD29,IVD n 31,IVD37,IVD56,IVD62)statedthatcleaningmaterialsshouldnotbeincludedinthe    MACTfloororincalculatingemissionlimitsforgeneralusecoatings.Thecommentersargued 2" thatthestateVOCrulesonwhichtheselimitsarebaseddonotincludecleaningsolventsinthose $ limits.Byincludingthecleaningsolvents,EPAhasmadetheproposedlimitsmorestringent F& thanallowedbytheMACTanalysisbasedonStateVOCrules,accordingtothecomments. X (   Onecommenter(IVD02)arguedthatcleaningsolventsdonotmeetthedefinitionofa ! * coatingintheShipbuildingandShipRepairNESHAP,andthereforearenotcoveredinthat #l, NESHAP.Specifically,theShipbuildingandRepairNESHAPdefines asappliedas the ~$. conditionofacoatingatthetimeofapplicationtothesubstrate,includinganythinningsolvent, %0!0 accordingtothecommenter. B'"2   Onecommenter(IVD09)suggestedcleaningsolventsberegulatedseparatelyfrom (#4 coatingsbasedonHAPcompositionorvaporpressure. *V%6   Onecommenter(IVD12)addedthatcleaningsolventshouldberemovedfromthe h+&8 emissionlimitsforgeneralusecoatingsbecauseincludingthemwouldpenalizegeneraluse ,(: coatingfacilitiesthatfrequentlychangecolorsandneedtousemoresolventthanfacilitieswith  fewercolorchanges. b   Twocommenters(IVD31,IVD56)pointedoutthatStateVOCrulesfollowthe t recommendationsofEPAscontroltechniqueguideline(CTG)documentformetalpartssurface & coating,andtheCTGdocumentrecommendsexcludingcleaningsolvents. 8    Onecommenter(IVD34)arguedthatregulatingcleaningsolventsshouldnotbethe    mainintentoftheruleandcleaningsolventsaccountforaninsignificantpercentoftheHAP  L  emissions.ThecommenterlistedtenStatesthateitherdonotcoversolventcleaningoperations ^  orregulatethemseparatelyfromsurfacecoatingoperations.      Twocommenters(IVD02,IVD62)pointedoutthattheLouisianaMACTfor "r  Shipbuilding,Repair,andOutdoorSurfaceCoatingofLargeStructuresandtheNESHAPfor   ShipbuildingandShipRepairdonotincludecleaningsolvents.Thecommenterssuggestedthat 6 ifacleaningsolventlimitisnecessary,itshouldbelistedseparatelyoraveragedseparatelyand H thenaddeddirectlytotheHAPlimit.    Onecommenter(IVD16)suggestedthataddoncontrolswillbeneededtocomplyif  \ cleaningsolventsareincludedintheemissionlimitsandEPAscostimpactestimatesdidnot n includeaddoncontrols.      Threecommenters(IVD31,IVD34,IVD56)statedthatifcleaningsolventsmustbe 2" includedtheyshouldbeexemptfromtheproposedHAPlimitprovidedsuchcleaningoperations $ areconductedinclosedcontainers.ThisapproachisconsistentwithStateRACTruleswhich F& incorporatesolventcleaningwithcoatingoperations,accordingtothecommenters.Two X ( commenters(IVD16andIVD36)suggestedthatthefinalruleshouldincludeworkpractices ! * forcleaningsolvents.Onecommenter(IVD36)notedthattheIndustrialCleaningSolvent #l, alternativecontroltechnique(ACT)documentsuggestedsolventaccountingandplant ~$. managementpracticestoaddressemissionsfromsolventcleaning.Thesamecommenteralso %0!0 notedthatEPAhasuseditsauthorityunder112(h)oftheActtoincorporateworkpracticesfor B'"2 cleaningsolventsfortheWoodFurniture,Aerospace,andShipbuildingandRepairNESHAPs. (#4 TheAerospaceManufacturingNESHAPcleaningsolventrequirementswerebasedonCalifornia *V%6 StateVOCrules,accordingtothecommenter.Thecommenteralsonotedthatthemetalparts h+&8 rulehasworkpracticestocontrolemissionsfrommaterialhandling,storage,andtransportifthe ,(: sourceusesanaddoncontrolandsuggestedthesecouldbeexpandedtoothercleaning  operationsbyaddinglanguagesimilartothatintheauto/lightdutytrucksurfacecoatingMACT. b Finally,thecommentersupportedallowingasourcetosubstituteanexistingworkpracticeplan t ratherthandevelopanewone. &   Response:TheEPAreviewedthecleaningmaterialreportedinthedatabaseforthe 8  miscellaneousmetalpartsandproductsruleandconcludedthatnonHAPcleanersareaviable    optionforf  sourcesg f  g Ԁsubjecttothefinalrule.Theproposedandfinalemissionlimitsreflectthefact  L  thatgreaterthan12percentofthemiscellaneousmetalpartsandproductsf  sourcesg f  g ,forwhich ^  EPAhaddata,wereusingcleaningsolventsthatcontainednof  g organicf  g HAPorwereusingsolvent   blendscontainingonlysmallpercentagesoff  g Ԁorganicf  g ԀHAP,whichwouldhavelittle,ifany,effect "r  ontheirfacilitywideemissionrate.Thesedataalsoappeartorepresentthediversityof   miscellaneousmetalpartsurfacecoatingfacilitiesinthesourcecategory >#  2      .Asdescribedin 6 section3.1,wehaveadjustedtheHAPtoVOCratiousedtoestablishtheemissionlimitsto H accountfortheHAPcontainedinsolventblends.Therefore,itisappropriatetoincludecleaning  solventsintheemissionlimitsasproposedandnochangestothelimitsarenecessaryto  \ accommodatecleaning. n   Giventheavailabledata,itisnotappropriatetosetworkpracticesforcleaninginsteadof    emissionlimitsforcleaning.Undersection112oftheCAA,workpracticestandardscanbeset 2" onlyifitisnotfeasibletoprescribeorenforceanemissionstandard.Formiscellaneousparts $ andproducts,wehaveenoughinformationtodevelopanemissionstandardthatincludes F& cleaning. X (   Thefinalruleaccountsforcleaningoperationsthatareconductedinclosedcontainers, ! * althoughthereisnospecificrequirementtoperformcleaninginclosedcontainers.Inthe #l, compliancecalculationsusedintheemissionratewithoutaddoncontrolsoptionandthe ~$. emissionratewithaddoncontrolsoption,youonlyneedtoincludethef  g organicf  g HAPcontained %0!0  inmaterialsthatareconsumedduringtheprevious12monthperiodandyoucantakecreditforf  g  B'"2 organicf  g ԀHAPcontainedinmaterialsthataresentoffsiteforrecyclingordisposal.Ifcleaningis  performedinclosedcontainers,theamountthatevaporatestotheatmosphereisminimized. b   &  3.30  PollutionPrevention viV&(#(#    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD14)arguedthatEPA,throughfaultyMACTfloor 8  calculationsanddisregardofsourcesusingpollutionprevention,hasdevelopedarulethatdoes    'cnotencouragepollutionprevention.ThecommenterarguesthatCongressionalrecordsindicateit  L  isclearthatCongressintendedthatEPAgiveprioritytopollutionpreventionmeasures,like ^  processchangesandmaterialssubstitution.     Response:TheEPAdisagreeswiththecommenterthattherulediscouragespollution "r  prevention.Onthecontrary,theruleisbasedonanemissionlevelthatisachievablethrough   coatingreformulation,suchasaswitchtowaterbornecoatingsandpowdercoatings,withoutthe 6 useofaddoncontrols.Inaddition,therulehascomplianceoptionsthatarebasedoncoating H reformulationratherthantheuseofaddoncontrols.    3.40  RubbertoMetalBonding vi&n(#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD19)askedwhytheexistingandnewsourcelimitsfor    therubbertometalsubcategorydiffersowidely(4.50vs.0.82kg/litersolids)andsuggeststhis 2" differencemayencourageexistingsourcestoexpandbyaddingnewemissionunitsatfacilities $ subjecttotheexistingsourcelimits. F&   Response:Becausetherubbertometalsourcecategoryincludeslessthan30sources,the X ( MACTfloorswerebasedontheaverageofthefivebestsourcesforexistingsourcesandthebest ! * controlledsourcefornewsources.ThisisconsistentwithCAArequirements.Thebestand #l, secondbestperformingsourcesuseathermalandacatalyticoxidizer,respectively.EPAhas ~$. determinedthat,withtheuseofcontrolequipment,newemissionunitsinthissourcecategory %0!0 couldachievethenewsourcelimit,whichisalsotheMACTfloorfornewsources.Forexisting B'"2 sources,theemissionlimitsaresetattheexistingsourceMACTfloor(averageofthebestfive (#4 sources).Asdescribedinsection4.0,EPAconsideredandrejectedtheoptionofrequiring *V%6 controlmorestringentthantheMACTfloorforexistingsources. h+&8  ,(:   3.50  AerospaceFacilities vi=(#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD21)disagreedwithEPAsmethodforestablishingthe b proposedmetalpartsMACTstandardsasappliedtoaerospacefacilities.Thecommenterstated t EPAdidnotfindaerospacefacilitiesthatinpracticecouldachievethemetalpartsMACT & standardsundertheworstforeseeablecircumstances.Accordingtothecommenter,EPAdidnot 8  analyzetheoperatingcircumstancesofaerospacefacilities,insteadrelyingongenerically    applicableStateVOCcoatingrules,whichdonotresembletheproposedMACTstandards.The  L  commenternotedthatwhiletheproposedMACTstandardsapplytocoatings,thinners,and ^  cleaners,severaloftheStatecoatingrulesapplyonlytocoatings.Thecommenteralsoargued   thatEPAassumedthattheStateVOCrulesapplyequallytoallcoatingfacilities,includingany "r  aerospacecoatingfacilities,althoughseveralofthoserulesexemptaerospacefacilities,or   providespecialemissionlimitsforaerospacefacilitiesnotreflectedintheproposedMACT 6 standards.Finally,thecommenterstatedthatEPAappearstohaveascribedasingleemission H limittocertainStatecoatingruleswhen,infact,thoserulesimposearangeofemissionlimits  dependingonthetypeofcoatingused.  \   Response:Weagreewiththecommenterthatitisappropriatetoexcludeallaerospace n surfacecoatingoperations,thatwereconsideredinthedevelopmentoftheAerospace    ManufacturingandReworkNESHAP,fromthemetalpartsrule.Thecommenteriscorrectthat 2" manyStateVOCrulesoftenexcludetheseoperationsfrommiscellaneousmetalpartemission $ limitsandaddresstheminseparateemissionlimitsforaerospacesurfacecoatingoperations. F& Therefore,theresultsoftheMACTanalysisbasedonStateVOClimitsformiscellaneousmetal X ( partscoatingoperationscannotbeextendedtoaerospacesurfacecoatingoperations. ! *   Thespecialtycoatingsthataref  g f  g addressedf  g Ԁinf  g ԀtheAerospaceManufacturingandRework #l, NESHAP,andforwhichEPAdeterminedthatMACTcontrolswerenotneededunderthat ~$. NESHAP,werenotintendedtoberegulatedundertheMiscellaneousMetalPartsandProducts %0!0 NESHAP.f  g f  g Toclarifythisintentf  g ,thefinalmiscellaneousmetalpartsruleincludesaprovision B'"2 thatspecifiesthatthefinalruledoesnotapplytocoatingsthatmeettheapplicabilitycriteriafor (#4 theAerospaceManufacturingandReworkNESHAP(40CFRpart63,subpartGG).f  g f  g ԀInaddition, *V%6 thefinalrulespecificallyexcludestheapplicationofspecialtycoatings,asdefinedinappendixA h+&8 tosubpartGG,tometalpartsofaerospacevehiclesorcomponents. ,(:   Thef  g Ԁcoatingofmetalpartsthatf  g f  g wouldnotmeettheapplicabilityoftheAerospace  ManufacturingandReworkNESHAPorthatwouldnotrequireanyofthespecialtycoatings b definedinappendixAto40CFRpart63,subpartGGwouldf  g Ԁbesubjecttothemiscellaneous t metalpartsfinalrulef  g f  g .Informationprovidedduringthecommentperiodindicatesthatanyf  g  & miscellaneousmetalf  g coatingf  g f  g activitieswouldf  g Ԁcompriselessthan5percentoff  g f  g totalcoating 8  activitiesatanaerospacefacility.Consequently,thefacilitycouldelecttocomplywiththe    predominantactivitycompliancealternativetoreduceitsrecordkeepingandreportingburden.  L   @` `   4.0OPTIONSMORESTRINGENTTHANTHEMACTFLOOR: viDԈ     Comment:Twocommenters(IVD36andIVD44)supportedEPAsanalysisof   beyondtheflooroptionsandtheconclusionthatbeyondtheflooralternativesarenot H appropriateforthemetalpartscategory. Z   Onecommenter(IVD14)notedthatEPAdidnotincludeanyabovethefloor   requirementsthatmightloweractualemissionsandassertedthatEPAhasfailedtorecognize n  facilitiesthathaveselectedlowerHAPcoatingsoradoptedaddoncontrols. "   Onecommenter(IVD20)maintainedthattheproposedruleistoolenientanddoesnot 2$ representmaximumachievablecontroltechnology,especiallyfornewsources.Therule,if D!& implementedasproposed,wouldachieveabouta50percentHAPreduction,whereasa95 "( percentreductionisachievable,accordingtothecommenter.ThecommenterarguedthatEPA $X* hasidentifiedthreefeasiblecontroloptionsthatwouldobtaingreateremissionreductionsthan j% , theproposedrule:powdercoatings,low/noHAPcoatings,andpermanenttotalenclosures(PTE) &". withcontroldevices.Thecommenterassertsthatthefirsttwooptionsarefeasibleandavailable .(~#0 foratleastportionsoftheindustryandassertsthatcontroldevicesarefeasibleforalloratleasta )$2  broadportionoftheindustryand,whenusedwithaPTE,canachieveatleasta95percent *B&4 emissionreduction.ThecommentersuggeststhatEPAshoulddevelopamorestringentemission  limitandallowfacilitiestochooseamongtheseoptionsforcompliance. b    Thecommenter(IVD20)alsonotesthattheEPArejectedthesetechnologiesasbeyond t theflooroptionsbasedoncost.Thecommenterclaimsthatwhilethecostofacaptureand & controlsystemmayhaveanupperlimitof$1millionincapitalcost,actualcostsforthemajority 8  offacilitieswouldbeless.Thecommenterbelievesthatthecostsarereasonableespeciallyfor    newsources.  L    Thecommenter(IVD20)alsodisagreedwithEPAspositionthattheneedforfurther ^  controlswouldbeevaluatedaspartoftheresidualriskassessmentinthefuture.Thecommenter   believesthatitwouldbemoredifficultforindustryifEPAimposedasecondroundofcontrolsin "r  thefuture.Thecommenterexpressedthattheneedforadditionalcontrolsinthefuturewouldbe   avoidedifallfeasiblecontrolswererequirednow.Thecommenterstatedthatadoptingamore 6 stringentMACTstandardalsowillresultinmoreVOCcontrol,whichwillprovideabenefitfor H troposphericozonecontrol.    Response:TheEPAdidnotadoptastandardmorestringentthantheMACTfloor,  \ includingastandardachievablethroughtheuseofaddoncontrols,forthesamereasonsthat n EPAdidnotadoptthestandardbasedonthepreliminaryMACTanalysisdescribedinthe    proposalpreamble.Thatis,therewerenooptionsmorestringentthanthefloorthatwere 2" applicabletotherangeofsourcesinthesourcecategory.PowdercoatingsornonHAPcoatings $ arenotfeasibleinallapplicationsintherangeofsourcesconsideredinthiscategory.Noclearly F& definablesubcategoryorothergroupofsourcescouldbeidentifiedforwhichthesecoatings X ( wouldalwaysbefeasible.Asdescribedinthepreamble,addoncontrolswerenotapplicablefor ! * typicalsourcesinthiscategorybecauseofhighvolume,lowconcentrationexhauststreams(67 #l, FR72292).Inaddition,noclearlydefinablesubcategoryorothergroupofsourcescouldbe ~$. identifiedforwhichaddoncontrolswouldbetechnicallyfeasibleorcosteffectiveatallnewor %0!0 existingsources.Thecommenterdidnotprovideanydetailedinformationtosupporttheir B'"2 contentionthatthecostsofaddoncontrolswouldbelessthanestimatedbyEPA. (#4   h+&8  @   5.0UNITSFORTHENUMERICALEMISSIONLIMITS pԈ  `    Comment:Severalcommenters(IVD02,IVD62,IVD24)statedthatthelimits  8  shouldbeinunitsofpoundsofHAPpergallonofcoating,ratherthanpoundsofHAPpergallon J  ofsolids.Also,onecommenter(IVD62)notedthatchangingtheunitsfromlb/galloncoatingto   lb/gallonsolidswouldnotallowthefacilitytocontinuetotrackperformanceimprovementsfrom ^  VOCemissionreductioninitiatives.Twocommenters(IVD02,IVD62)notedthatexisting p permitsandStaterulesareinunitsoflb/galloncoating.Onecommenter(IVD24)statedthat " usinglbHAP/gallonofsolidswouldbeconsistentwithothercoatingrulesthataffectthe 4 recreationalvehicleindustry.    Twocommenters(IVD17,IVD32)objectedtoexpressingtheemissionlimitsinlb H HAP/galloncoatingsolids,becausethisunitofmeasureishardtounderstandandverifyfor Z severalreasons:    #379:;<=(ږx30  "3"  32ږ3  0` (#(#  Estimatinggallonsofsolidsisbasedontheoreticalcalculations.Manufacturersdo n  notroutinelymeasuregallonssolids.3݌ Z!` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  0  32ږ3  0` (#(#  ThetwoASTMmethodsspecifiedformeasuringvolumesolids(ASTMmethods 2# D269786(1998)andD609397)areinaccurateandcostlytorun.3݌ $` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  0  3L2ږ3  0` (#(#  Thelimitswerebasedonanarbitrarilychosen defaultdensityforcoatingsolids.3L݌"&` (#` (# Ќ    Thesecommenters(IVD17,IVD32)recommendedusinglbHAP/lbcoatingsolids, $D ) becausethismetricisreadilyavailablefromthemanufacturers;isbasedonareliabletest V&!+ method;andismoreuniversallyusedbytheindustry. '#-   Onecommenter(IVD13)suggestedthatthemetalpartsandtheplasticpartsrules )j$/ shouldbeinthesameunitsofmeasuresincethiswouldgreatlyreducethereportingburdenatthe |*%1 manyfacilitiessubjecttobothrules.ThecommentersuggestedthatEPAshouldchangetheunits +.'3 ontheplasticpartsMACTtolbHAPpergallonofsolids,orchangemetalpartstolbHAPperlb @-(5 solidsandsuggestedthatlbHAP/pergalloncoatingunitsaremoreconsistentwithStateVOC  rulesderivedfromEPACTGs. b   Response:TheunitofmassofHAPpervolumeofcoatingsolidsusedwasselectedto t normalizetheassessmentoforganicHAPemissionsacrossallaffectedsources.Thisunitwas & meanttorelatedirectlytoproductionrates,ontheassumptionthataveragedrycoatingfilm 8  thicknessesarefairlyconstantacrossproducttypes.TheEPAdisagreeswiththecommenters    thattheseunitsareimpractical.  L    TheemissionlimitsinmanyStateVOCrulesformiscellaneousmetalpartscoatingare ^  expressedinunitsofmassofVOCpervolumeofcoatinglesswaterandlessexemptcompounds.   SimilarunitswereusedfortheemissionlimitrecommendationsinEPAs1978guidance "r  documentforthissurfacecoatingcategorytitled ControlofVolatileOrganicEmissionsfrom   ExistingStationarySourcesVolumeVI:SurfaceCoatingofMiscellaneousMetalPartsand 6 Products(EPA450/278015). These lesswaterunitsaredifficulttoworkwithandare H impracticalforfacilitieswithaddoncontrolequipment.Asaresultof1987EPAguidance(52  FR45108,November24,1987),someStateshavechangedtheunitsfortheirVOClimitsto  \ massofVOCpervolumeofsolids,andmostStateshaveaddedalternativelimitsinunitsofmass n ofVOCpervolumeofsolidsforusebyfacilitieswithaddoncontrolequipment.      Theuseof lesswaterunitsforHAPinthisrulewouldleadtoevenmoredifficulties 2" andprobableconfusion.InordertoprovideameaningfulbasisforcomparisonoftheHAP $ contentofdifferentcoatings,theunitswouldneedtobemassofHAPpervolumeofcoatingless F& waterandlessnonHAPorganicvolatiles.MostcoatingscontainnonHAPorganicvolatiles.In X ( ordertoexpresstheHAPcontentofsuchcoatingsintheseunits,theweightfractionanddensity ! * ofeachnonHAPorganicvolatilewouldbeneeded.Thiscouldbeasignificantadditionaldata #l, gatheringburden.Inaddition,theseunitswouldbeunworkableforfacilitieswithaddoncontrol ~$. equipment. %0!0   ContrarytocommentersIVD17andIVD32,thisrulewasdevelopedusingStaterules B'"2 tolimitVOCemissionsfrommetalpartscoatingoperationsanddidnotassumeanydefaultvalue (#4 forsolidsdensity .TheseStateVOCrulesforcoatingoperationsareexpressedeitherintermsof *V%6 lbVOCpergallonofcoating,lesswaterandotherexemptcompounds,orinlbVOCpergallon h+&8 ofsolids.TheconversionfromVOCpergallonofcoatingtoVOCpergallonofsolidsuseda ,(: standarddefaultvalueforVOCdensityof7.36lb/gallon.ThisVOCdensitywasusedinEPAs  1978guidancedocumentforthissourcecategoryandiscommonlyusedforconvertingemission b limitsforthissourcecategoryfroma lesswatertoavolumesolidsbasis.Thedensityof t coatingsolidsisnotneededandwasnotusedtomakethisconversion. &   ManyFederalandStateVOCrulesusef  g Ԁunitsofmassoff  g f  g VOCf  g Ԁpervolumeoff  g f  g solids.In 8  over20yearsofuse,therehavebeennosignificantdifficultiesidentifiedorreportedintheuseor    understandingoftheseunits.Thevolumesolidscontentofcoatingsisroutinelyusedbyboth  L  coatingmanufacturersandcoatingusersasameasureofcoverage.f  g ThesurveydatathatEPA ^  collectedonmiscellaneousmetalpartsandproductscoatingsindicatethatf  g Ԁvolumesolidsdataare   commonlyavailable. "r    Thetestmethodsforvolumesolidsareoneoptionforgeneratingvolumesolidscontent   data.Formulationdataforvolumesolidscanalsobeused.Thefinalrulestatesthatthetest 6 methodresultswilltakeprecedenceunless,afterconsultation,youdemonstratetothesatisfaction H oftheenforcementagencythattheformulationdataarecorrect.    Asdiscussedintheproposalpreamble(67FR52798),theNationalTechnologyTransfer  \ andAdvancementActof1995(NTTAA),section12(d),directstheEPAtousevoluntary n consensusstandards(VCS)inourregulatoryandprocurementactivitiesifpossible.Thetwo    ASTMmethodsreferredtobythecommenterareexamplesoftheseVCS. 2"   Section63.3941(b)intheproposedruleprovidedtwooptionsfordeterminingthevolume $ fractionofcoatingsolids(nonvolatiles)foreachcoating:(1)useofeitherofthetworeferenced F& ASTMmethods(D269786(1998)orD609397),or(2)useofinformationfromthesupplieror X ( manufacturerofthematerial.However,basedonthesecomments,werealizedthattheremaybe ! * situationsforsomecoatingswhereeithertheASTMtestmethodscannotbeusedor #l, manufacturer'sdataarenotavailabletodeterminethevolumefractioncoatingsolids.Weadded ~$. aparagraphto63.3941ofthefinalruleforthissituation: %0!0 0  Calculationofvolumefractionofcoatingsolids,Vs.Ifthevolumefractionofcoating B'"2 solidscannotbedeterminedusingtheoptionsinparagraphs(b)(1)and(b)(2)ofthis (#4 section,youmustdetermineitusingEquation1ofthissection:*V%6(#(# @V0,J(,(s,(,J(=1(m0,J(,(volatiles,(,J(/D0,J(,(avg,(,J() ,(: Where:  0  V0BbsbBԀ=0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Volumefractionofcoatingsolids,literscoatingsolidsperlitercoating.b (# (# 0  m0j:volatiles:jԀ=0 (#(#Totalvolatilemattercontentofthecoating,includingHAP,volatile : organiccompounds(VOC),water,andexemptcompounds,determined & accordingtoMethod24inappendixAof40CFRpart60,gramsvolatile   matterperlitercoating.  (# (# 0  D0  avg  Ԁ=0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Averagedensityofvolatilematterinthecoating,gramsvolatilematterper    litervolatilematter,determinedfromtestresultsusingASTMMethod r   D147590,informationfromthesupplierormanufacturerofthematerial, ^  orreferencesourcesprovidingdensityorspecificgravitydataforpure J  materials.IfthereisdisagreementbetweenASTMMethodD147590test 6  resultsandotherinformationsources,thetestresultswilltakeprecedence."r  (# (#   ThisthirdoptionwillallowasourcetoavoidthecostofusingthetwoASTMmethods. p Thethreeoptionsinthefinalruleprovidesourceswiththeflexibilitytochoosetheapproachthat " iscompatiblewiththeirpreferencesaswellasthecoatinginformationavailabletothem. 4   ThecommentersarealsoremindedthattheGeneralProvisions,in63.7(f)ofsubpartA  ofPart63,allowalternativestothespecifiedtestmethodstobeusedifavalidationand H justificationaresubmittedforthealternativemethods.Thecommenterdidnotincludeany Z suggestedalternativestothemethodsshownintheproposal.However,affectedsourceswishing   tousealternativestothelistedapproachesmaypresentthosetotheAgencyforapprovalbefore n usingthemforcompliancedeterminations. !   ThisruleisintendedtolimitHAPemissions.SincetherearemanynonHAPVOC,the 2# HAPcontentandVOCcontentofacoatingcanbeverydifferent.Thechoiceofunitsforthis D!% HAPrulewillhavenoeffectonafacilitysabilitytotrackVOCemissionreductions. "'   Comment:Twocommenters(IVD02,IVD62)claimedthatdifferentunitswould $X) requirethepurchaseofnewrecordkeepingsoftware.Anothercommenter(IVD24)notedthat j% + volumesolidsdataarenotcurrentlytrackedinmostcomplianceprograms.Trackingvolume &"- solidswouldrequiresignificantefforttoupdateandmodifyexistingprograms. .(~#/   Response:Allrecordkeepingandreportingcostsareincludedinthecostandburden )$1 estimatesfortherule,includingthecostforrecordingthevolumesolidscontentofcoatingsand *B&3 performingthecompliancecalculationsbasedonHAPpervolumeofcoatingsolids.Volume T,'5 solidsdatawerereadilyobtainedforthemajorityofcoatingsincludedinthemetalparts  database.Thevolumesolidscontentofcoatingsisroutinelyusedbybothcoatingmanufacturers b andcoatingusersasameasureofcoverage.f  g ThesurveydatathatEPAcollectedon t miscellaneousmetalpartsandproductscoatingsindicatethatf  g Ԁvolumesolidsdataarecommonly & available. 8    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD33)suggestedthatrulesapplicabletoDepartmentof    Defense(DoD)coatingoperationsshouldbeinmassofVOCpervolumeofcoatingusingVOC  L  asasurrogateforHAPforanumberofreasons: ^  ! ! #379:;<=(ږxx#379:;<="3"  0  3G2ږ3  0` (#(#  AerospaceandShipbuildingNESHAParealreadyintheseunits.3G6H݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  ! ! #379:;<=(ږxx#379:;<="3"  0  3I2ږ3  0` (#(#  DoDsuppliersareundercontractualagreementtomeetlimitsintheseunitsfor   StaterulesandforAerospaceManufacturingandShipbuildingandRepair p NESHAP.3II݌\` (#` (# Ќ  ! ! #379:;<=(ږxx#379:;<="3"  0  3K2ږ3  0` (#(#  MostDoDcoatingshaveaHAP:VOCratiocloseto1.0.Therefore,VOCisa 4 goodindicatorofHAP.3KL݌ p` (#` (# Ќ  ! ! #379:;<=(ږxx#379:;<="3"  0  3M2ږ3  0` (#(#  ThereisadirectlinearrelationshipbetweenVOCpergalloncoatingandHAPper H unitsolidsforanygivencoatingformulation.3MM݌4` (#` (# Ќ  ! ! #379:;<=(ږxx#379:;<="3"  0  3O2ږ3  0` (#(#  SinceDoDfacilitieswillbeselectingfromexistingcoatingsratherthan   reformulating,otherunitswillhavelittleeffectonemissions.3OO݌` (#` (# Ќ  ! ! #379:;<=(ږxx#379:;<="3"  0  3Q2ږ3  0` (#(#  Variationsinsolventdensity(partofEPAsrationaleforVOCpersolidsbasis)is   notimportantatDoDfacilitiesbecauseofthehighnumberofcoatingused; l! variationsaboveandbelowthedefaultvalueforsolventdensitywilltendto X " canceleachotherout.3QR݌   h D!#` (#` (#   Response:TheEPAwillbedevelopingaseparateNESHAPforDepartmentofDefense #l% coatingoperationsthatarenotcurrentlycoveredbytheAerospaceManufacturingandRework ~$' NESHAPortheShipbuildingandShipRepairNESHAP.Thesecommentsontheformatofthe %0!) emissionlimitswillbetakenintoconsiderationinthedevelopmentofthatNESHAP. B'"+   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD17)recommendeduseoflbHAP/lbcoatingsolidsfor (#- allsurfacecoatingstandardsbecauseusingdifferentunitswillcreateconfusionandan *V%/ unnecessaryburden(bothtocoatingusersandmanufacturers)totrackcoatingsHAPcontenton h+&1 twodifferentbases. ,(3   Response:ThedifferentNESHAPdevelopedbyEPAforsurfacecoatingoperations  reflectthedifferenttypesofdatathatwereavailableforthoseNESHAPandthedifferent b approachesthatwereusedindeterminingMACTforeachsourcecategory.Thefinalrule t includesprovisionsthatwerenotincludedintheproposedruletoreducethelikelihoodthata & facilitywillneedtodemonstrateseparatecompliancewithmorethanoneNESHAPthatmaybe 8  indifferentemissionunitsandtrackmaterialsseparatelytodeterminecompliancewitheach    NESHAP.TheseprovisionsarediscussedinmoredetailinSection6.0ofthisdocument.  L      @R R   6.0OVERLAPWITHOTHERNESHAP roZԈ  `    6.10  DepartmentofDefenseCoatings roZ 8 (#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD33)statedthatEPAshouldestablishaseparatesource J  categoryforDoDsurfacecoatingoperationsnotcoveredbytheAerospaceortheShipbuilding   andShipRepairNESHAP(40CFRpart63,subpartsGGandII,respectively)andexemptthese ^  coatingoperationsfromthefinalruleformiscellaneousmetalparts.Thecommenterdescribed p theuniquematerialrequirementsandoperatingconditionsformilitarycoatingoperationsthatare " differentfromcommercialoperations.Thecommenterclaimedthattheproposedcompliance 4 optionswouldbeimpracticalandextremelycostlyforDoDfacilitiesbecauseofthecomplexity  ofmilitarycoatingoperations,thenumberofcoatingsandsolventsused,andthenumberof H differentitemsandsubstratescoated.ManyDoDinstallations(especiallythosethatserviceor Z remanufactureartillery,armoredvehicles,weaponssystems,andsupportequipment)use   thousandsofdifferentcoatings,andeachmaterialissubjecttoitsownmilitaryspecification. n    BecauseDoDfacilitiesuseHAPcontainingsolvents,thecommenter(IVD33)claimed " theycouldnotusetheproposedcompliantmaterialsoption.Reformulatingsolventsorcoatings 2$ requiresextensivefieldtestingbeforetheycanbeapprovedforuseintacticalfieldequipment D!& andweaponssystems.Inaddition,updatingthecoatingsforwhichthereisamilitary "( specificationrequiresupdatingthedocumentationapplicabletomilitaryspecificationsandthe $X* documentationfortherelevantequipmentandweaponssystemsthatadoptthosemilitary j% , specifications. &".   Accordingtothecommenter(IVD33),theproposedemissionrateoptionandtheaddon .(~#0 controlsoptionarenotfeasiblebecausetheywouldrequireDoDtobeabletoaccuratelytrackthe )$2  amountofcoatingorcleaningsolventusedoneachitemorsubstrate.Asnotedabove,DoD *B&4 installationsmayusethousandsofdifferentcoatingsonavarietyofsubstrates,includingmetal,  plastic,ceramics,rubber,fabric,wood,andcomposites. b    Thecommenter(IVD33)requestedaseparatesourcecategorysothatemissionlimits t andaregulatoryformatcouldbedevelopedthatwouldbemostappropriateformilitarycoating & needs.ThecommenterclaimedthataseparaterulealsowouldensurethatallDoDcoatings 8  couldcomplywithemissionlimitsusingthesameunitsofmeasure.Thecommenternotedthat    DoDfacilitiesusemanyofthesamehighperformancecoatingsonplasticandmetalitemsand  L  substratesandtheycouldbepotentiallyregulatedbyboththeNESHAPforplasticpartsand ^  productsandtheNESHAPformiscellaneousmetalpartsandproducts.     Thecommenter(IVD33)specificallyrequestedthattouchuppaintingshouldbe "r  exempt.ThecommenterclaimedthistypeofcoatingisverycommonatDoDfacilitiesusinga   brushorroller,especiallyonmobileequipment.Inaddition,thecommenterrequestedthatEPA 6 specificallyexemptcoatingofmuseum/historicalitemsbecauseDoDmustusehistorically H accuratecoatingsfortheseitems.    Thecommenter(IVD33)alsorequestedthatEPAexemptDepartmentofDefense  \ munitions(asdefinedin40CFR260.10)manufacturingfromallsurfacecoatingNESHAPfor n severalreasons:munitionshaveuniquecoatingspecificationsthatrelatedirectlytoperformance    andsafety(severalexampleswereprovided);developingandqualifyingcompliantcoatings,if 2" possible,wouldrequiremoretimethanallowedundertheCleanAirAct(i.e.,greaterthan $ 3years);andfrequentchangesinthemixofmunitionsthatareproducedthatareunpredictable F& anddictatedbyworldeventswouldpreventcomplianceusingeithertheaveragingoraddon X ( controloptions. ! *   Asecondcommenter(IVD49)stronglysuggestedexemptingsealingoperations #l, conductedonammunitionfromtheproposedrule.Thecommentermanufacturessmalland ~$. mediumcaliberammunitionprimarilyformilitarypurposes,whereinsealantsareappliedto %0!0 variouscomponentsoftheammunitionforsafetyandreliabilityreasons.Thecommenter B'"2 claimedtherearetechnicalandmaterialcompatibilityobstaclestousinglowHAPcoatings,and (#4 thatchangingsealantscouldcompromisetheperformanceofammunitionandthesafetyof *V%6  companyemployeesandmilitarypersonnel. h+&8   Response:AfterseveralvisitstoDoDsurfacecoatingoperationsandmeetingswithDoD   stakeholders,EPAagreesthataseparatesourcecategoryforDoDsurfacecoatingoperationsis b warranted.Onefactorthatweconsideredinthisdecisionistheuniquemilitaryspecificationsfor t coatingsusedontacticalandothermilitaryequipment.Furtherdatacollectionandanalysisare & requiredtodeterminewhatemissionlimitsareachievableforthesecoatingoperations.Another 8  factorthatweconsideredistheissuethatmilitaryfacilitiesmayusethousandsofdifferent    coatings,andthatthetypesofequipmentthatarecoatedandthetypesofcoatingsusedinagiven  L  timeperiodareunpredictableandofteninfluencedbyworldevents.Furtheranalysisisneededto ^  determinewhatemissionlimitformatsandcompliancedemonstrationandrecordkeepingare   practicalforthistypeofsituation.Anotherconsiderationwasthehighprobabilitythatthese "r  f  sourcesg f  g ԀwouldbesubjecttomultipleNESHAP.     TheEPAwillbedevelopingaseparateNESHAPfor DefenseLandSystemsand 6 MiscellaneousEquipmentsurfacecoatingoperations.ThatNESHAPwillincludeoperations H thatdonotmeettheapplicabilitycriteriaoftheAerospaceManufacturingandReworkNESHAP  ortheShipbuildingandShipRepairNESHAP.Thecommentspertainingtotheformatofthe  \ standardandappropriatecomplianceoptionswillbetakenintoconsiderationinthedevelopment n ofthatNESHAP.      SinceaseparatesourcecategorywillbeestablishedforDoDsurfacecoatingoperations, 2" thedefinitionofhighperformancecoatinginthefinalrulehasbeenrevisedsothatitnolonger $ includes"militarycombat,tactical,andmunitionscoating"andthedefinitionof"military F& combat,tactical,andmunitionscoating"isnotincludedinthefinalrule. X (   Comment:OnecommenterrequestedthatthefinalruleexemptthecoatingofNASA ! * launchsupportequipmentorincludethecoatingofthisequipmentinthesurfacecoating #l, NESHAPbeingdevelopedfordefenselandsystemsandmiscellaneousequipment.The ~$. commenterexplainedthatthesecoatingshaveuniqueperformancerequirements,suchasthe %0!0 abilitytowithstandtheexhaustfromrocketengines,andthecoatingsthatmeetthese B'"2 requirementsmustbequalifiedforuseunderNASAspecifications. (#4   Response:WeagreethatthecoatingsusedonNASAlaunchsupportequipmenthave *V%6 uniqueperformancerequirements.Theseperformancerequirementsandthecoatingsneededto h+&8 meetthemwillrequirefurtheranalysisbeforeemissionlimitscanbeestablished.Sincethe ,(: processforqualifyingcoatingsunderNASAspecificationsissimilartotheprocessofqualifying  coatingsforuseundermilitaryspecifications,thesecoatingoperationswillbeincludedinthe b developmentofthesurfacecoatingNESHAPbeingdevelopedfordefenselandsystemsand t miscellaneousequipment. &   6.20  ExclusionofActivitiesSubjecttoOtherSurfaceCoatingNESHAP ro~  (#(#   Comment:Severalcommenters(IVD19,IVD21,IVD31,IVD48,IVD63)  L  requestedthatEPAclarifythattheAerospaceManufacturingNESHAP(40CFR63,subpart ^  GG),ratherthanthemetalpartsrule,coverpartsnecessaryfortheproperfunctioningofaircraft.   Thecommenterswereconcernedinparticularthatthisrule,asproposed,couldbeinterpretedto "r  applytothespecialtycoatingsincludedinappendixAtosubpartGG.Twocommenters(IVD   19,IVD31)notedthattheproposalpreambleindicatedthatthesurfacecoatingofcertain 6 aerospaceequipmentwouldbesubjecttothisNESHAP.Thecommentersarguedthatthe H AerospaceManufacturingNESHAPfoundthatMACTcontrolswerenotwarrantedforcertain  aerospacesurfacecoatingoperationsandthatregulatingtheseoperationsunderthisrulewould  \ beanunexplainedchangeinpolicy. n   Twocommenters(IVD17,IVD36)suggestedthatthefinalruleincludeanalternative    complianceoptionforfacilitiessubjecttothefinalNESHAPunderdevelopmentforthesurface 2" coatingofautomobilesandlightdutytrucksthatalsocoatmetalparts.Thecommenternoted $ thatsomeautomobileandlightdutytruckfacilitieswillbesubjecttothefinalruleformetalparts F& coating,theNESHAPforthesurfacecoatingofautomobilesandlightdutytrucks,andthe X ( PlasticPartsandProductsNESHAP.Thecommentersuggestedthataf  sourceg f  g Ԁbeallowedto ! * complywiththefinalNESHAPforautomobilesandlightdutytrucksforallcoatingoperationsif #l, theprincipleactivityisthesurfacecoatingofautomobilesandlightdutytruckbodies.The ~$. commenternotedthatthemetalandplasticpartcoatingoperationsareoftenintegratedwiththe %0!0 bodycoatingoperations,sinceallthreecoatingoperationsmaysharecommoncoatingsupplies, B'"2 applicationequipment,cleaningsolvents,andemissioncontrols.Thesharedequipmentand (#4 materialscouldmaketrackingseparatecomplianceforeachNESHAPoverlyburdensomeand *V%6  wouldreducethecertaintyofcompliance. h+&8   Onecommenter(IVD33)requestedthatEPAclarifythatnoshipbuildingorshiprepair   surfacecoatingoperationsaresubjecttothisoranyotherNESHAP,excepttheShipbuildingand b ShipRepairNESHAP(40CFRpart63,subpartII).ThecommenternotedthattheShipbuilding t andShipRepairNESHAPcoversonlypaintsandthinners,anddoesnotcovercaulks,sealants, & andadhesives.Sincethemetalpartsrulecoversallcoatingmaterials,thecommenterwas 8  concernedthatitwouldcoverthosematerialsthatwerenotspecificallyaddressedbythe    ShipbuildingandRepairNESHAPandwillmakeshipbuildingandshiprepairf  sourcesg f  g Ԁsubjectto  L  multipleNESHAP. ^    Response:Weagreewiththecommenterthatcoatingoperationsthataref  g f  g addressedf  g Ԁinf  g Ԁthe   AerospaceManufacturingandReworkNESHAP,andforwhichEPAdeterminedthatMACT "r  controlswerenotneeded,arenotintendedtoberegulatedundertheMiscellaneousMetalParts   andProductsNESHAP.f  g f  g Toclarifythisintentf  g ,thefinalmiscellaneousmetalpartsruleincludesa 6 provisionthatspecifiesthatthefinalruledoesnotapplytocoatingsthatmeettheapplicability H criteriafortheAerospaceManufacturingandReworkNESHAP(40CFRpart63,subpartGG).f  g f  g Ԁ  Inaddition,thefinalruleexcludestheapplicationofspecialtycoatings,asdefinedinappendixA  \ tosubpartGG,tometalpartsofaerospacevehiclesorcomponents. n   Thef  g Ԁcoatingofmetalpartsthatf  g f  g wouldnotmeettheapplicabilityoftheAerospace    ManufacturingandReworkNESHAPorthatwouldnotrequireanyofthespecialtycoatings 2" definedinappendixAto40CFRpart63,subpartGGwouldf  g Ԁbesubjecttothemiscellaneous $ metalpartsfinalrulef  g f  g .Informationprovidedduringthecommentperiodindicatesthatanyf  g  F& miscellaneousmetalf  g coatingf  g f  g activitieswouldf  g Ԁcompriselessthan5percentoff  g f  g totalcoating X ( activitiesatanaerospacefacility.Consequently,thefacilitycouldelecttocomplywiththe ! * predominantactivitycompliancealternativetoreduceitsrecordkeepingandreportingburden. #l,   Weagreethatthefinalruleforthef  g surfacecoatingf  g f  g off  g Ԁmiscellaneousmetalpartsf  g f  g isnot ~$. intendedtoapplytof  g Ԁcoatingoperationsf  g f  g thatmeetf  g Ԁthef  g f  g applicabilitycriteriaf  g ԀoftheShipbuildingf  g f  g and %0!0 ShipRepairNESHAP.Althoughf  g ԀtheShipbuildingandShipRepairNESHAPf  g f  g didnotestablish B'"2 emissionlimitsforsealants,caulks,andadhesivesusedinshipbuildingorshiprepair,suchtypes (#4 ofcoatingsusedforshipbuildingorrepairoperationsaremoreappropriatelyaddressedunderthe *V%6 ShipbuildingandShipRepairNESHAP.ThereviewoftheShipbuildingandShipRepair h+&8 NESHAP,requiredbysection112(d)(6)oftheCAA,isanappropriatemechanismforevaluating ,(: whetheremissionlimitsareneededforsealants,caulks,andadhesivesusedinshipbuildingor  shiprepair.f  g Basedonthisinformation,thefinalmetalpartsrulecontainsanexclusionforf  surface b coatingofmetalcomponentsofshipsg f  g thatmeettheapplicabilitycriteriaoftheShipbuildingand t ShipRepairNESHAP. &   Forf  sourcesg f  g ԀthatwillbesubjecttothefinalAutomobilesandLightDutyTrucks 8  NESHAP,thefinalmiscellaneousmetalpartsandproductsruleincludesaprovisiontomitigate    theoverlapatthesefacilities.Forthesemetalpartsurfacecoatingoperations,afacilityhasthe  L  optiontocomplywiththerequirementsofthefinalAutomobilesandLightDutyTrucks ^  NESHAPaslongasthemetalpartsareforuseinautomobilesorlightdutytrucks.f  g Surface   coatingoperationsforothermetalparts(suchasthoseformotorcyclesorlawnmowers)atthe "r  samefacilitywillstillbesubjecttothemetalpartsrule. p      x        6.3  ComplyingWiththeRuleRepresentingtheMajorityoftheSubstrate(PlasticorMetal)  onPreassembledParts BԀ  \   Theproposedrulecontainedaprovisiontoallowasourcecoatingpreassembled n products,comprisingplasticandmetalsubstratestocomplywiththeNESHAPrepresentingthe    substratetowhichmorethan50percentofthevolumeofcoatingsisapplied.(Seeproposed 2" 63.3881,67FR52800,August13,2002.) $   Comment:Severalcommenters(IVD35,IVD36,supportedthisprovisionofthe F& proposedrule.Severalothercommenters(IVD17,IVD24,IVD33,IVD44,IVD52)did X ( notsupporttheproposedprovisionorsuggestedsignificantmodifications.Severalcommenters ! * (IVD24,IVD36,IVD52)notedthatthef  sourceg f  g Ԁwouldberequiredtodetermineeverymonth #l, whetherthemajoritysubstrateonthesepartswasmetalorplasticbasedonthecoatingsapplied ~$. duringtheprevious12monthperiodandarguedthiswouldbeoverlyburdensome.Two %0!0 commenters(IVD34,IVD36)suggestedthatbecausetherelativeamountofmetalandplastic B'"2 coatedcouldchangeovertime,afacilitycouldpotentiallyfluctuatebetweenapplicable (#4 NESHAP.Twocommenters(IVD28,IVD36)alsosuggestedthatthefinalrulerequire *V%6  facilitiestoestablishwhetherthemajorityofsurfacescoatedaremetalorplasticonlyatthetime h+&8 oftheirTitleVpermitrenewal,ratherthanona12monthrollingbasis,toprovidestabilityand  reducetherecordkeepingburden. b    Severalcommenters(IVD19,IVD28,IVD36,IVD44,IVD47)claimedthatthe t ruledoesnotadequatelyaddresssituationswhereseparateplasticandmetalpartsarecoatedon & thesameline.Asproposed,separatemetalandplasticpartscoatedonthesamelinewouldneed 8  tocomplyseparatelywiththeplasticpartsandthemetalpartsrules.Onecommenter(IVD36)    notedthatthesamecoatingsandfeedsystemsareoftenusedforbothplasticandmetalpartsona  L  singleline.Three(IVD28,IVD36,IVD47)commentersrecommendedthatthefinalrule ^  adopta predominantactivityconcept,wherebythefacilitycoulddeterminethepredominant   coatingactivityofalineandthencomplywithasingleNESHAP. "r    Response:Werecognizeandappreciatesomeoftheproblemsthatwereidentifiedwith   thisapproachbythecommenters.Althoughsomecommenterssupportedthisapproach,itisnot 6 includedinthefinalrule.Thefinalruleinsteadallowsavarietyofmorepracticalcompliance H optionsf  g f  g thataddressthemetalsandplasticscoatingatafacilityratherthanjustpreassembled  parts.Theseincludeapredominantactivityalternative,assuggestedbysomeofthecommenters.  \   Thepredominantactivityalternativeallowsafacilitytoidentifyitspredominanttypeof n coatingactivityandcomplywiththeemissionlimitthatappliestothatactivityforallcoating    operations.Thepredominantactivityisdefinedastheactivitythatrepresents90percentormore 2" ofthesurfacecoatingthatoccursatafacility.Xv XXXForexample,ifafacilityissubjecttof  g Ԁbothf  g Ԁthe $ f  Pg f  g lasticf  Pg f  g artsandProductsNESHAPandf  MiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsNESHAPand F& theactivitiessubjecttothef  MiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsNESHAPaccountfor X ( 90percentormoreofthesurfacecoatingactivityatthefacility,thenthefacilitymaycomply ! * withtheemissionlimitationsformiscellaneousmetalpartsandproductsforbothtypesofsurface #l, coatingoperations.#XX XXv#Ԁ ~$. Xv XXX  Youmustincludeallsurfacecoatingactivitiesthatmeettheapplicabilitycriteriaofa %0!0 subcategoryinasurfacecoatingNESHAPandconstitutemorethan1percentoftotalcoating B'"2 activities.Coatingactivitiesthatmeettheapplicabilitycriteriaofasubcategoryinasurface (#4 coatingNESHAPbutcompriselessthan1percentoftotalcoatingactivitiesneednotbeincluded *V%6 inthedeterminationofpredominantactivitybuttheymustbeincludedinthecompliance h+&8 calculations.#XX XXv# ,(:   Wehaveanalyzedtherelativedifferencesinemissionlimitsthatareincludedinthe  predominantactivitycomplianceoption,asitwouldapplytotheNESHAPforplasticpartsand b productsandtheNESHAPformiscellaneousmetalpartsandproducts.Wehavedetermined,for t certainsubcategories,thattheenvironmentalimpactofcomplyingwiththeemissionlimitforthe & predominantactivityisessentiallyequivalenttocomplyingseparatelywitheachemissionlimit. 8  Forothersubcategories,theenvironmentalimpactcouldbesubstantiallydifferent.Toprevent    situationsthatcouldleadtosubstantialemissionsincreases,thefollowingactivitiescannotbe  L  usedasthepredominantactivityatafacility:highperformance,rubbertometalbonding,and ^  extremeperformancefluoropolymercoatings.Emissionlimitsforthesecoatingoperations   reflecttheneedforspecializedperformancerequirementsthatcancurrentlybeaccomplished "r  onlywithmaterialsthatcontainsubstantiallyhigherHAPthanmaterialsusedatothertypesof   coatingoperations.Itwouldbeinappropriatetoallowcoatingoperationsthatcanbeperformed 6 withlowerHAPmaterialstocomplywithsubstantiallyhigherHAPemissionlimitsthanwould H otherwisebeapplicable.    Underthepredominantactivityalternative,ifallcoatingoperationscomplywiththe  \ emissionlimitapplicabletothepredominantactivity,thefacilitywillbeconsideredin n compliancewiththeemissionlimitsotherwiseapplicabletotheminoritysurfacecoating    operations(i.e,thosethatamounttolessthan10percentofthecoatingactivity). 2"   TheEPAagreeswiththecommentersthatthepredominantactivitydeterminationshould $ bemadeatthetimeofthenotificationofcompliancestatusandlessfrequentlythanonamonthly F& basis.Alessfrequentdeterminationwouldsubstantiallyreducetherecordkeepingcomparedtoa X ( monthlydeterminationandwouldreducethepotentialthataf  sourcesg f  g Ԁoperationscouldfluctuate ! * betweencompliancerequirements.However,wefeelitisimportanttodeterminepredominant #l, activitymorefrequentlythanatTitleVrenewal,sincethismayoccuronlyevery5yearsorso, ~$. andmaynotaccuratelyreflectcurrentcoatingoperations.Therefore,thefinalrulerequiresthata %0!0 facilitydeterminetheirpredominantactivityonanannualbasis. B'"2   Thepredominantactivitydeterminationmustaccuratelyreflectcurrentandprojected (#4 coatingoperationsandmustbeverifiablethroughappropriatedocumentation.Thedetermination *V%6 canbebasedonrepresentativecoatingdataforanyreasonabletimeperiodofatleast1yearof h+&8 operationforexistingsources,providedthedatarepresentthewaythesourcewillcontinueto ,(: operateinthefutureandareapprovedbytheAdministrator.Fornewsourceswithnoprior  coatingactivity,theinitialdeterminationwouldbebasedononlyprojectionsofcoatingactivity b forthenextyear.Subsequentdeterminationswouldbebasedonbothpastandprojectedcoating t activity. &   Webelievethemostappropriatebasisforthepredominantactivitydeterminationisthe 8  percentageofcoatingsolidsthatisappliedtopartssubjecttodifferentemissionlimits.Afacility    wouldnotneedtomeasureorcalculatetheamountofcoatingsolidsusedondifferentpartsand  L  productstodeterminetherelativeamountofcoatingactivitysubjecttodifferentemissionlimits. ^  Instead,afacilitycoulduseotherreliableandverifiableinformationtoestimatetherelative   volumeofcoatingsolidsused,including,butnotlimitedto,productdesign,specificationsforthe "r  partsandproductscoatedandthenumberofdifferentpartsandproductsproducedduringa   representativeperiod.Theuseofparametersotherthancoatingconsumptionandvolumesolids 6 contentmustbeapprovedbytheAdministrator. H   Anothercomplianceoptiontoeliminatetheneedtocomplywithmorethanonecoating  NESHAPhasalsobeenaddedtothefinalrule.Thissecondoptionallowsafacilitytocalculate  \ andcomplywithafacilityspecificemissionlimit,asdiscussedinsection6.4ofthisdocument. n   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD19)suggestedthat63.3881(a)shouldbeclarifiedto    indicatethatwhenpartsthatarepreassembledfrommetalandplasticcomponentsarebeing 2" coatedonthesamelineasplasticparts,themetalpartsruledoesnotapplytothecoatingof $ plasticpartsonthatsameline. F&   Response:Section63.3881(a)hasbeenrevisedandthisprovisionisnotincludedinthe X ( finalrule.Therefore,theclarificationsuggestedbythecommenterisnotneeded.Thefinalrule ! * includesvariousprovisionssothatasurfacecoatingfacilitywillbelesslikelytoberequiredto #l, makepartbypartapplicabilitydeterminations. ~$.   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD13)suggestedthatthemetalpartsandtheplasticparts %0!0 rulesshouldhavethesamecompliancedateandreportingperiods. B'"2   Response:TheEPAworkedtopromulgatethefinalmetalpartsruleandplasticpartsrule (#4 asclosetogetheraspossiblesotheywouldhavethesamecompliancedatesforbothnewand *V%6 existingsources.However,sincetheywereproposedondifferentdates(August13,2002forthe h+&8 metalpartsruleandDecember4,2002fortheplasticpartsrule),thesamesourcemaybe ,(: consideredanewsourceunderthemetalpartsruleandanexistingsourceundertheplasticparts  ruleifconstructionbeganbetweenthosetwodates.However,weexpectthistoaffectveryfew, b ifany,facilities.Inaddition,bothfinalrulesincludeprovisionsthatwerenotincludedat t proposalthatwillreducetheprobabilitythatafacilitywillneedtocomplywiththetworules & separately.Finally,afacilitymayworkwiththeirpermittingauthoritytoharmonizetheir 8  reportingperiodsanddates.      Comment:Twocommenters(IVD17,IVD36)supportedtheapplicabilityprovision  L  thatasourcecancomplywiththemetalpartsruleinlieuoftheplasticpartsruleiftheycoat ^  plasticscontainedinmetalpartsandmorethan50percentofthecoatingisappliedtometal   surfaces.However,thecommenterssuggestedthatthefinalruleallowthesourcetocomplywith "r  themetalpartsruleinsteadoftheplasticpartsruleifmetalislessthan50percentofthesurface   coated,butthemetalsurfacesdictatetherequirementsofthecoatingusedontheentirepart(e.g., 6 forcorrosionprotectionordurability).Accordingtothecommenters,thisapproachrecognizes H thatthemetalpartsrulehasevaluatedtheachievabilityofthestandardswithrespecttothe  uniquerequirementsofmetalcoatings.  \   Response:Thefinalruledoesnotincludetheprovisionforpreassembledparts n containingmetalandplasticthatwasincludedintheproposedrule.However,thefinalruledoes    includeaprovisionthatwillallowafacilitytodetermineafacilityspecificemissionlimitthat 2" reflectsthedifferentemissionlimitsinthesurfacecoatingNESHAPthatapplytothemixof $ substratesandproductsthatarecoatedatthatfacility.Thisapproachwillallowafacilityto F& accountforthedifferentperformancerequirementsofdifferentsubstrates,eveniftheyarenotthe X ( predominantsubstratecoatedatthatfacility. ! *   Comment:Indeterminingwhethermetalpartsorplasticpartsapplytoanoperation(i.e., #l, isitgreaterthan50percentmetalorplastic),onecommenter(IVD33)suggestedthattherules ~$. explainhowcoatingsshouldbecountediftheyareappliedtononmetalandnonplasticsurfaces, %0!0 suchaswood,fabric,orceramics. B'"2   Response:Thefinalruledoesnotincludetheprovisionforpreassembledparts (#4 containingmetalandplasticthatwasincludedintheproposedrule.However,itdoesinclude *V%6 twoprovisionsthatrequireafacilitytodeterminetherelativeamountofsurfacecoatingactivity h+&8 subjecttodifferentemissionlimitsorNESHAP.Thesearethepredominantactivityalternative ,(: discussedearlierinthissectionandthefacilityspecificemissionlimitalternativediscussedin  section6.4.Thesedeterminationsdonotneedtoincludecoatingoperations,products,or b substratesthatdonotmeettheapplicabilitycriteriaofanysurfacecoatingNESHAP.This t clarificationhasbeenincludedinthefinalrule. &   6.4  ComplywiththemoststringentNESHAP Ԁ      Theproposedrulecontainedaprovisionthatifasourceissubjecttomorethanone  L  NESHAP,theycouldcomplywiththemoststringentNESHAPforallcoatingoperationsandthis ^  wouldconstitutecompliancewithallapplicableNESHAP.Thedeterminationofwhich   NESHAPismoststringentwouldbebasedonafacilityspecificestimateofemissionsunder "r  eachseparateNESHAP.(See63.3881(d),67FR52800,August13,2002.)     Comment:Twocommenters(IVD09,IVD46)supportedthisprovisionofthe 6 proposedrule.OnecommenteragreedthatcomplyingwithoneNESHAPwouldprevent H excessivemonitoring,recordkeeping,andreporting.Onecommentersuggestedthatthisoption  wouldrequirelessrecordkeepingthantrackinganddeterminingwhichsubstraterepresentsthe  \ greatestcoatingactivity.   n    However,severalcommentersdidnotsupportthisoption.Severalcommenters(IVD    17,IVD33,IVD34)statedthatdifferentunitsofmeasure(e.g.,lbf  g organicf  g HAPperlbsolids 2" versuslbf  g Ԁorganicf  g ԀHAPpergalsolids)makeitdifficulttodeterminewhichsurfacecoating $ NESHAPamongseveralismoststringent.Threecommenters(IVD09,IVD31,IVD34) F& arguedthatthedifferentunitsofmeasurebetweenthemetalpartsruleandtheAerospace X ( ManufacturingNESHAPwillimpactthemonitoring,recordkeeping,andreportingburdenon ! * sourcessubjecttomultipleNESHAPandmakeitdifficulttodeterminewhichNESHAPismore #l, stringent.Onecommenter(IVD33)notedthatcleaningsolventsinparticularareaproblem, ~$. sincesomeNESHAPemissionlimitsincludecleaningsolventswhileothersimposework %0!0 practicesinstead. B'"2   Twocommenters(IVD09,IVD33)suggestedthattherelativestringencyofdifferent (#4 NESHAPshouldbestatedineachrulemakingsothatfacilitiessubjecttomorethanone *V%6 NESHAPdonotneedtoperformacasebycasedeterminationofwhichapplicableruleismost h+&8 stringent. ,(:   Response:Throughclarificationoftheapplicabilityprovisionsofthefinalrule,wehave  significantlyreducedthepotentialforf  sourcesg f  g ԀtobesubjecttomultiplesurfacecoatingNESHAP. b However,werecognizethatsomef  sourcesg f  g ԀmaybesubjecttoboththisruleandthePlasticParts t andProductsNESHAP,andpossiblyothersurfacecoatingNESHAP.Weagreewiththe & commenterswhoarguedthatdemonstratingcompliancewiththemoststringentNESHAPis 8  complicatedbythefactthatitmaybehardtodeterminewhichNESHAPismoststringent    becauseofdifferencesinunits,theaffectedsource,whethercleaningisincludedintheemission  L  limits,andcomplianceperiods. ^    Instead,EPAisprovidinginthefinalrule,theopportunityforaf  sourceg f  g Ԁtodetermineand   complywithafacilityspecificf  g Ԁweightedemissionlimitforallcoatingoperationsthattakeplace "r  atthef  sourceg f  g .Theemissionlimitwouldbeweightedaccordingtotherelativeamountofcoatings   usedthatwouldbesubjecttoseparateemissionlimits.Thisalternativeemissionlimitcan 6 includeapplicableemissionlimitsfromtwoormoreNESHAP,asprovidedintheexample H calculationbelow.Xv XXXAswiththepredominantactivityalternative,youmustincludeallsurface  coatingactivitiesthatmeettheapplicabilitycriteriaofasubcategoryinasurfacecoating  \ NESHAPandconstitutemorethan1percentoftotalcoatingactivities.Coatingactivitiesthat n meettheapplicabilitycriteriaofasubcategoryinasurfacecoatingNESHAPbutcompriseless    than1percentoftotalcoatingactivitiesneednotbeincludedinthefacilityspecificemission 2" limitcalculationbuttheymustbeincludedinthecompliancecalculations.#XX XXv# $   Incalculatingthefacilityspecificemissionlimit,thebasisfortheweightingofthe F& individualemissionlimitsmustbethevolumeofcoatingsolidsusedineachsubcategory.The X ( volumecoatingsolidsusedinthedifferentcoatingoperationsmaybecalculatedbyavarietyof ! * methods,aslongasitisacceptedbythepermittingauthority.Forexample,insomecasesa #l, facilitythatusesthesamecoatingforplasticandmetalpartsmaybeabletousethedesign ~$. specificationsofthepartscoatedandthenumbersofeachtypeofpartcoatedtocalculatethe %0!0 weightofcoatingsolidsappliedtometalandplasticsurfacessubjecttotheindividualemission B'"2 limits.Inothersituations,actualrecordsofcoatingusageforeachoperationmaybeneededto (#4 provideavalidcalculation. *V%6   IncalculatingafacilityspecificemissionlimitforoperationssubjecttoNESHAPwith h+&8 emissionlimitsindifferentformats,youwillneedtoconvertemissionlimitstothesameformat. ,(: Todoso,youmustuseadefaultvalueforsolidsdensityof10.5lbssolidspergalsolids(1.26kg  solids/litersolids)toconvertemissionlimitsinthePlasticPartsandProductsNESHAPthatare b in HAPpermasssolidstothe HAPpervolumesolidsunitsoftheMiscellaneousMetalParts t andProductsNESHAP.Thisdefaultvaluewascalculatedfromtheweightedaveragesolids & densityofcoatingsintheplasticpartssurveydatabaseandrepresentstheaveragesolidsdensity 8  ofplasticpartscoatings.      Thefollowingexampleillustrateshowthefacilityspecificemissionlimitcanbeused.  L  Assumeafacilityhasthreecoatingoperationssubjecttothefollowingemissionlimits: ^  0  \c  \c"0` (#(#  plasticpartsgeneraluse(0.16lbf  g organicf  g HAP/lbsolids);\c݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  \c  0  \c"0` (#(#  miscellaneousmetalpartsextremeperformanceflouropolymercoatings(12.4lb   f  g organicf  g HAP/galsolids);and\c݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  \c  0  \c"0` (#(#  miscellaneousmetalpartsgeneraluse(2.6lbf  g organicf  g HAP/galsolids).\c(݌\` (#` (# Ќ    Thethreecoatingoperationsaccountforthefollowinggalofcoatingsolidsusedinthe  past12months:  \ \c  0  \c"0` (#(#  plasticpartsgeneraluse:40,000galsolids;\c݌n` (#` (# Ќ  \c  0  \c"0` (#(#  miscellaneousmetalpartsextremeperformanceflouropolymercoatings:2,000gal F solids;and\c݌2` (#` (# Ќ  \c  0  \c"0` (#(#  miscellaneousmetalpartsgeneraluse:58,000galsolids.\c݌ Z!` (#` (# Ќ      First,theplasticpartsgeneraluseemissionlimitmustbeconvertedtolbf  g organicf  g HAP/gal X $ solidsunitsasinthemetalpartsruleusingthedefaultsolidsdensityof10.5lbsolidspergal ! & solids: #l( p?<,(`~ ]y/ `.E5 $y/s /5 $y/p (#(#(#(# (#(#(#(# Next,thefacilityspecificemissionlimitiscalculatedusingequation1in63.3890oftherule: (#0  (# (#(#(#mJ9)%`|1: `.t E:!m  (#(# (# (#  Ifallcoatingoperationscomplywithanemissionlimitof2.4lbf  g organicf  g HAP/galsolids 8  andwiththeothercomplianceprovisionsofthisrule,thefacilitywillbeincompliancewiththis    ruleforthatcomplianceperiod.Thecalculationmustberepeatedforeach12monthcompliance  L  period.Inthisexample,compliancewillalsoconstitutecompliancewiththePlasticPartsand ^  ProductsNESHAPfortheplasticpartscoatingoperations.Thefacilitycanuseeitherthe   compliantmaterialsoption,theemissionratewithoutaddoncontrolsoption,ortheemissionrate "r  withaddoncontrolsoptiontodemonstratecompliancewiththefacilityspecificemissionlimit.     WebelievethatthisapproachisconsistentwiththeCAAbecausetheemissionlimits 6 fromwhichthefacilityspecificemissionlimitwouldbecalculatedarebasedontheMACT H emissionlimitsforeachapplicablecoatingoperation.Therefore,overallemissionswouldbe  essentiallythesameasifeachcoatingoperationwerecomplyingseparatelywitheachapplicable  \ emissionlimit. n   Thefacilityspecificemissionlimitmustbecalculatedmonthlyforeach12month    complianceperiodtoaccuratelyreflecttheportionofcoatingthatwouldhavebeensubjecttothe 2" differentNESHAPorsubcategoryemissionlimitsandensurethatthefacilityspecificemission $ limitalternativeachievesessentiallyequivalentenvironmentalbenefitsasseparatecompliance. F& Astheportionofcoatingactivitiessubjecttotheunderlyingemissionlimitschangesovertime, X ( thefacilityspecificemissionlimitshouldappropriatelyreflectthesechanges.Therearewide ! * differencesinthevariousemissionlimitsavailableforinclusion.Arelativelysmallchangein #l, themixofcoatingoperationsconductedduringacomplianceperiodcanhaveasignificanteffect ~$. ontheweightedemissionlimit.Thus,itwouldnotbeappropriateforafacilitytoestablishand %0!0 maintainafixedfacilityspecificemissionlimitbasedonhistoricaldataorlongtermprojections. B'"2   f  g ThisoptionwillbelessburdensomethanseparatecompliancewitheachNESHAP (#4 becausethefacilitycankeeprecordsanddemonstratecomplianceusingasingleunitofmeasure *V%6 andwillonlyhaveonesetofrecordkeepingandreportingrequirements(insteadofpotentially h+&8 differentrecordkeepingandreportingrequirementsfortwoormoredifferentNESHAP). ,(:   Inthefinalrule,thefacilityf  g f  g Ԅf  g specificemissionlimitalternativeandthepredominant  activityalternativeprovidef  sourcesg f  g Ԁwithcomprehensiveandflexibleapproachesthatwillreduce b therecordkeepingassociatedwithf  sourcesg f  g Ԁthatcoatmultiplesubstratesandwhoseworkload t couldfluctuateovertime.Thesealternativesreducethelikelihoodofoverlapamongmultiple & surfacecoatingNESHAP.Furthermore,potentialoverlapwithspecificsourcecategorieshas 8  beenclarifiedandcompliancedemonstrationsforautomobileandlightdutytruckf  sourcesg f  g Ԁare    simplifiedbythechangestotheapplicabilitysectionoftherulediscussedinsections6.2,6.5,  L  and6.6.Together,thesechangesaddressthecommentsonregulatoryoverlapissuesand ^  approaches,andprovideflexiblecomplianceoptionswherefacilitiesmaybesubjecttomorethan   onecoatingNESHAP. "r    Anotherapproachthatyoumayuseistheequivalencybypermitoptionin40CFRpart   63,subpartE(63.94).Underthisapproach,youmaydesignanemissionscontrolprogramthat 6 issuitedforyourprocessorplantaslongasyoucandemonstratethatyourprogramwillachieve H thesameemissionsreductionsastheNESHAP.YoumustthenworkwithyourState,local,or  tribalairpollutioncontrolagencytosubmitanequivalencydemonstration.Thisequivalency  \ demonstrationwillbereviewedbytheappropriateEPARegionalOffice.Theequivalency n demonstrationisapprovedaspartoftheoperatingpermitapprovalprocess.Formore    information,pleaseseethesection112(l)websiteathttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112(l)/112 2" lpg.html. $   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD09)requestedthatEPAspecifythattheAerospace F& ManufacturingNESHAPisthemorestringentruleinthemetalpartsrulemakingsothatfacilities X ( havetheoptiontocomplyonlywiththeAerospaceManufacturingNESHAPwithoutextensive ! * demonstration.Thecommentersubmittedananalysisof62coatingstodemonstratethat #l, compliancewiththeAerospaceManufacturingNESHAPconstitutescompliancewiththe ~$. MiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsNESHAP.Thecommenteralsostatedthataerospace %0!0 workpracticestandardsandmonitoring,recordkeeping,andreportingareatleastasstringentas B'"2 themetalpartsrule. (#4   Response:Thefinalrulespecifiesthatitdoesnotapplytofacilitiesmeetingthe *V%6 applicabilitycriteriaoftheAerospaceManufacturingandReworkNESHAPanddoesnotapply h+&8 tothespecialtycoatingslistedinAppendixAtotheAerospaceManufacturingandRework ,(: NESHAPwhentheyareappliedtoaircraftoraerospacevehiclesortheircomponents.Therefore,  itisnotnecessaryforthefinalruletostatethattheAerospaceManufacturingandRework b NESHAPismorestringentthanthemetalpartsrule.Also,wenotethatinformationprovided t duringthecommentperiodindicatesthatanyf  g Ԁmiscellaneousmetalf  g coatingf  g f  g activitieswouldf  g  & compriselessthan5percentoff  g f  g totalcoatingactivitiesatanaerospacefacility.Consequently,the 8  facilitycouldelecttocomplywiththepredominantactivitycompliancealternativetoreduceits    recordkeepingandreportingburden.  L    6.5  AssembledOnRoadVehicleCoating yi&     Comment:Twocommenters(IVD17,IVD24)recommendedthatthepredominant "r  substratetypeonmotorhomesandotherrecreationalvehicles(RVs)beestablishedasthemost   restrictivesubstratetype(plastics)andthatthefinalexteriorpaintingofRVsshouldbesubjectto 6 onlythespecificlimitbeingdevelopedforthatoperationwithintheplasticpartsrulemaking. H Theyarguedthatasingleemissionlimitshouldbeestablishedforcoatingmotorhomesandother  assembledonroadvehicles(AORV)thatreflectstherestrictionsoftheplasticsubstrateusedon  \ thebodiesofmotorhomesandotherRV.Thecommentersarguedthattherecordkeepingto n documentthefractionofplasticandmetalonRVwouldbeamajorchallengebecauseofthe    differentoptionsforeachRVthatcanbechosenbythecustomerwhichaffecttheratioofmetal 2" toplasticthatiscoatedoneachvehicle. $   Onecommenter(IVD13)suggestedthatthemetalpartsruleshouldspecificallyexclude F& aftermarketrepairsandrefinishingofheavydutytrucks,buses,andothervehiclesbecausethese X ( coatingoperationshavedifferentoperationalconstraintsandprocessescomparedtoanoriginal ! * equipmentmanufacturer.Thecommenternotedthatsuchanexclusionisexpectedinthe #l, upcomingautomobileandlightdutytrucksurfacecoatingrule. ~$.   Onecommenter(IVD58)requestedthatthefinalruleexcluderefinishingofassembled %0!0 vehiclesthatcontainbothplasticandmetalsubstrates,regardlessoftherelativeamountofplastic B'"2 andmetalcoated.Thecommenterrequestedthatthepreambletothefinalruleshouldstatethat (#4 therefinishingofassembledvehicleswillbecoveredundertheupcomingplasticpartsrule *V%6 AORVcoatingsubcategory.Thesamecommenteralsorequestedthattheplasticpartsrule(and h+&8 notthemetalpartsrule)applytovehiclepartsthatareseparatefromtheassembledvehicleatthe ,(: timeofcoatingapplication,ifthepartiseventuallytobeincorporatedintoavehicle.The  commenterreasonedthatemissionsfromsuchoperationsarenegligibleincomparisonto b emissionsfromoverallrefinishcoatingemissionsandtremendouscostswouldbeinvolvedwith t havingtoreformulateallthecolorsrequiredtocolormatchundertwodifferentregulatorylimits & andunitsofmeasure.   8     Response:Weagreethatasingleemissionlimitshouldapplytoallsurfacecoating    operationsonmotorhomesandotherAORV.Eventhoughfullyassembledvehiclesmaycontain  L  amixofplasticandmetalsubstrates,themajorityofthesurfacecoatingsappliedtothevehicle ^  areautomotivetyperefinishcoatings.Intheproposedruleforplasticpartsandproductsurface   coating(40CFRpart63,subpartPPPP;67FR72276,December4,2002),weproposedan "r  emissionlimitforanAORVsurfacecoatingsubcategoryandanemissionlimitforthat   subcategoryhasbeenincludedinthefinalplasticpartsrule. 6   TheAORVsubcategoryinthefinalPlasticPartsandProductsNESHAPwillincludethe H aftermarketrepairandrefinishingofheavydutytrucks,buses,andothervehicles,andthefinal  exteriorpaintingofRVs,suchasmotorhomesandtraveltrailers,amongothervehicles,  \ regardlessoftherelativeamountofmetalandplastic.Therefore,thecoatingofthesevehicles n willbeexemptfromtheMiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsNESHAP.Surfacecoating    operationsthataresubjecttotheAORVsurfacecoatingemissionlimitintheplasticpartsrule 2" arenotsubjecttoanyoftheemissionlimitsinthisrule.Thissubcategoryintheplasticpartsrule $ alsoincludesthesurfacecoatingofpartsthatarecoatedwiththeassembledvehiclebutare F& coatedoffvehicletoprotectsystemsandequipmentortoallowfullcoverage.Oneexample X ( wouldbethecoatingofgrillfrontsonmotorhomesthatareremovedsotheycanbecoatedwith ! * themotorhomewithoutcoatingtheradiatorsurfacethatisbehindthem.Becausecoatingof #l, suchpartsissubjecttotheAORVemissionlimits,itisnotsubjecttothemetalpartsrule.The ~$. AORVsubcategorydoesnototherwiseincludethecoatingofseparatepartsatoriginal %0!0 equipmentmanufacturers. B'"2   ThelimitfortheAORVsubcategorywasdevelopedfromdataonaftermarket (#4 automotivecoatingsusedbytherecreationalvehicleindustryforthecoatingofmotorhomesand *V%6 otherrecreationalvehicles.Thesefinishesarealsousedonheavydutytrucks,buses,andother h+&8 vehicles,aswellastherefinishingofautomobilesandlightdutytrucks. ,(:    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD19)arguedthatthefinalruleshouldexempt  automobilerefinishingoperationsinordertoreducethenumberoffacilitiesthatneedtoapply b forfederallyenforceablepermitlimits.Thecommentersuggestedthatallautorefinishingbe t assumedtobeareasourcesandthatHAPsfromtheseoperationsshouldberegulatedwitha & nationalrulesimilartotheoneforVOCs. 8    Response:Wedisagreewiththecommenterthatautomobilerefinishingshouldbe    exemptfromHAPregulations.EmissionsofHAPfromautomobilerefinishingoperationswill  L  beregulatedundertheAORVsubcategoryinthefinalplasticpartsruleandwillbeexemptfrom ^  themetalpartsrule.Whilemostautomobilerefinishingoperationsarenotmajorsourcesfor   HAPemissions,wecannotassumethisistrueforallsuchoperationsandwecannotassumethat "r  noautomobilerefinishingoperationsarecollocatedwithinamajorsourceofHAP.Wealso   disagreethatexemptingautomobilerefinishingagreewouldreducethenumberofsourcesthat 6 needtoobtainlimitsontheirpotentialtoemit,sincethesefacilitiesarealsosourcesofVOCand H PM,whicharenotregulatedbyeitherthisruleortheplasticpartsrule.    6.60  MiscellaneousCommentsonCompliancewithMultipleNESHAP  b;n(#(#    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD40)statedthatEPAshouldavoidunnecessary    differencesamongsurfacecoatingNESHAP.Sincemanyfacilitiesaresubjecttomultiple 2" standards,thecommenterbelievesthatslightdifferencesarewithoutjustificationandcause $ unnecessarywork,confusion,andcostswithoutachievinganyenvironmentalbenefit. F&   Asecondcommenter(IVD21)requestedthatthefinalrulerevisetherecordkeepingand X ( reportingrequirements.ThecommenterstatedthatsomematerialssubjecttooneNESHAPmay ! * haveemissionlimitswhilematerialssubjecttoasecondNESHAPmayhaveworkpractice #l, standards;therefore,facilitieshavetosegregaterequirementsbyNESHAPandmaintainseparate ~$. recordsandreports.Thecommenterrequestedthattherecordkeepingandreportingbemade %0!0 consistentamongNESHAPs. B'"2   Response:TheEPAhasattemptedtoachieveasmuchconsistencyaspossibleamongthe (#4 recentlyproposedandpromulgatedsurfacecoatingNESHAPthroughtheuseofruletemplates *V%6 andcoordinatedruledevelopment.However,wedorecognizethatsomedifferencesexistamong h+&8 surfacecoatingrulesthatareduetodifferencesinthecoatingtechnologyused,emissioncontrol ,(: strategies,andthedatathatwereavailablefordevelopingtheemissionstandards.Inorderto  minimizetheimpactofthesedifferences,EPAhascarefullyexaminedtheapplicabilitycriteria b foreachruletominimizethepotentialforafacilitytobesubjecttomorethanonesurface t coatingNESHAP.Forthefinalmetalpartsruleandplasticpartsrule,wehaveincluded & applicabilityprovisionsthatwillfurtherreducetheprobabilitythatfacilitywillbesubjectto 8  multipleNESHAPandwehaveincludedalternativestofacilitatethecompliancedemonstration    forfacilitiesthataresubjecttomultipleNESHAP.  L    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD26)suggestedthatEPAclarifytheapplicabilityofthe ^  MetalPartsandProductsNESHAP,theWoodBuildingProductsNESHAP,andthePlasticParts   andProductsNESHAPtoaluminumandplasticcladdoorsandwindowsandaddlanguageto "r  eachrulesothatafacilitycancomplywiththeNESHAPrepresentingthepredominantcoating   use.Thecommenterstateditispossiblethatthecoatingdoneinasingleboothattheirfacility 6 couldbesubjecttoallthreeNESHAPanditisnotpracticaltorequirerecordkeepingdowntoa H singlepainthangerlevelinacontinuouspaintingsystem.Thecommenterbelievesthat  compliancewiththeMiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsNESHAP(theirpredominant  \ usage)shouldalsoconstitutecompliancewiththeWoodBuildingProductsNESHAPandthe n PlasticPartsandProductsNESHAP.Inthewoodbuildingproductsrule,thecommenter    requestedthatEPAclarifythedefinitionofwoodbuildingproductanditsapplicabilitytothe 2" window/doorcategory.Accordingtothecommenter,thecurrentdefinitionofawoodbuilding $ productisanitemthatisgreaterthan50percentwood,andwindowsanddoorsarelistedas F& categoriesofproducts.However,thecommenternotedthatfortheiraluminumcladdoorsand X ( windows,themajorityoftheweightisglassandwoodisoftenonlyabout25percentofthe ! * weight.Thecommenteralsoreportedthatgreaterthan95percentofcoatedsurfacesis #l, aluminum,3percentiswood,and1percentisplastic. ~$.   Response:Thecommenter'sconcernswiththedefinitionofawoodbuildingproductwas %0!0 addressedinthedevelopmentofthefinalWoodBuildingProductsNESHAP(68FR31746,May B'"2 28,2003).Thefinalmetalpartsruleincludesapredominantactivityalternativewhichthe (#4 commentercouldusetodemonstratecompliancewithasinglesurfacecoatingNESHAP.Since *V%6  greaterthan90percentofthesurfacecoatingisappliedtometal,thefacilitycoulduse h+&8 compliancewiththegeneraluseemissionlimitinthemetalpartsNESHAPasthepredominant  activitytoconstitutecompliancewithanyotherapplicablesurfacecoatingNESHAP. b    Comment:Twocommenters(IVD46,IVD60)requestedthatEPAexemptfromthe t metalpartsruleantifoulantcoatings,caulks,adhesives,andsealantsusedbyrecreationalboat & manufacturingforthreereasons.First,thesecoatingoperationsareexemptfromtheBoat 8  ManufacturingNESHAP(40CFR63,subpartVVVV)becausetheyareusedbyasmallpercent    ofboatmanufacturersandtheseoperationsaccountforlessthan1percentofthetotalHAP  L  emissionsfrommajorsourcerecreationalboatmanufacturers.Second,EPAneverconsidered ^  thecorrosivesaltwaterenvironment,humidity,temperatureextremes,andintensesunlight   experiencedbyboatswhencollectingdatafortheproposedmetalpartsrule.Accordingtothe "r  commenters,limitedcoatingchoicesareavailablethatcanwithstandthistypeofenvironmentto   protectmetalparts.Third,thecommentersclaimedthatnosmallbusinessboatmanufacturers 6 werenotifiedtoparticipateinthedatacollectionasmandatedbytheSmallBusinessRegulatory H EnforcementFairnessAct(SBREFA).    Thecommenters(IVD46,IVD60)alsoclaimedthat,ifincluded,thefinalrulewould  \ imposeasignificantrecordkeepingburdenforsmallbusinesses.Accordingtothecommenters, n theuseofantifoulantcoatings,caulks,adhesives,andsealantsareaninsignificant,secondary    operationfromanemissionsstandpoint,butareveryimportanttothesafetyanddurabilityof 2" fiberglass,metals,andothermaterials.Thecommentersaddedthatthe250gallonexemption $ wouldnotprovideanyreliefbecauseoftherecordkeepingneededtoseparatethecoatingsused F& onjustthemetalpartsinordertoclaimtheexemptionandmostmajorsourceboatmanufacturers X ( probablyusemorethan250gallonsofcoatingsonmetalpartsperyear. ! *   Response:Thefinalruledoesnotapplytosurfacecoatingofboatsormetalpartsof #l, boats(including,butnotlimitedtotheuseofassemblyadhesives)wherethefacilitymeetsthe ~$. applicabilitycriteriaoftheBoatManufacturingNESHAP(40CFR63,subpartVVVV).We %0!0 agreewiththecommentersthatthesesurfacecoatingoperationswerealreadyevaluatedinthe B'"2 developmentoftheBoatManufacturingNESHAPanditwasdeterminedatthattimethatthey (#4 shouldnotberegulated.TheBoatManufacturingNESHAPregulatesthesurfacecoatingof *V%6  aluminumboatsandtheseoperationsarenotregulatedbythemetalpartsrule. h+&8   Thisexemptiondoesnotapplytosurfacecoatingperformedonpersonalwatercraftorin   themanufactureofpersonalwatercraft.Duetotheirsmallersizeandthegreaternumberof b personalwatercraftmanufacturedrelativetoothertypesofboats,thesurfacecoatingofpersonal t watercraftandtheircomponentsismoresimilartoothertypesofmetalpartssurfacecoating & (suchaspartsformotorcyclesandsnowmobiles)thanthesurfacecoatingoflargerboats.The 8  surfacecoatingofpersonalwatercraftandtheirpartsisoftencollocatedwiththesurfacecoating    ofmotorcyclesandsnowmobilesandtheirparts.TheMiscellaneousMetalPartsandProducts  L  NESHAPappliestocoatingoperationsperformedonpersonalwatercraftorpartsofpersonal ^  watercraft.     Comment:Onecommenter(IVD26)notedthatEPAhasstatedinseveralsurface "r  coatingNESHAPthatafacilitycancomplywiththemoststringentNESHAPifmorethanone   applies.Thecommenterthenraisedthequestion:Ifthiswereachievableinpractice,whydid 6 theMACTdevelopmentprocessnotestablishthesamelimitationsforthetwoprocesses(i.e., H sourcecategoriesorsubcategories)equaltothemorestringentNESHAP?    Response:ThesuggestionthatafacilitycancomplywiththemoststringentNESHAPis  \ alwaysmadeasoneoptioninthecontextofseveraldifferentcompliancealternativesfor n facilitiesthataresubjecttomorethanoneNESHAP.Forthefinalmetalpartsrule,wehave    includedseveraldifferentalternativesforfacilitiesthatarepotentiallysubjecttomorethanone 2" NESHAP.Forthereasonsdiscussedearlierinthissection,thealternativethatafacilitymay $ complywiththemoststringentNESHAPhasbeenreplacedwithapredominantactivity F& alternativeandafacilityspecificemissionlimitalternative. X (   ! * @> >   7.0SCOPEANDAPPLICABILITYOFTHEMISCELLANEOUS  ` @S S METALPARTSANDPRODUCTSSOURCECATEGORY onrdԈ  L    7.10  GeneralApplicabilityComments on=e$ (#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD27)requestedthatEPAclarifywhetheragricultural 6  fieldequipment,suchasharvesters,tillers,elevators,rockcrushers,etc.,wouldbecoveredunder   therule. J   Response:Metalpartsurfacecoatingoperationsonthetypesofagriculturalfield \ equipmentdescribedbythecommenterwillbecoveredbythemetalpartsrule.Thesetypesof  equipmentaremiscellaneousmetalproducts.Theydonotmeetthedefinitionof assembledon  p roadvehicleandwouldnotbecoveredbytheAORVsubcategoryintheplasticpartsrule.      Comment:Onecommenter(IVD19)questionedwhetherasphaltcoatingsshouldbea 4 separatesubcategory.ThecommenteralsoaskedwhetherthedefaultHAPcontentsofasphalt F coatingsarehigherthanthelimitforgeneralusecoatings.    Response:TheJuly16,1992sourcecategorylist(57FR31576)includedmajorsources  Z! emittingHAPfrom asphalt/coaltarapplication!metalpipes(hereafterreferredtoasasphalt l# coating).Indevelopingtheproposedrule,wedecidednottoestablishMACTstandards  % separatelyfortheasphaltcoatingcategorybut,rather,toincludeasphaltcoatingofmetalpipesin 0"' thesourcecategoryforcoatingofmiscellaneousmetalpartsandproducts(67FR52783, #) August13,2002).Dataandinformationgatheredfromtheasphaltcoatingindustryindicatedthat $D + theequipment,emissioncharacteristics,andapplicableemissionreductionmeasuresaresimilar V&!- tothebroadgroupofmiscellaneousmetalsources.Therefore,weincludedasphaltcoatinginthe '#/ proposedrule.Wereceivednoadversecommentontheproposaltoincludeasphaltcoatingof )j$1 metalpipesinthesourcecategory.Theasphaltcoatingofmetalpipesissubjecttotheemission |*%3 limitforgeneralusecoatingsandisnotsubjecttoaseparatesubcategorybecausethesecoatings +.'5 cancomplywiththisemissionlimit. @-(7   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD63)supportedthefinalruleapplyingtomajorsources  ofHAPonlyandnotincludingminorsources. b   Response:WeagreewiththecommenterthatHAPemissionsshouldberegulatedfrom t metalpartscoatingoperationsthataremajorsourcesorarepartofamajorsourceofHAP & emissions.Inthefuture,EPAwilldetermineifareasourceemissionsshouldberegulatedunder 8  112(d)(6).      Comment:Onecommenter(IVD40)requestedthefinalruleincludeadefinitionof  L   miscellaneousmetalparts.Thecommenterbelievesthedescriptivelistfoundin63.3881is ^  notexclusiveanddoesnotreflectthediscussionfoundintheproposalpreamble.Asecond   commenter(IVD44)statedthattheschemeofdescribingwhattypesofpartsandproductsare "r  notcoveredbyanotherNESHAPisinadequatefordefiningtheapplicabilityofthisrule.     Response:Theapplicabilityprovisionsinthefinalrulehavebeenrevisedsinceproposal 6 toclarifytheapplicabilityofthisrulerelativetosurfacecoatingoperationsthatmaymeetthe H applicabilitycriteriaofothersurfacecoatingNESHAP.Anexpandedlistofexclusionsfor  surfacecoatingthatmeetstheapplicabilitycriteriaofseveralspecificsurfacecoatingNESHAPis  \ containedin63.3881ofthefinalrule.Theruleappliestomajorsourcesthatperformsurface n coating(asdefinedintherule)ofmiscellaneousmetalpartsorproductsthatisnotspecifically    excluded.Becauseoftheseclarificationsintheapplicabilitysection,amorespecificdefinition 2" of miscellaneousmetalpartsisnotneeded. $   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD44)requestedthatEPAexpand63.3882(b)(3) F& (definitionofaffectedsource)tospecificallyincludepumpsandpipingofthecoating,inaddition X ( tootherequipmentandstorageofthecoatings,sothatthesesystemsareclearlycoveredunder ! * thisMACTandnotsubjecttoanotherMACT. #l,    Response:Thecurrentdefinitionofaffectedsource63.3882oftheruleincludesthe ~$. manualandautomatedequipmentforconveyingcoatingsandwastematerials.Pumpsandpiping %0!0 qualifyasequipmentforconveyingcoatingsandwastematerials.Specificallyincludingthemin B'"2 thedefinitionofaffectedsourceisnotneeded. (#4   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD19)requestedthefinalruleremove extruded *V%6  aluminumcoilsfromTable1,RegulatedEntities,ofthefinalrulepreamble. x  h+&8   Response:Weagreewiththecommenterthatthesurfacecoatingofextrudedaluminum   coilsisonlysubjecttotheNESHAPforsurfacecoatingofmetalusingacoilcoatingprocess b (40CFRpart63,subpartSSSS).Thereferenceto extrudedaluminumcoilswasnotincluded t inTable1,RegulatedEntities,ofthefinalrulepreamble.Theapplicabilitysectionoftherule & (63.3881)hasbeenrevisedtoindicatetheruledoesnotapplytosurfacecoatingoperations 8  meetingtheapplicabilityof40CFR63,subpartSSSS.      Comment:Onecommenter(IVD19)suggestedthatEPAshouldprovideguidanceto  L  sourcesthathavehalogenatedsolventcleaningoperationsonhowtheyshouldestimatetheir ^  potentialtoemit(PtE)andtheirmajorsourcestatusfordeterminingapplicabilitytotheproposed   NESHAP.ThecommenteraskedwhethertheyshouldusethePtEequationin63.465(e)of "r  subpartTifPtEisnotstatedinafederallyenforceablelimit.Thecommenterincludedanemail   toEPARegion5withseveralquestionsregardinghowasourcemaydeterminePtEandwhen 6 thatPtElimithastobeachieved.ThecommenterincludedanemailresponsefromEPARegion H 5indicatingthatthePtElimitwouldhavetobeinaFederallyenforceablepermitpriortothenew  NESHAPcompliancedate.  \   Response:WheneverafacilityisdeterminingthepotentialtoemitHAPfordetermining n majorsourcestatus,itmustconsiderpotentialemissionsconsideringFederallyenforceable    controls,includinglimitsplacedonthefacilityinafederallyenforceableoperatingpermit.This 2" issueisnotuniquetothiscoatingruleorsubpartT.IfthefacilityhasaFederallyenforceable $ limitonannualemissions(onarolling12monthbasis)fromaHAPemittingoperation,the F& facilitymayusethatlimitindeterminingwhetheritisamajorsourceofHAP.Ifthefacilityis X ( subjecttoandincompliancewithaFederallyenforceableHAPemissionlimit,itmayassume ! * compliancewiththatlimitindeterminingpotentialtoemit.Ifafacilityisnotsubjecttoan #l, emissionlimitanddoesnothaveafederallyenforceablelimitonannualemissions,thenitmust ~$. usesomeothermeansfordeterminingpotentialtoemit.Forhalogenatedsolventcleaning %0!0 operations,afacilitycouldusetheguidanceincludedin63.465(e). B'"2   IfafacilityissubjecttosubpartTandismeetingthesubpartTemissionstandards,the (#4 facilitycanconsiderthesubpartTcontrolsincalculatingthepotentialtoemitforthehalogenated *V%6 solventcleaningoperationsthataresubjecttosubpartT.SubpartT,aswellasotherNESHAP h+&8 andnewsourceperformancestandards(NSPS)forwhichthecompliancedatehasalready ,(: occurred,areFederallyenforceableemissionlimitationsand,therefore,canbeconsideredin  determiningpotentialtoemit.Tobeconsideredanarea(nonmajor)sourceforpurposesof b determiningapplicabilityoftheMiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsNESHAP,afacility t wouldneedtoachieveareasourcestatus(consideringFederallyenforceablecontrol & requirements)priortothecompliancedataoftheMiscellaneousMetalPartsandProducts 8  NESHAP.       Comment:Onecommenter(IVD44)suggestedthatEPAincludeprovisionsforarisk  L  baseddeterminationofMACTapplicability,similartotheideaspresentedinthepreambletothe ^  proposedBrickandStructuralClayProductsNESHAP(67FR4790447909,July22,2002).     Response:ThepreambletotheproposedBrickandStructuralClayProductsNESHAP "r  citedbythecommenterrequestedcommentonwhethertheremightbefurtherwaystostructure   thatruletofocusonthefacilitieswhichposesignificantrisksandavoidtheimpositionofhigh 6 costsonfacilitiesthatposelittlerisktopublichealthandtheenvironment.Specifically,the H brickandstructuralclayproductsproposalrequestedcommentonthetechnicalandlegal  viabilityoftworiskbasedapproaches:(1)Anapplicabilitycutoffforthresholdpollutantsunder  \ theauthorityofCAAsection112(d)(4);and(2)subcategorizationanddelistingunderthe n authorityofCAAsections112(c)(1)and112(c)(9).Asdescribedinthepreambletothefinal    BrickandStructuralClayProductsNESHAP(68FR26690,May16,2003),numerous 2" commenterssubmitteddetailedcommentsontheseriskbasedapproaches.Thesecommentsare $ summarizedinthebrickandstructuralclayproductsresponsetocommentsdocument.Basedon F& ourconsiderationofthecommentsreceivedandotherfactors,EPAdecidednottoincludethe X ( riskbasedapproachesinthefinalBrickandStructuralClayProductsNESHAP.Theriskbased ! * approachesdescribedintheproposedbrickruleandaddressedinthecommentswereceivedon #l, thatruleraiseanumberofcomplexissues.Giventherangeofissuesraisedbytheriskbased ~$. approachesinthebrickruleandtheneedtopromulgatethefinalmetalpartsruleexpeditiously, %0!0 webelievethatitisappropriatenottoincludeanyriskbasedapproachesinthefinal B'"2 MiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsNESHAP,aswasdoneinthefinalBrickandStructural (#4 ClayProductsNESHAP.Nonetheless,whilewearenotincludingriskbasedapproachesinthe *V%6 finalmetalpartsrule,wehaveincludedanumberofothermeasuresthatweexpectwillreduce h+&8 thecostsandburdensontheaffectedsources. ,(:    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD63)requestedthatthefinalruleexcludesurface  coatingsexemptfromFederallyenforceablestateVOCRACTregulations.Thecommenter(IV b D63)providedlanguagefromNewYorkStaterulesthatexcludethirteentypesofcoatingsfrom t emissionlimitations.  &    Response:ThemetalpartsruleincludessomeofthesameexclusionsfoundinState 8  RACTrules,suchastheexemptionforcoatingsusedinresearchanddevelopmentactivities,    coatingsusedtofillminorsurfaceimperfections,andcoatingsappliedwithhandheldaerosol  L  cans.However,theEPAdisagreeswiththecommenterthatallexclusionsfromStateRACT ^  rulesshouldbeincludedinthefinalmetalpartsrule.Themetalpartsrulehasemissionrate   complianceprovisionsthatarenotfoundinStateVOCrulesandtheseprovisionsallowmore "r  flexibilitytousesmallquantity,higheremittingspecialtymaterials.InmostStateVOCrules,   eachcoatingmustmeettheapplicableemissionlimitsandtherulesgenerallyhavenoprovision 6 tocomplyusingaweightedaverageemissionratetooffsetexcessemissionsfromsomecoatings H withloweremissionsfromothercoatings.Thisflexibilityinthemetalpartsrulewillallowa  facilitytousethesespecialtycoatingsandstillcomplywiththeemissionlimits.   \   7.2  TypesofMaterialsThatareCoatings wޛ      Comment:Onecommenter(IVD10)supportedtheprovisionsoftherulethatexempt 2" theextrusionofplasticontometal.Asecondcommenter(IVD40)supportedtheexemptionof $ aplasticcoveringextrudedontometalwireorcableasnotbeingasurfacecoatingoperation. F&   Response:Weagreewiththecommentersthattheruleshouldnotregulatethese X ( operationsasmetalpartsurfacecoatingoperationsandtheseexemptionsareretainedinthefinal ! * rule. #l,   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD34)requestedthatsealants,caulks,andadhesivesbe ~$. exemptfromthemetalpartsNESHAP.ThecommenternotedthattheAerospaceManufacturing %0!0 NESHAPspecificallyexemptssealantsandadhesivesanddoesnotaddresscaulks.The B'"2 commenterquestionedwhetherdatawereavailabletoshowsignificantsealant,caulk,and (#4 adhesiveuseinmetalpartsurfacecoatingoperations. *V%6   Response:ThedataavailabletoEPAthroughthemetalpartssurveydatabaseand h+&8 observationsmadeduringvisitstofacilitiesinthissourcecategoryindicatethatsealant,caulk, ,(: andadhesiveusecanbeasubstantialsourceofHAPemissionsfromsometypesofmetalpart  surfacecoatingfacilities.Therefore,thesematerialsareincludedinthescopeofsurfacecoating b materialsregulatedbythefinalrule. t   Comment:Twocommenters(IVD17,IVD36)requestedthatEPAclarifythatoils & usedformetalstamping,drawing,andcutting(machiningoperations)arenotcoatings. 8    Response:Thedefinitionofprotectiveoilsincludesthoseusedforlubricationand    extrusionthatdonotformasolidfilm.Sincetheuseofoilsinmetalstamping,drawing,and  L  cutting(machiningoperations)isforlubricationpurposesandtheseoilsdonotformasolidfilm, ^  theywouldmeetthedefinitionofaprotectiveoilandarenotcoatingsregulatedbythemetal   partsrule. "r    Comment:Twocommenters(IVD19,IVD63)requestedthatpowdercoatingsbe   specificallyexcludedfromthefinalrule.Onecommenter(IVD63)statedthatpowdercoatings 6 typicallyhavenoHAPortraceamountsofHAPthatwouldeasilycomplywiththeemission H limitations.Thecommenter(IVD63)statedthatpowdercoatingoperationsshouldnotbe  subjecttoarecordkeepingandreportingburdenthatwouldhavenoresultingenvironmental  \ benefit.Onecommenter(IVD19)suggestedthatincludingpowdercoatingswouldreduce n  expectedHAPreductionsfromthisNESHAPandthataveragingcouldbelimitedtoliquid    coatingsonly. 2"   Response:Powdercoatingsareincludedinthedefinitionofacoatinginthefinalrule. $ However,ifaf  sourceg f  g Ԁisusingonlypowdercoatingorpowdercoatingandlessthan250galof F& HAPcontainingcoating,theywouldbeexcludedfromallrulerequirementsbasedontheiruseof X ( nonHAPcoatingandlessthan250galofHAPcontainingcoating.Ifaf  sourceg f  g Ԁisusinggreater ! * than250galofHAPcontainingcoatingandalsohasapowdercoatingline,theymaychooseto #l, complywiththecompliantmaterialoptionfortheirpowdercoatingline.Therecordsnecessary ~$. todemonstratecompliancewiththecompliantmaterialoptionaresignificantlylessthanrequired %0!0 underoneoftheemissionrateoptions.Alternatively,ifaf  sourceg f  g Ԁchoosestouseeitherofthe B'"2 emissionrateoptions,powdercoatingscanbeincludedinthecompliancecalculationsforthe (#4 emissionrateoptions.Inclusionofpowdercoatingsinthecompliancecalculationswasintended *V%6 toserveasanincentiveforf  sourcesg f  g Ԁtousepowdercoatingsinreducingtheiroverallemission h+&8 level.Weexpectthatincreaseduseofpowdercoatingswillpromotethistechnologyasa ,(: pollutionpreventionalternativeandwillresultingreateremissionreductionsthanifpowder  coatingswerespecificallyexcludedfromcompliancecalculations.Ifaf  sourceg f  g Ԁchoosestoomit b powdercoatingsfromthecompliancecalculations,thef  sourceg f  g Ԁcoulddocumentthatthepowder t coatingsareincomplianceunderthecompliantmaterialsoptionsincepowdercoatingsare & essentially100percentsolids. 8    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD61)requestedthatrustinhibitorsnotbeconsidered    coatingsundertheruleandthatthisbeclarifiedinthedefinitionof coating.Thecommenter  L  contendedthattherulecurrentlyexemptsprotectiveoiltyperustinhibitors,butshouldalso ^  exemptaqueousbasedmaterialsusedforthesamepurpose.     Response:Aqueousrustinhibitors,whicharetypicallyacidsorbases,arealready "r  excludedfromthedefinitionofcoatingasacidsorbases.     Comment:Onecommenter(IVD52)askedwhetherthedefinitionofcleaningmaterial 6 in63.3981includesthefollowingandwhetheritcouldbeclarified: H "0  Doesthedefinitionofcleaningincludeaqueousbasedalkalinestrippersusedtoclean  equipment?ThecommenterreportedthattheseoftendonotcontainanyVOCorHAP.(#(# "0  Doesthedefinitionincludesurfacepreparationsystemsusinganalkalinewash,waterand Z phosphaterinse,andsealersthatgenerallycontainnoVOCorHAP.Again,the F commenterreportedthattheseoftendonotcontainanyVOCorHAP2 (#(# ThecommenternotedthatotherNESHAPhaveusedtheterm organicHAPsolventinsteadof  Z"  solventanddefinedtheseasvolatileorganicliquidscontainingHAP.Thecommenterargued l$ thatthetwoexampleswouldnotmeetthedefinitionoforganicHAPsolvents.  &    Response:Inthefinalrule,wehavenotexcludedtheexamplescitedbythecommenter 0"( fromthedefinitionofcleaningmaterialorfromthedefinitionofcoatingsincewedonothave #* dataindicatingthatthesematerialsarealwaysverylowornonHAP.However,thefinalrule $D , includesadefinitionofnonHAPmaterialsbasedoncommonreportingthresholdsthatare V&!. alreadyinuse.Thinnersandotheradditives,cleaningsolvents,andcoatingsareconsiderednon '#0 HAPifthef  g organicf  g HAPleveldoesnotexceedtheOSHAreportingthresholdsforHAP(0.1 )j$2 percentbyweightforOSHAdefinedcarcinogensand1.0percentbyweightforotherHAP). |*%4 Dependingonthecomplianceoptionselectedbyafacility,thecompliancedemonstrationcanbe +.'6 greatlysimplifiedforcoatingmaterialsthatmeetthedefinitionofnonHAPcoating. @-(8   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD63)requestedthatEPArevisethedefinitionof   protectiveoiltoclarifythatprotectiveoils,whichareexemptfromtherule,includecoatings b thatleaveasolidfilmthatisnotpermanent.Thecommenterdescribedthreeprotectivecoatings t thatshouldbecoveredundertheprotectiveoilsdefinition.Thefirstaretemporaryprotective & coatingsputonmetalproductstoprotectthemfromrustandcorrosionduringshipmentand 8  storagebutthatleavearemovablehardfilm.ThesetemporarycoatingshavetraceorlowHAP    content(thecommenterprovidedMSDS).Thesecondaremagnetwirelubricationthatisputon  L  thewirebeforeitiswoundonaspoolandformsawaxfilm.Thiswaxfilmpreventsthewire ^  fromstickingwhenbeingunwoundandprotectsthewireduringinstallationinanassembly   process.Thethirdisabarseallubricationthatpreventshandglovesfromstickingtogenerator "r  partsduringtaping.Thecommenterprovidedareviseddefinitionof protectiveoiland   recommendedthesethreecoatingexamplesbeincludedinthefinalpreambletohelpclarifythe 6 protectiveoilsdefinition. H   Response:Weagreewiththecommenterthatthedefinitionofprotectiveoilsshouldbe  revisedtoincludemagnetwirelubricationandsofttemporaryprotectivecoatingsthatare  \ removedpriortoinstallationorfurtherassemblyofapartorcomponent.Thosematerialsthat n donotformasolidfilmarenottypicallyconsideredcoatings.Wedonotfeelitisnecessaryto    specificallyincludebarseallubricantsusedtopreventhandglovesfromstickingtogenerator 2" partsduringtaping.Thisisaspecificprocessusingthebarseallubricantinawaythatqualifies $ asaprotectiveoilbyprovidinglubrication. F&   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD64)requestedthatEPAmodifythedefinitionof X (  protectiveoiltospecificallyincludeorexcludecarriersolvents.Thecommenterclaimedthat ! * skinlubricantsusedonhypodermicneedlesdonotmeetthedefinitionofacoatingbecausethey #l, donotcureandformasolidfilm.Thecommenterstatedthatthelubricantisaviscousliquid ~$. thatusesaHAPasacarrier;aftertheHAPevaporates,thelubricantisstillliquid.Exceptforthe %0!0 carriersolvent,thecommenterclaimedthatskinlubricantscouldotherwisemeetthedefinitionof B'"2 aprotectiveoilandwouldbeexemptfromthestandard. (#4   Response:Weagreewiththecommenterthatthedefinitionofprotectiveoilsshouldbe *V%6  revisedtoincludethoseoilsthatincludeacarriersolventandthatdonotformasolidfilm(e.g., h+&8 skinlubricantsonhypodermicneedles).Thischangehasbeenmadetothedefinitioninthefinal  rule. b    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD61)requestedclarificationthatplatingandanodizing t operationsarenotincludedinthemetalpartsrule.Asecondcommenter(IVD19)suggested & thatthefinalruleshouldincludeadefinitionfor organiccoatingorastatementthatinorganic 8  coatingsandmetalplatingoperationsarenotincludedinthemetalpartsrule.Thesecond    commenterprovidedanexampledefinitionoforganiccoatingfromanearlierEPApublication.  L    Response:Platingandanodizingoperationsarenotmetalpartsurfacecoatingoperations ^  meetingtheapplicabilitycriteriaofthemetalpartsrule.Emissionsfromhardanddecorative   chromiumelectroplatingandchromiumanodizingoperationsareregulatedbytheNESHAPfor "r  thatsourcecategory(40CFR63,subpartN).Wedonotfeelthatadefinitionoforganiccoating   orastatementthatinorganiccoatingsandplatingoperationsarenotcoveredbythefinalruleare 6 neededinthefinalruletoclarifyitsapplicability.Thecurrentapplicabilitylanguageintherule H andtheclarificationspresentedinthisdocumentaresufficient.    7.30  RegulatedPollutants wh?n(#(#   Comment:Twocommenters(IVD15,IVD59)suggestedthatthefinalruleshould    includecontrolrequirementsforinorganicHAP.Onecommenter(IVD15)notedthatthe 2" AerospaceManufacturingNESHAPincludeddetailedcontrolrequirementsforinorganicHAP $ overspray,buttheproposedmetalpartsruleincludednorequirementsforcontrolofinorganic F& HAPoverspray.ThecommenteralsoreportedthattheAerospaceManufacturingNESHAP X ( documentsnotedthatthequantityofinorganicHAPemissionsisrelativelysmall,butthatcontrol ! * requirementswerejustifiedbasedontheirhightoxicity.Incontrast,theproposedmetalparts #l, rulemerelystatedthatinorganicHAPemissionsareminimalbecauseofwatercurtainordry ~$. filtercontrolsonmetalpartsurfacecoatingpaintbooths.Thesecondcommenter(IVD59) %0!0 notedthatthepreambletotheproposedrulestatedthatinorganicHAPfromcoatingsare B'"2 typicallycontrolledbydryfiltersorwatercurtains.Therefore,accordingtothecommenter,these (#4 controlsappeartobetheMACTfloortocontrolinorganicHAPemissions. *V%6   Response:Asnotedintheproposalpreamble(67FR52789,August13,2002),mostof h+&8 thecoatingsusedinthissourcecategorydonotcontaininorganicHAPandthefacilitiesinthis ,(: sourcecategoryemployfiltersonpaintboothsthatcollectpaintoversprayandanyinorganic  HAPinthatoverspray.TheuseofinorganicHAPinaerospacecoatingoperationsismore b commonbecauseoftheneedtousechromiumpigmentstopreventcorrosionofthemetalparts t oftheaircraftcriticaltoflight. &   7.40  GallonsUsedApplicabilityThresholdandtheSmallVolumeExemption whb  (#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD15)statedthatthefinalruleshouldclarifywhether  L  coatingssubjecttothe50gallonperyearexemptionin63.3881(c)(5)oftheproposedrule ^  (63.3881(c)(3)inthefinalrule)shouldbeincludedinthetotalfordeterminingapplicability   underthe250gallonperyearthresholdin63.3881(b). "r    Response:Afacilityshouldapplytheprovisionsin63.3881intheorderinwhichthey   appearintherule.Theruleappliestofacilitiesthataremajorsourcesanduse250gallonsor 6 moreperyearofmetalpartssurfacecoatingsasspecifiedin63.3881(b).Ifafacilityexceeds H thisthreshold,thensomecoatingsmaybeexemptfromregulationunder63.3881(c)(3).A  facilityshouldincludethosemetalpartscoatingsthatmaybeeligiblefortheexemptionunder  \ 63.3881(c)(3)inthefinalruleindeterminingwhethertheyexceedthe250gallonperyear n thresholdin63.3881(b).Thiswouldavoidapotentialsituationinwhichafacilitycoulduse    nearly500gallonsperyearofcoatingandnotberegulated. 2"   Comment:Thecommenter(IVD52)agreedwiththeexemptionforcoatingsusedatless $ than50gallonsperyearuptoatotalof250gallonsperyear.However,thecommenteraskedfor F& twoclarifications: X ( "0  Canfacilitieschoosenottoexemptcoatingsthatmayqualifyforthisexemption,toavoid "+ theadditionalrecordkeepingneededtoexcludecoatingsbasedonusage?#,(#(# "0  Ifafacilityusesmanycoatingsinquantitieslessthan50gallons,butthetotalisgreater j% . than250gallons,canthefacility:(1)choosetoexemptthenoncompliantlowvolume V&!/ coatingsunderthecompliantmaterialoption,and(2)choosetoexemptthehighestHAP B'"0 coatingsundertheemissionratewithoutaddoncontrolsoption?.(~#1(#(#   Response:Facilitiesmaychoosenottoexcludecoatingsusedinsmallvolumesifthey *V%3 finditeasiertoincludeallcoatingsintheircompliancedemonstration.Inresponsetothesecond h+&5 question,evenifafacilityusesmanyHAPcontainingcoatingsinquantitiesoflessthan ,(7 50gallonsperyear,thefacilitymayexemptnomorethanatotalof250gallonsofHAP  containingcoatings.Itdoesnotmatterifafacilityisusingmultiplecomplianceoptions(e.g.,the b compliantmaterialsoptionandtheemissionratewithoutaddoncontrolsoption),thetotalthat t canbeexemptatthefacilityis250gallons.Inthecommentersexample,thefacilitymaychoose & whichoftheirlowvolumecoatingstoexemptunder63.3881(c).Theycouldchoosetoexempt 8  thehigherHAPcoatingsthatareusedinquantitieslessthan50gallonsperyear,aslongasthey    excludeatotaloflessthan250gallonsofHAPcontainingcoatings.Theywouldhaveto  L  demonstratecompliancefortheremaininglowvolumecoatings.Theycouldusethecompliant ^  materialsoptionoroneoftheotheroptionstodemonstratecompliancefortheremaining   coatings. "r    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD19)recommendedthatthefinalruleshouldhavea   largerapplicabilitythresholdthan250gallonsperyear.ThecommentercitedtheWood 6 FurnitureNESHAP(40CFR63,subpartJJ),whichhasthreethresholds:250gallonspermonth, H 3,000gallonsperrolling12monthperiod,andonehalfoftheHAPemissioncriteriaformajor  sourcesperrolling12monthperiod.Thecommentercontendedthatlargerapplicability  \ thresholdswouldreducetheneedforpermitlimitsforthousandsoffacilitiesthatEPAhas n presumedtobeareasources.      Response:The250gallonperyearthresholdin63.3881(b)ofthemetalpartsruleis 2" intendedtoexcludeincidentalmetalpartssurfacecoatingoperationsfromtheapplicability $ criteriaofthemetalpartsrule.ThethresholdscitedbythecommenterintheWoodFurniture F& ManufacturingNESHAP(see63.800(b))areforestablishingthatawoodfurniture X ( manufacturingfacilityisnotamajorsourcesubjecttothatrule.Awoodmanufacturingfacility ! * thatisamajorsourceofHAPemissionsduetosomeotheremissionsourcewouldstillbe #l, requiredtocomplywiththeWoodFurnitureManufacturingNESHAPevenifitusedlessthan ~$. thequantitiescitedbythecommenter.SincethethresholdsintheWoodFurniture %0!0 ManufacturingNESHAPandthisruleservedifferentpurposes,thecommentercannotinferthat B'"2 thewoodfurniturethresholdsestablishaprecedentthatshouldbefollowedbythemetalparts (#4 rule.TheMiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsNESHAPdoesnotrequirecontrolofarea *V%6  sources.Theapplicabilitysectionofthemetalproductsruleclearlystatesthatitappliesonlyto h+&8 surfacecoatingthatisamajorsourceorislocatedatamajorsourceorispartofamajorsource  ofHAP. b    Comment:Twocommenters(IVD17,IVD24)askedforclarificationofthe t exemptionsin63.3881:DononHAPcoatingscounttowardtheexemptionlimits?For & example,ifacompanyuses10,000gallonsofnonHAPcoatinginoneoperationandlessthan 8  50gallonsofHAPcontainingcoatingsinsevenotheroperationstotalinglessthan250gallons    peryear,isthefacilityexemptfromtherule?Alternatively,ifacompanyuses1,000gallonsof  L  HAPcontainingcoatinginoneoperationandlessthan50gallonsofHAPcontainingcoatingsin ^  sevenotheroperationstotalinglessthan250gallonsperyear,istheonelargeoperationsubject   totheruleandthesevenminoroperationsareexempt? "r    Response:NonHAPcoatingsdonotneedtobecountedtowardstheapplicability   threshold.BecausethepurposeoftheruleistocontrolHAP,weagreethatitisappropriateto 6 consideronlyHAPcontainingcoatingsindeterminingwhetherasourcemeetstheapplicability H threshold.Werevised63.3881(b)oftheruletoclarifythatwhendeterminingwhetheryour  facilityisbelowtheapplicabilitythreshold,youmayexcludenonHAPcoatings(asdefinedin  \ thefinalrule)whendeterminingwhetheryouuse946liters(250f  galg f  g )peryear,ormore,of n coatingsinthesurfacecoatingofmiscellaneousmetalpartsandproducts.Thefinalruleincludes    adefinitionofnonHAPcoating,whichisacoatingcontaininglessthan0.1percentbyweightof 2" eachindividualf  g Ԁorganicf  g ԀHAPthatisanOSHAdefinedcarcinogenandlessthan1.0percentby $ weightofallotherindividualHAP. F&   Thus,afacilityusingmostlynonHAPcoatingsandlessthan250f  galg f  g ԀperyearofHAP X ( containingcoatingswillnotbesubjecttothefinalrule.Inaddition,weaddedadefinitionof ! *  nonHAPcoatingtothedefinitionssectionofthefinalrule.Inthecommentersexamples,the #l, facilityusing10,000gallonsofnonHAPcoatinginoneoperationandlessthan50gallonsof ~$. HAPcontainingcoatingsinsevenotheroperationstotalinglessthan250gallonsperyearwould %0!0 notneedtodemonstratecompliancewiththerule.Inthesecondexample,thelargecoating B'"2 operationusing1,000gallonsperyearofHAPcontainingcoatingwouldneedtodemonstrate (#4 compliancewiththerulewhilethesevenotheroperationstotalinglessthan250gallonsperyear *V%6  areexempt. h+&8   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD25)objectedtotheleveloftheannualcoatingusage   cutoffof250gallons/yearastoolow,resultinginmanysmall,lowemittingsourcesbeingsubject b totherule.ThecommenteragreedwithEPAsrationalethattheruleshouldapplytofacilities t wherethecoatingofmiscellaneousmetalpartsispartoftheprincipalactivityofthefacilityoran & integralpartoftheproductionprocess,andtoothertypesoffacilitieswherecollocatedsurface 8  coatingoperationsarecomparableintypeandsizetodedicatedfacilities.However,the    commenterdisagreedthata250gallon/yearcollocatedoperationiscomparableinsizetotypical  L  productionprocessesintheregulatedcategory.Toavoidanundueburdenonsmallfacilities,the ^  commenterrecommendedthatthecutoffbe5,000gallons/year.     Response:Wedisagreewiththecommenterthattheannualusagecutofffor "r  applicabilityofthisruleshouldbesetat5,000gallonsperyearandthe250gallon/yrcutoffhas   beenretainedinthefinalrule.Thecommenterprovidednodatatosupporttheircontentionthat 6 thiscutoffbetterrepresentsfacilitieswheremetalpartsurfacecoatingispartoftheprincipal H activityofthefacility.ThecommenterprovidedacasestudyofthecoatingoperationsataDoD  AirForcebasethatisamajorHAPsourcebecauseofhydrogenchlorideemissionsfromacoal  \ firedboilerandalsoperformsmiscellaneousmetalpartssurfacecoating.However,asdiscussed n insection6.0ofthisdocument,miscellaneoussurfacecoatingoperationsatDoDfacilitieswill    beaddressedunderaseparaterulemakingandwillnotberegulatedbythisNESHAP. 2"   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD33)suggestedEPAretaintheexemptionforeach $ coating(individualformulation)usedatlessthan50gallonsperyear,butincreasetheallowed F& facilitytotalto500gallonsperyear.ThecommenterreportedthatDoDfacilitiesmayuse X ( thousandsofdifferentsurfacecoatingmaterialsatasingleinstallation,andthesewillinclude ! * caulk,sealants,andadhesiveswhicharenotcurrentlyregulatedundertheaerospaceor #l, shipbuildingandrepairNESHAP.Thecommenterpredictedthattrackingsmallcontainers(e.g., ~$. 8ouncesorless)wouldbeexcessivelycostlyandburdensomeforDoDfacilitieswithlittle %0!0 environmentalbenefitandanexemptionof500gallonsperyearwouldreducethisburden. B'"2   Response:MiscellaneoussurfacecoatingoperationsatDoDfacilitiesthatarenot (#4 regulatedbytheAerospaceManufacturingandReworkNESHAPorShipbuildingandShip *V%6 RepairNESHAPwillbeaddressedbyaNESHAPbeingdevelopedspecificallyforthesetypesof h+&8 operations.ThesecommentswillbetakenintoaccountinthedevelopmentofthatNESHAP. ,(:   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD44)recommendedthattheexemptionforupto  250gallonsperyearofcoatingshouldbeincreasedsuchthattherulewouldonlyapplytocoating b operationsthataremajorsourcesinandofthemselves.Thecommentercitedseveralcourt t decisionswhichthecommenterinterpretedtosupport theconceptthatEPAhastheauthorityto & craftdeminimisexemptions,ifintheAgencysopinion,thestrictimplementationofthestatute 8  leadstoagainoftrivialornovalueorabsurdorfutileresults.      Response:Wedisagreewiththecommenterthatthemetalpartsruleshouldapplyonlyto  L  metalpartsurfacecoatingoperationsthataremajorsourcesinandofthemselves.Section ^  112(c)(2)oftheCAArequiresthatweestablishNESHAPforthecontrolofHAPfrombothnew   andexistingmajorsources.Section112(a)definestheterm"majorsource"as"anystationary "r  sourceorgroupofstationarysourceslocatedwithinacontiguousareaandundercommoncontrol   thatemitsorhasthepotentialtoemitconsideringcontrols,intheaggregate,10tonsperyearor 6 moreofanyonehazardousairpollutantor25tonsperyearormoreofanycombinationof H hazardousairpollutants..."Fromthisdefinition,itisclearthatinsettingMACTstandardsEPA  mustconsideremissionsfromcollocatedactivitiesindeterminingwhetherasourceismajor.It  \ hasbeenwellestablishedthroughoutEPA'simplementationofSection112oftheCAAthat n NESHAPapplytoallmajorsourcesincludingthosethatarenotmajorsourcesinandof    themselvesbutarecollocatedwithothersourcesandtogetherthiscollectionofsourcesisamajor 2" sourceofHAP.Thecourtcasethecommentercitesasaprecedenttoestablishdeminimis $ exceptionsisa1979decisionthatdoesnotpertaindirectlytosection112ortothedetermination F& ofmajorsources,becausesection112anditsdefinitionofmajorsourceswerefirstaddedtothe X ( CAAinthe1990amendments.Furthermore,theinformationavailabletotheEPAindicatesthat ! * asubstantialportionoftheemissionsfromthissourcecategoryisfromsourcesthatarenotmajor #l, sourcesinandofthemselves.Limitingtheapplicabilityofthefinalruletoonlycoating ~$. operationsthataremajorsourcesinandofthemselveswouldsubstantiallyreducetheemission %0!0 reductionsachieved,andisnotconsistentwiththeCAA. B'"2   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD59)requestedthatEPAclarifythepurposeofthe (#4 exemptionin63.3881(c)(5)forcoatingsusedinquantitiesof50gallonsorlessuptoatotalof *V%6 250gallonsperyear.ThecommenterrequestedthatEPAclarifythattheseexemptcoatingsare h+&8 notincludedinthecompliancecalculations.Thecommenteralsorecommendedthatifthese ,(: coatingsarenotincludedincompliancecalculations,thenthedefinitionof exemptcompound  in63.3981shouldberevisedtospecificallyexemptlowvolumeusagematerialsdefinedin b 63.3881(c)(5).Thecommenteralsorequestedanexplanationofthe50gallonperyear t differencebetweenthe250gallonperyearexemptioninthisruleandthe200gallonperyear & exemptionin63.741(g)oftheAerospaceManufacturingandReworkNESHAP(40CFR63 8  subpartGG).Finally,thecommenterrecommendedthattherecordkeepingrequirementsin    63.3930shouldrequiremonthlyrecordsanda12-monthrollingtotalofexemptedlow-volume  L  materials. ^    Response:Thepurposeofthesmallvolumeexemptionin63.3881(c)(5)ofthe   proposedrule(now63.3881(c)(3)ofthefinalrule)istoreducetheburdenonsourcesthatuse "r  smallquantitiesofspecialtymaterialsthatmayhavehigherHAPcontentsthanotherwise   allowedbytheemissionlimits.Thecommenteriscorrectinnotingthattheseexemptcoatings 6 arenotincludedinthecompliancecalculations.However,theselowvolumecoatingsshouldnot H beincludedinthedefinitionofexemptcompoundfoundin63.3981sincethisdefinitionrefers  tothoseorganiccompoundsthatarenotconsideredVOCforthepurposesofdeterminingVOC  \ contentofcoatingsandcompliancewithVOCcontentlimits. n   ThisruleandtheAerospaceManufacturingandReworkNESHAPareseparaterulesfor    separatesurfacecoatingsourcecategoriesandthesefinalrulesreflectdifferencesinthesource 2" categories,dataavailability,andinputfromdifferentstakeholdersandcommentersduringthe $ ruledevelopmentprocess.Asaresult,somedifferencesamongrulesaretobeexpected. F& ExplainingtherationaleforthescopeoftheexemptioninAerospaceManufacturingand X ( ReworkNESHAPisbeyondthescopeofthisrulemaking. ! *   Weagreewiththecommenterthatfacilitiesthataretakingadvantageofthesmallvolume #l, exemptionshouldkeeprecordsoftheamountofcoatingsusedtoensuretheydonotexceedthe ~$. amountoftheexemption.However,wealreadyexpectthatafacilitywilltakeitupon %0!0 themselvestokeeptheserecordsinordertodemonstrateapplicabilitywiththisruleand/or B'"2 eligibilityforanyoftheotherexemptionsin63.3881(c).Therefore,itisnotnecessaryto (#4 includerecordkeepingrequirementsin63.3930oftheruleforlowvolumecoatingsthatare *V%6  otherwiseexemptfromtherequirementsoftherule. h+&8   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD59)recommendedthatthecompliancedemonstration   proceduresin63.3941,63.3951,and63.3961berevisedtoexclude exemptcompoundsas b definedin63.3981fromcompliancecalculationsanddeterminations. t   Response:Thecompliancedemonstrationproceduresandcalculationsinthesections & referencedbythecommenterareforHAPemissions.Exemptcompoundsarethoseorganic 8  compoundsthatarenotconsideredVOCforthepurposesofdeterminingVOCcontentof    coatingsandcompliancewithVOCcontentlimits.ExemptcompoundsthatareHAP,suchas  L  methylenechloride,mustbeincludedinthecompliancecalculationsalongwithotherHAPthat ^  arefoundincoatingmaterials.     Comment:Onecommenter(IVD63)statedthatafacilitythatissubjecttomultiple "r  NESHAPsmaybeconfusedbytheapplicabilitycriteria.Thecommenterrequestedtworule   changestoclarifytherulesapplicability.(1)Revise63.3881(b)toclarifythatsurfacecoatings, 6 thinners,orcleaningmaterialssubjecttootherNESHAPshouldnotbecountedwhen H determiningthe250gallonperyearapplicabilityoftherule(commenterprovidesrevised  language);(2)Revise63.3881(c)(5)sothatsurfacecoatingssubjecttootherNESHAPwould  \ notbecountedtowardthe50gallonperyearthresholdwhendeterminingwhetheranindividual n coatingisexcluded.      Response:Section63.3881(b)ofthefinalrulewaswrittentostate Youaresubjectto 2" thissubpartifyouownoroperateanew,reconstructed,orexistingaffectedsource,asdefinedin $ 63.3882,thatuses946liters(250gallons(gal))peryear,ormore,ofcoatingsthatcontain F& hazardousairpollutants(HAP)inthesurfacecoatingofmiscellaneousmetalpartsand X ( products...Thishasbeenrevisedsinceproposaltoinclude thesurfacecoatingof ! * miscellaneousmetalpartsandproducts.Thischangehelpsclarifytheapplicabilityofthis #l, sectionwithrespecttothecommenter'ssuggestion. ~$.   Weagreewiththecommenterthatthesmallvolumecoatingexemption63.3881(c)(5)in %0!0 theproposedrule(now63.3881(c)(3)inthefinalrule)appliesonlytometalpartsandproducts B'"2 surfacecoatings.SurfacecoatingsmeetingtheapplicabilitycriteriaofotherNESHAPshouldnot (#4 becountedtowardthe50gallonperyearthreshold.However,otherchangeshavebeenmadeto *V%6 63.3881(c)toclarifytheapplicabilityofthisruletosurfacecoatingoperationssubjecttoother h+&8 NESHAP.Therefore,itisnotnecessarytospecifythattheexemptionisonlyformetalpartsand ,(: productssurfacecoatingssinceothercoatingswouldbeexcludedfromapplicabilityunderother  provisionsof63.3881(c). b   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD63)requestedthatthefinalruleincludeanemission t applicabilitythresholdtoexcludecoatingsthatcontainaverylowHAPconcentration.The & commenterexplainedthat,forexample,coatingsthatcontainjustover1.0percentorganicHAP 8  wouldemitsignificantlylessthantheemissionlimitationrequiredinthefinalrule,butwouldbe    regulatedifmorethan250gallonswereusedperyear.Inaddition,thefacilitywouldbesubject  L  toarecordkeepingandreportingburdenwithnoresultingenvironmentalbenefit.The ^  commenterrecommendedthethresholdscouldbecalculatedastheproductofthevolume   thresholdsin63.3881(b)and(c)(5)andtheemissionlimitationsinthefinalrule,andprovided "r  anexampleofthiscalculation.Thecommentersuggestedthat,basedonthisexample,afacility   couldbeexemptifHAPemissionsfrommetalpartssurfacecoatingoperationswerelessthan 6 250lb/yearandacoatingwouldbeexemptifemissionswerelessthan50lb/year. H   Response:Thefinalruleincludesin63.3981adefinitionnonHAPcoatingswhichare  thosethatcontainnomorethan0.1percentbymassofanyindividualf  g organicf  g HAPthatisan  \ OSHAdefinedcarcinogenasspecifiedin29CFR1910.1200(d)(4)andnomorethan1.0percent n bymassforanyotherindividualHAP.Section63.3881(b)specifiesthatyoudonotneedto    includecoatingsthatmeetthedefinitionofnonHAPcoatingcontainedin63.3981in 2" determiningwhetheryouuse946liters(250gal)peryear,ormore,ofcoatingsinthesurface $ coatingofmiscellaneousmetalpartsandproducts.Inaddition,thefinalruleincludesan F& exemptionforcoatingsusedinvolumesof50gallonsperyearorless(nottoexceedatotalof X ( 250gallonsperyear).Finally,therulealsoincludesthecompliantmaterialoptionforlowHAP ! * coatingsthatcomplywiththeemissionlimitsandthisoptionhassimplifiedrecordkeeping #l, comparedtotheothercomplianceoptions.Takentogether,theseapplicabilityprovisionsand ~$. complianceoptionswillaccomplishnearlythesameobjectiveastheHAPemissionthresholds %0!0 suggestedbythecommenter,butwithfewercalculations. B'"2   7.50  JanitorialOperations,FacilityMaintenance,andHandheldNonrefillableAerosolCans um:*V%6(#(#    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD35)suggestedthatEPAshouldretaintheexemptions  forjanitorial,building,andfacilitymaintenance.Theseexemptionswillmaketheruleclearer b andmoreachievable,accordingtothecommenter. t    Response:Janitorial,building,andfacilitymaintenanceoperationsarenotpartofthe & metalpartsandproductssurfacecoatingsourcecategory,eventhoughtheyoccuratthesame 8  facilityatwhichmetalpartssurfacecoatingoccurs.Thisexemptionhasbeenretainedinthe    finalrule.  L    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD30)statedthatthepreambleshouldclarifythatthe ^  exclusionforpaintingofbuildingspertainstocoatingsappliedduringconstructiontostructures   thatarepartofindustrialfacilities. "r     Response:Thefieldapplicationofcoatingstometalpartsofbuildingsduring   constructionisnotsubjecttothemetalpartsrule.However,theshopapplicationofcoatingsto 6 prefabricatedmetalparts,suchasmetaljoistsorotherarchitecturalelements,issubjecttothe H metalpartsrule.    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD63)requestedthatthefinalruleclarifythatcoatingof  \ manufacturingequipmentandtoolsthatareusedtomanufacturepartsandproductsarenot n coveredbytherule.Thecommenternotedthattheruledefinesmiscellaneousmetalpartsand    productsasincluding industrialmachineryand otherindustrialproducts.Theruleattempts 2" toclarifytheapplicabilitybyexempting facilitymaintenanceoperationsbutitisstillunclear $ whatoperationsareincludedinfacilitymaintenance(e.g.,moldrelease),accordingtothe F& commenter.Thecommentersuggestedthatanadditionalsubparagraphshouldbeaddedto X ( 63.3881(c)toclarifythatsurfacecoatingofmanufacturingequipment,metalmolds,andtoolsis ! * notcoveredexceptwhenthesetoolswouldbesoldorotherwiseputintointerstatecommerce. #l, Thecommenterrequestedthatthedefinitionoffacilitymaintenanceberevisedsothattherepair ~$. ofmetalmoldsisspecificallycitedasfacilitymaintenance. %0!0   Onecommenter(IVD21)requestedthatEPAexpandthedefinitionoffacility B'"2 maintenancetoincludethefabricationandcoatingofequipmentneededtosupportthefunction (#4 ofthefacility(e.g.,equipmentrequiredforsupporting,holding,orreachingaircraftoraircraft *V%6 partsandcomponents).Anothercommenter(IVD23)supportedtheexemptionforsurface h+&8 coatingactivitiesforfacilitymaintenanceoperations,butrequestedthefacilitymaintenance ,(: exemptionforsurfacecoatingontoolsandequipmentalsoapplytotoolsusedoccasionallyoff  site.Thesamecommenterrequestedthatthedefinitionalsoincludethefabricationofnewtools b andequipmenttosupportamanufacturingoperation,notjustrepairandrenovationoftools. t   Response:TheEPAagreesthatthecoatingofmachineryortoolsusedbya & manufacturingfacility(comparedtomachineryandtoolsthataresoldasindustrialproducts) 8  shouldbeconsideredpartoffacilitymaintenanceoperationsandnotpartofthemetalparts    surfacecoatingsourcecategory,eventhoughtheymayoccuratthesamefacilityatwhichmetal  L  partssurfacecoatingoccurs.Theruleincludesadefinitionof facilitymaintenanceoperations ^  thatincludestheroutinerepairorrenovation(includingthesurfacecoating)ofthetools,   equipment,machinery,andstructuresthatcomprisetheinfrastructureoftheaffectedfacility. "r  Infrastructurecanincludebuildings,tools,andequipmentneededtosupportthefunctionofthe   facilitythatarefixedinplace,orareoccasionallyusedoffsite.However,thisdefinitionhas 6 beenrevisedtoincludetheroutinefabricationoftoolsusedbyamanufacturingfacility. H   Sincemoldreleaseagentsareappliedtomoldsandarenotappliedtothepartbeing  producedanddonotbecomepartofthepartbeingproduced,theywouldbeconsideredpartof  \ facilitymaintenanceandwouldnotbesubjecttothefinalrule.However,EPAdoesnotfeelitis n necessarytospecificallyincludemoldreleaseagentsortherepairofmetalmoldsinthedefinition    offacilitymaintenancesincetheywouldalreadybecoveredassurfacecoatingsappliedtothe 2" toolsandequipmentoftheaffectedfacility. $   Likewise,wedonotfeelthatanadditionalsubparagraphisneededin63.3881(c)to F& clarifythatsurfacecoatingofmanufacturingequipment,metalmolds,andtoolsisnotcovered X ( exceptwhenthesetoolswouldbesoldorotherwiseputintointerstatecommerce.Wealsodo ! * notfeelthatitisnecessarytoexpandthedefinitionoffacilitymaintenancetospecificallyinclude #l, thefabricationandcoatingofequipmentneededtosupportthefunctionofthefacilityorto ~$. includethesurfacecoatingoftoolsandequipmentusedoccasionallyoffsite.Theseoperations %0!0 arealreadycoveredunderthebroaderdefinitionoffacilitymaintenance. B'"2   Comment:Thecommenter(IVD61)believedthatcleaningofanyequipmentthatisnot (#4 usedtoapplyorganicHAPcontainingcoatingstometalsurfaceswouldbeexemptfromtherule *V%6  bythefacilitymaintenanceexemption,andrequestedthatthisbeclarifiedintherule. h+&8   Response:Thecleaningofequipmentthatisnotusedinthesurfacecoatingoperation(for   example,equipmentusedtocut,shape,orweldmetal)wouldnotbeconsideredpartofthe b affectedsourceforthemetalpartssourcecategory.Thesolventsusedtocleanthisequipment t wouldnotbeconsideredcoatingssubjecttothisrule.Wefeelthatthedefinitionoftheaffected & sourcein63.3882(b)clearlydoesnotincludethistypeofoperation,sonochangeshavebeen 8  madetothefinalrule.      Comment:Twocommenters(IVD18,IVD55)requestedclarificationthatrepainting  L  ofrefillablegascylindersforthedeliveryofindustrialgasesisnotcoveredbytherule.One ^  commenter(IVD18)producesindustrialgasespackagedinrefillablegascylindersthatare   transferredbackandforthtothecustomeraspartoftheproductionfacility'sproductdelivery "r  system.Thecommenterrequestedclarificationthatthisrepaintingofthecylindersisnota    principalactivity,andthus,notcoveredbytherule.ThecommentersuggestedthatEPA 6 clarifythisissueinoneofeithertwoways: H 0  1.0` (#(#Codifytheconceptoftheruleapplyingtocoatingoperationsthatare principal  activitiesoranintegralpartofproductionprocessesatafacility,then  define principalactivity.n` (#` (# 0  2.0` (#(#Clarifythatcoatingactivitysuchasthecommenterdescribesfallsunderthe F exemptionintheruleforfacilitymaintenance.2 ` (#` (# Z  Thesecondcommenter(IVD55)recommendedthattheapplicabilityprovisionsbe # revisedtoclarifythattheruleappliesto Facilitieswhoseprimaryproductsaremiscellaneous 2% metalpartsandproducts.Thecommenter(IVD55)recommendedanexclusionforactivities D!' atplantsitessuchasrepaintingofgascylindersandpaintingofmaintenanceandconstruction ") partsandequipmentandstructuralsteelsincetheseactivitiesarecommonlydoneatallindustrial $X+ plants. j% -   Anothercommenter(IVD27)statedthattheruleshouldclarifythattheruleappliesonly &"/ tofacilitiesforwhichsurfacecoatingisthe principalactivity,ratherthandiscussingthis .(~#1 applicabilityonlyinthepreamble.Thecommenter(IVD27)statedthatitisuncleariftherule )$3 appliestorefurbishmentactivitiesandmaintenancecoatingofexistingmetalparts,oriftherule *B&5 isintendedtoapplyonlyto newmetalpartsproducedforsale.Theruleclearlyexempts T,'7 facilitymaintenanceactivities,whicharedefinedas, theroutinerepairorrenovation(including  thesurfacecoating)ofthetools,equipment,machinery,andstructuresthatcomprisethe b infrastructureoftheaffectedfacilityandthatarenecessaryforthefacilitytofunctioninits t intendedcapacity.However,somemaintenanceactivitiesconductedatfacilitiesmayinclude & coatingmetalequipmentandpartsthatarenotpartofthe infrastructureoftheaffectedfacility 8  (e.g.,mobilesources,suchastruckfleetsorothertransportvesselsforrawmaterialsor    products).Thecommenterbelievesthatallroutinemaintenanceonmetalpartsshouldbeexempt  L  andthattheexemptionshouldbeclearlycodifiedintherule.   ^    Response:InthecaseofcommentersIVD18andIVD55,theregularpaintingofgas   cylindersisnotconsideredfacilitymaintenancebecauseitisnotincidentaltotheprimaryactivity "r  ofthefacilitydeliveringspecialtygases.Therepaintingofthecylindersiscentraltothereliable   deliveryofindustrialgasestocustomers,evenifthecylindersareownedbyandreturnedtothe 6 gasvendor.Thecoatingisnotepisodicoroccasional,butisanongoingoperationatthesource H forwhichdedicated,fixedmachineryandequipmentareinstalledatthesource.Forthese  reasons,coatingofthecylindersisconsideredpartoftheprincipalactivityofthefacility,which  \ isprovidinggastocustomersinsoundandeasilyidentifiablecontainers.Facilitymaintenance n activities,includingepisodicoroccasionalsurfacecoating,ontheotherhand,isancillaryor    incidentaltotheprincipalactivityofthefacility. 2"   InresponsetocommenterIVD27,thecoatingofmobileequipmentandfleettrucksis $ consideredpartoffacilitymaintenanceforthisNESHAPaslongasthecoatingofmobile F& equipmentandfleettrucksisnotoneoftheprincipalactivitiesofthesource.Theroutine X ( maintenanceofmetalparts(suchasrailcarmaintenanceanddrumrefurbishment)isnotexempt ! * fromthefinalrulewhenitisperformedatf  sourcesg f  g Ԁforwhichtheirprincipalactivityistheroutine #l, maintenance,includingsurfacecoating,ofmetalpartsthatarenotnewparts. ~$.   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD42)requestedthattheruleclarifythatcoating %0!0 activitiesatpetroleumrefineriesandchemicalplantstomaintainthestructuralandoperational B'"2 integrityofprocessequipmentisnotcoveredbythemetalpartsrule.Theseindustriescoatnew (#4 andexistingsupportstructures,piping,andequipmentaspartofroutinemaintenanceactivities, *V%6 buttheydonotproduceandcoatmetalpartsforcommercialsale.Thecommentersuggested h+&8 includingthefollowinglanguagefor63.3881(a): Thesourcecategoryonlyincludesfacilities ,(: forwhichthesurfacecoatingofmiscellaneousmetalpartsandproductsiseithertheirprincipal  activityoranintegralpartofaproductprocessthatistheprincipalactivity.Thecommenter b alsosuggestedchangestothedefinitionof facilitymaintenancetomakeitclearthattheir t coatingoperationsfitthisexemption.Inparticular,thecommentersuggestedreplacingthe & words theroutinerepairorrenovationwith preventiveactivitiesandrepairorrenovationand 8  adding existingandnewaheadof tools,equipment,...      Response:Weagreewiththecommenterthatcoatingactivitiesatpetroleumrefineries  L  andchemicalplantstomaintainthestructuralandoperationalintegrityofprocessequipmentis ^  notcoveredbythemetalpartsrule.However,wefeelthattheregulatorylanguageinthe   applicabilitysectionofthefinalruleandthedefinitionoffacilitymaintenance,alongwiththe "r  responsetothisandothercommentsonthefacilitymaintenanceexemption,providesufficient   guidancesuchthatthespecificlanguagechangessuggestedbythecommenterarenotneededto 6 clarifytheintentoftherule. H    Comment:Threecommenters(IVD33,IVD35,IVD40)supportedtheexemptionfor  handheldnonrefillableaerosolcontainersasstatedintheproposalpreamble.  \   Anothercommenter(IVD52)suggestedthattheexemptionfromcoatingoperationsin n 63.3981foraerosolcansshouldbeexpandedtoincludehandheldadhesiveapplicationssince    theyareusedwiththesamelogicandfrequencyashandheldaerosolcans.Thecommenter(IV 2" D52)assertsthatadhesivemanufacturershavenotbeenabletoprovideinformationaboutHAP $ contentsothecommenterhasbeenunabletoevaluatecompliancefortheseadhesives. F&   Anothercommenter(IVD61)requestedthatsingleusecontainersof1literorlessbe X ( exemptfromrulerequirements,justasnonrefillableaerosolcontainers.Thecommenter ! * claimedtotalemissionsfromsuchcontainersareverysmall,andthatitisburdensometokeep #l, recordsofcoatingsinsmallcontainerstodemonstratethattheyfallbelowtheproposed250 ~$. gallonexemptionforlowusecoatings. %0!0   Response:Wearenotexpandingtheexemptionforaerosolcontainerstoincludehand B'"2 heldadhesiveapplicatorsandsingleusecontainersof1literorless.However,thesematerials (#4 willbeexemptiftheyarepackagedinnonrefillableaerosolcontainers.Weconsiderednon *V%6 refillablehandheldaerosolcontainerstobeadifferenttypeofsource(ascomparedtotypical h+&8 highcapacitysurfacecoatingoperationssuchassprayinganddipping),becausethecoating ,(: appliedbythistypeofsourcemustmeetspecificrequirementsinordertobesprayedfroman  aerosolcan.Wefoundnopracticalcontrolsapplicabletothistypeofsourceandchoseto b exemptitfromtheaffectedsourcetoreducetherecordkeepingburdenontheindustry.Other t typesofnonaerosolproducts,includinghandheldadhesiveapplicatorsandothersingleuse & containers,aresubjecttotherequirementsoftherulebecausethesecoatingsdonotneedtomeet 8  thespecificrequirementstobesprayedfromanaerosolcan.      7.60  ResearchandDevelopmentFacilities ~^ (#(#   Comment:Severalcommenters(IVD06,IVD35,IVD52)supportedtheexclusionof   researchanddevelopment(R&D)facilities.Onecommenter(IVD06)supportstheexemption "r  forresearchanddevelopmentfacilitiesandthedefinitionofresearchandlaboratoryfacilitiesin   theproposedrule,statingthatitisconsistentwiththedefinitionintheCleanAirActandinother 6 sectionsof40CFRpart63.Theseexemptionswillmaketheruleclearerandmoreachievable, H accordingtothecommenter.    Onecommenter(IVD52)requestedclarificationonwhethertheexemptionforresearch  \ anddevelopmentfacilitiesincludesthosecollocatedwithproductionfacilities. n   Toclarify63.3881(c)(3),onecommenter(IVD31)suggestedreplacingthecommas    thatseparatethethreeexclusionswithsemicolonstomakeitcleareachareseparateanddistinct 2" exclusions,asfollows: Surfacecoatingthatispartofresearchorlaboratoryactivities;thatis $ partofjanitorial,building,orfacilitymaintenanceoperations;orthatoccursathobbyshops F& operatedfornoncommercialpurposes. X (   Response:WeagreewiththecommentersthattheexclusionforR&Dfacilitiesshouldbe ! * retainedinthefinalrule.TheexclusionincludesR&Dfacilitiesthatarecollocatedwith #l, productionfacilities.WedisagreewithcommenterIVD31thatthepunctuationoftheprovision ~$. needstoberevisedtoclarifythescopeofthethreeexclusions. %0!0   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD31)requestedthatEPAreplacetheproposed B'"2 definitionof researchorlaboratoryfacilityat63.3981withthedefinitionof researchor (#4 laboratoryactivitiessetforthinthefinal112(j)rule.Thecommenter(IVD31)includedthe *V%6 definition.Thecommenterwasconcernedthatshorttermresearchanddevelopmentactivities h+&8 conductedatsitesthatalsoperformcommercialaerospacecoatingoperations,orconductedona ,(: temporarybasisonanexistingaerospacecoatingline,wouldnotbeconsideredresearchand  developmentfacilitiesandwouldnotqualifyforexclusionfromtheemissionlimitsinthemetal b partsandproductsrule. t   Response:Theprimarydifferenceinthedefinitionrecommendedbythecommenteris & thatitdefines researchorlaboratoryactivitiesas activitieswhoseprimarypurposeisfor 8  researchanddevelopment...,whereastheproposedandfinalmetalpartsandproductsrule    defines researchorlaboratoryfacilitiesas facilitieswhoseprimarypurposeisforresearchand  L  development...BothdefinitionsincludethecriteriaregardingR&Dofnewprocessorproducts, ^  conductedundertheclosesupervisionoftechnicallytrainedpersonnel,andisnotengagedinthe   manufactureofproductsforcommercialpurposes,exceptinademinimismanner.The "r  definitioninthefinalruleisconsistentwithdefinitionsinseveralothersurfacecoating   NESHAP.Thedefinitionisbroadenoughtoincluderesearchandlaboratoryfacilitiesthatare 6 collocatedwithcommercialcoatingoperations.Itwouldalsobepossibletotemporarilydedicate H acoatinglinetoaresearchanddevelopmentpurposeandhaveitqualifyforexclusionasa  researchanddevelopmentfacility,ifanewprocessofproductisbeingresearchedandthecoated  \ productsarenotbeingsoldcommerciallyexceptinademinimismanner.Furthermore,ifthe n commentersmainconcerndealswithaerospacecoatingoperations,thesewouldbesubject    primarilytotheAerospaceManufacturingandReworkNESHAPratherthantheMiscellaneous 2" MetalPartsandProductsNESHAPasexplainedinSection6.2ofthisdocument. $   7.70  HighPerformanceCoatings  $X ((#(#   Comment:Thecommenter(IVD22)supportedtheuseofseparateemissionlimitsfor ! * highperformancecoatings,theleveloftheemissionlimits,theinclusionofhightemperature #l, coatingsinthisclassofcoatings,andtheuseofweightedaveragestodetermineanoverall ~$. emissionlimitforafacility. %0!0   Response:Thefinalruleretainshighperformancecoatingsasasubcategorywithan B'"2 emissionlimitthatishigherthanthegeneralusecoatingsemissionlimit.Theemissionlimitfor (#4 highperformancecoatingsreflectsspecializedperformancerequirementsresultingintheneed *V%6 forhigherHAPcontainingmaterials.Afacilityusinghighperformancecoatingshastheoption h+&8 tocomplywiththeemissionlimitforhighperformancecoatingoperationsusingthecompliant ,(: materialsapproach,theemissionratewithoutaddoncontrolsapproach,ortheemissionratewith  addoncontrolsapproach.Thefinalrulealsoallowsafacilityspecificemissionlimitapproach b describedin6.4ofthisdocument,providingadditionalflexibility. t   Comment:SeveralcommenterssuggestedthatEPAexpandthedefinitionofhigh & performancecoatingtoincludevariousspecializedcoatings,includingpaintsforoffshore 8  structures,oilfieldcoatings,coatingsexposedtofoodgradeproducts,andcoatingswith    specializedperformancecharacteristics.  L    Twocommenters(IVD02,IVD62)requestedthatEPAexpandthedefinitionofhigh ^  performancecoatingtoincludepaintsusedforoffshorestructuressincegeneralusecoatings   cannotwithstandsaltwater.ThecommentersnotedthatinLouisiana,thecoatingsusedforlarge "r  offshorestructuresaresubjecttothesameStatelimitsasthosefortheshipbuildingandrepair   industryandarenotsubjecttothegeneraluselimitsintheStatemetalpartsrule.Commenter 6 IVD03attachedrecordsofHAPemissionsandgallonsofcoatingusedfor2001.  H    Onecommenter(IVD57)requestedthatextremeperformanceoilfieldcoatingsshould  beincludedinthedefinitionofhighperformancecoating.Thecommentersuggestedthe  \ followingdefinition:Highperformancecoatingmeansanycoatingthatmeetsthedefinitionof n  highperformancearchitecturalcoating, hightemperaturecoating, militarycombat,tactical,    andmunitionscoating,or extremeperformanceoilfieldcoating.Thecommenteralso 2" providedadefinitionofextremeperformanceoilfieldcoatings: $ 0  Extremeperformanceoilfieldcoatingmeansanycoatingdesignedtobeappliedtoa F& substratewhichduringnormalusemustwithstandrepeatedexposuretoanytwoofthe 2' following:elevatedtemperaturesofatleast150F,chronicexposuretocorrosive,caustic  ( oracidicagents,chemicals,chemicalfumes,chemicalmixturesorsolutions;orrepeated ! ) heavyabrasion,includingmechanicalwear,abrasivefluidsorrepeatedscrubbingwith "* industrialgradesolvents,cleansers,scouringagents.#+(#(#   Accordingtothecommenter(IVD57),internaloilfieldpipecoatingsmustwithstand %0!. elevatedtemperature(ashighas400F),extremepressure,corrosivematerials,andabrasive B'"0 serviceandthesecriteriaaregenerallyconsideredindefiningtheextremeperformancecategory (#2 usedinCalifornia.Accordingtothecommenter,approximately15plantsperformoilfield *V%4  equipmentcoating.Thecommenteralsonotedthatthesecoatingsusedfortheinsideofoilfield h+&6 pipesasbeinghighmolecularweightresinsrequiringmethylethylketone(MEK)asasolvent  forapplicationandcleanup. b    Anothercommenter(IVD05)suggestedthathighperformancecoatingsshouldinclude t  extremeperformancecoatingsasdefinedbySouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict &  (SCAQMD)Rule1107withtheadditionofcoatingsexposedtofoodgradecommodities.The 8  commenter(IVD05)believesthisrevisionisneededforcoatingsusedonrailtankcarinteriors    andexteriorstoprotectthemfromharshchemicals.Tankcarinteriorscarrycorrosivechemicals  L  orfoodgradeproductssuchaswine.CoatingsusedintankcarscarryingfoodmustmeetFood ^  andDrugAdministration(FDA)requirements.Thecommenter(IVD05)explainedthattank   carexteriorsareexposedtospillage,fumes,saltair,snow,andtemperatureextremes. "r     Anothercommenter(IVD08)addedthatEPAshouldexpandthehighperformance   coatingscategorytoincludethecoatingsappliedtheinteriorofdrumsandpailstoprotect 6 substratesfromhazardousmaterialsandsafeguardfoodgradeproductsandpreventleakage.The H commenter(IVD08)asksthatEPAacknowledgethatinteriorcoatingsforsteelandothermetal  drumsandpailsareuniversallyacceptedashighperformancecoatings.  \   Response:Weanalyzedthemetalpartssurveydatathatrepresentedthetypesofcoating n operationsthatthecommentersarguedshouldbeincludedinthehighperformancecoating    category.Inallcases,wefoundthatthegeneraluseemissionlimitisachievableforthesetypes 2" ofcoatingoperations. >#  3      ׀ThecommenterssubmittednocoatingHAPcontentdatatosupportthe $ needforincludingthesecoatingtypesinthedefinitionofhighperformancecoatings. F&   Themetalpartsdatabaseincludesdataforfacilitiesthatcoatoffshoreoilplatformsand X ( internaloilfieldpipes.Thesedataindicatethatthesefacilitiescouldcomplywiththegeneraluse ! * emissionlimit.Therefore,basedontheinformationavailabletotheAdministrator,thefinalrule #l, doesnotincludeoilplatformandinternaloilfieldpipecoatingsinthedefinitionofhigh ~$.  performancecoatings. %0!0   Themetalpartsdatabaseincludesdatafrom21f  sourcesg f  g Ԁperformingcoatingoperationson   railcars.Thesedataindicatethatthegeneraluseemissionlimitisachievableforthesetypesof b f  sourcesg f  g .Therefore,wedidnotwritethefinalruletoincluderailtankcarinteriororexterior t coatingsinthedefinitionofhighperformancecoatings. &   Themetalpartsdatabaseincludesdatafrom17f  sourcesg f  g Ԁperformingdrumcoating 8  operations.Thesedataindicatethatthegeneraluseemissionlimitisachievableforthesetypes    off  sourcesg f  g .Therefore,wedidnotwritethefinalruletoincludecoatingsappliedtopailsand  L  drumsinthedefinitionofhighperformancecoatings. ^     Comment:Onecommenter(IVD64)requestedthatEPAexpandthedefinitionofhigh   performancecoatingstoincludecoatingssubjecttoFDArequirements.Thecommenterstated "r  thatskinlubricantsusedonhypodermicneedleshavethehighperformancecriteriaofpenetrating   humanskin;skinlubricantformulationandapplicationisregulatedbytheFDA;andskin 6 lubricantreformulationwouldtakeseveralyears,includingapprovalbytheFDA. H   Thesamecommenter(IVD64)alsoaskedthatEPAclarifywhethertheselubricants  qualifyascoatingsorasprotectiveoilsandwhetherthedefinitionofprotectiveoilcaninclude  \ thosematerialsthathaveacarriersolvent.Thecommenternotedthattheskinlubricatingoilis n appliedusingacarriersolvent(aHAP)thatevaporatesafterapplication,buttheoilneverformsa    solidfilmandremainsaliquid,evenwhensterilizedattemperaturesupto250degreesC. 2" Therefore,accordingtothecommenter,itisnotclearhowtheruleformat(lbHAPpergallon $ solids)wouldapplytoamaterialthathasno solidsanddoesnotformadryfilm.The F& commenternotedthatwiththeexceptionofthecarriersolvent,theskinlubricantsmeetthe X ( definitionofprotectiveoiland,ifitwerenotforthecarriersolvent,theskinlubricantswouldnot ! * besubjecttotherule.ThecommenterdidnotprovideanydataonthespecificHAPcontentof #l, skinlubricants. ~$.   Response:Basedonthedescriptionprovidedbythecommenter,theskinlubricants %0!0 wouldqualifyasprotectiveoilssincetheyprovidelubricationanddonotformasolidfilm,but B'"2 ratherremainliquid,evenafterthecarriersolventhasevaporated.Thedefinitionofprotective (#4 oilincludesevaporativeoils,includingthosethatevaporatecompletely,andthiswouldinclude *V%6  thecarriersolventsusedintheprotectiveoil. h+&8   Sincetheskinlubricantsdescribedbythecommenterwouldqualifyasprotectiveoilsthat   arenotsubjecttotheemissionlimitsinthefinalrule,wedonotbelievethatthedefinitionof b highperformancecoatingsshouldbeexpandedtoincludecoatingssubjecttoFDArequirements. t ThecommenterprovidednootherexamplesofcoatingssubjecttoFDArequirementsthatshould & beincludedinthedefinitionofhighperformancecoatings. 8    Comment:Anothercommenter(IVD21)requestedthatEPAexpandthedefinitionfor    highperformancecoatingtoaccountforotherhighperformancecharacteristicsthatmaybe  L  neededinacoating,suchasresistancetocorrosivematerials(e.g.,aviationhydraulicfluid)or ^  othercharacteristicsbeyondthatoftypicalgeneralusematerials.     Response:Thecommenterprovidednodataonthespecificcharacteristicsthatshouldbe "r  includedintheexpandeddefinitionofhighperformancecoating,beyondthesingleexample   providedinthecommentletter(resistancetoaviationhydraulicfluid),andprovidednodata 6 indicatingthatcoatingspossessingthispropertycouldnotcomplywiththegeneralusecoating H emissionlimit.Therefore,thedefinitionofhighperformancecoatinghasnotbeenexpandedto  includethisspecificcharacteristic.  \   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD16)requestedthatthedefinitionofhighperformance n architecturalcoatingsbeexpandedtoincludeothercoatingswithspecializedperformance    characteristicssimilartothoseintheproposeddefinition.Thesecoatingsincludealuminum 2" extrusionsonhighrisebuildings;coatingwithflexibleproperties;andaluminumwindow $ frames.ThecommenternotedthattwoofthemoststringentstateVOCrulesformetalpart F& surfacecoatingoperations(SouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict(SCAQMD)Rule1107 X ( andBayAreaAirQualityManagementDistrict(BAAQMD)Regulation8,Rule19)alsohave ! * separateemissionlimitsforhighperformancearchitecturalcoatings. #l,   Anothercommenter(IVD51)believesthatEPAshouldexpandthedefinitionofhigh ~$. performancearchitecturalcoatingtoincludecoatingsusedonmetalsotherthanextruded %0!0 aluminumthatmeettheperformancerequirementsofArchitecturalAluminumManufacturers B'"2 Association(AAMA)publication605.22000.Thecommenterarguedthatifacoatingcanpass (#4 thetestmethodssetforthbytheAAMAinthecurrentstandardforaluminumcoatings,the *V%6  coatingshouldbedefinedashighperformance,regardlessofthesurfacecoated.However,the h+&8 commenterconcededthattheAAMAdoesnotendorsetheusetheAAMAstandardsoutsidethe  materialsforwhichthematerialwasintended. b    Onecommenter(IVD19)suggestedthatEPAaddtheword aluminumbefore t  subsectionsinthedefinitionof highperformancearchitecturalcoatingforclarity. &   SeveralcommentersnotedthattheAAMAspecificationcitedintheproposedrule 8  (AAMA605.21980)hasbeenupdatedandthefinalruleshouldincludetheupdated    specificationstoavoidconfusion.Twocommenters(IVD12,IVD51)notedthatthe  L  specificationhasbeenupdatedtoAAMA260502.Twoothercommenters(IVD16,IVD37) ^  recommendedthatEPArevisethedefinitionof highperformancearchitecturalcoatingto   includebothAAMA260402andAAMA260502.Accordingtothecommenters,AAMA "r  260402isanewerversionofafiveyearspecification,similartoAAMA605.21980,and   AAMA260502isanew10yearspecification.Anothercommenter(IVD17)recommended 6 replacingtheproposedAAMA605.21980specificationwithAAMA260498and260598. H   Response:Thedefinitionofhighperformancearchitecturalcoatingusedintheproposed  andfinalruleisconsistentwiththedefinitionusedintheStateVOCrulescitedbycommenter  \ IVD16.SincetheAAMAdoesnotendorsetheuseoftheAAMAstandardbeyondthematerial n forwhichitwasintended(aluminum),thedefinitionofhighperformancearchitecturalcoating    hasnotbeenexpandedtoincludecoatingsusedonothermetal(nonaluminum)substrates. 2"   Wehavenotinsertedtheword aluminumbefore subsectionsinthedefinitionofhigh $ performancearchitecturalcoatings.Sincethedefinitionmeans anycoatingappliedto F& architecturalsubsectionswhichisrequiredtomeetthespecificationsofArchitecturalAluminum X ( ManufacturersAssociationspublicationnumberAAMA605.21980andthespecificationis ! * notintendedforsubstratesotherthanaluminum,thesuggestedclarificationisunnecessary. #l,   Thefinalruleincludesthemostrecentspecifications(AAMA260402and ~$. AAMA2605-02)inthedefinitionofhighperformancearchitecturalcoatings. %0!0   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD38)suggestedthatExtremePerformance B'"2 Fluoropolymer(EPFP)coatings(e.g.,Teflon)shouldbeexemptfromthisrule.The (#4 commenternotedthatbothSCAQMDRule1107andBAAQMDRegulation8,Rule19exempt *V%6 EPFPcoatings(definedinthoserulesas solidfilmlubricants)fromallrequirements. h+&8 Accordingtothecommenters,thesecoatingsareusedwhenoneormoreofseveralperformance ,(: criteriaarerequiredincludingnonsticksurface,chemicalresistance,widetemperaturerange,  FDAspecifications,andothers.ThecommenterclaimedthatwaterborneEPFPcoatings,for b manyapplications,donotachievesatisfactoryabrasionresistance,adhesion,thinness,andother t performancecriteria.Accordingtothecommenters,EPFPcoatingsdonotmeetthedefinition & highperformancecoatingsintheproposedrule. 8    Thecommenter(IVD38)requestedthatEPFPcoatingsbecompletelyexemptbecause    thatwouldclearlyindicatetoStatepermittingagenciesthatEPFPcoatingsshouldnotbesubject  L  toVOClimitsforgeneralusecoatings.Currentlythisdeterminationneedstobemadeforeach ^  permit.  ThecommenterrequestedthatifEPFPcoatingsarenotexemptfromthefinalrule,they   shouldbeincludedinthedefinitionofhighperformancecoating. "r    Thecommenter(IVD38)offeredadefinitionofEPFPcoatingsandthematerialsafety   datasheetsfor10differentEPFPcoatingsfromtwodifferentmanufacturers.TheHAPcontents 6 rangefrom1.1to12.4lbHAP/gallonsolids.ThecommenternotedthattotalestimatedEPFP H coatinguseisabout60,000gallonsperyearintheU.S.withHAPemissionsofabout45tonsper  year.ThecommenterdidnotprovideanydataonrepresentativeemissionratesfromEPFP  \ coatingoperations.DataonHAPcontentforonlyafewofthesecoatingswereincludedinthe n metalpartssurveydatabase,butthesedatawereconsistentwiththedataprovidedbythe    commenter. 2"   Response:BasedontheHAPcontentdataandperformancerequirementsfulfilledby $ EPFPcoatings,weagreethatEPFPcoatingsshouldnotbesubjecttothegeneraluseemission F& limit.Therefore,thefinalruleincludesasubcategoryforEPFPcoatingssubjecttoanemission X ( limitfornewandexistingsourcesof1.5kgf  g organicf  g HAP/litercoatingsolids(12.4lbf  g organic ! * f  g HAP/galcoatingsolids)f  g Ԁusedf  g Ԁbasedonthedatareceivedwiththepubliccomments.Thislimitis #l, morestringentthanthehighperformancelimitbecausethedataprovidedbythecommenter ~$. indicatethatthesecoatingscanmeetamorestringentlimit.Sincesufficientdatawereavailable %0!0 toestablishaHAPcontentlimitforthesecoatings,anexemptionforthesecoatingsisnotneeded B'"2 inthefinalmiscellaneousmetalpartsrule.  (#4 @   8.0NEWSOURCEAPPLICABILITY roHԈ  `   Comment:Twocommenters(IVD17,IVD36)supportedtheproposedcriteriaforthe  8  applicabilityofnewsourceMACTwithrespecttothedefinitionsofanewsourceanda J  reconstructedsource.However,twocommenters(IVD17,IVD24)requestedthatEPAclarify   thedefinitionofexistingsourcewhentheapplicabilityofasourcechangesfromoneNESHAPto ^  another.ThecommentersrequestedthatEPAshouldmakeitclearthatfacilitieswithexisting p coatingoperationsthatchoosetocomplywithoneNESHAPinsteadofanothershouldbe " consideredexistingsources,ifthesurfacecoatingoperationswerepresentbeforetheswitch. 4   Response:Ifametalpartssurfacecoatingaffectedsourcewasconstructedor  reconstructedafterAugust13,2002,thenitisconsideredanewsource.Ifametalpartssurface H coatingaffectedsourcewaspresentbeforethatdate,thenitisconsideredanexistingsource.A Z sourcecanbecomeanewsourceonlyifitisconstructedorreconstructed.Thefinalrule   63.3882(c)clearlystatesthatanaffectedsourceisanewsourceifitcommencesconstruction n  afterAugust13,2002andtheconstructionisofacompletelynewmiscellaneousmetalpartsand " productscoatingfacilitywherepreviouslynomiscellaneousmetalpartsandproductssurface 2$ coatingfacilityhadexisted.Thefinalrule63.3882(d)refersto63.2forthedefinitionof D!& reconstruction.Thedefinitionofreconstructionin63.2oftheNESHAPGeneralProvisions "( includesreplacementofcomponentssuchthatthefixedcapitalcostsofthenewcomponents $X* include50percentofthefixedcapitalcoststhatwouldberequiredtoconstructacomparable j% , newsource.Acoatingoperationcouldmeetthedefinitionofanaffectedsourcesubjecttoone &". NESHAPandthenbecomeanaffectedsourcesubjecttoadifferentNESHAPwithout .(~#0 performingconstructionorreconstruction,forexample,byswitchingjustthetypeofpartthatis )$2 coatedwithoutaddingorreplacingequipment.Therefore,ifacoatingoperationbegancoating *B&4 miscellaneousmetalpartsandproductsafterAugust13,2002withoutperformingconstructionor T,'6 reconstruction,itwouldstillbeconsideredanexistingsourceandsubjecttotheemissionlimits  andcompliancedatesforexistingsources.Ifsomeconstructionorreconstructionwere b associatedwiththatshifttocoatingmiscellaneousmetalpartsandproducts,thenthesource t wouldneedtodeterminewhetherthatactivityqualifiedthatsourceasaneworreconstructed & sourceaccordingtothelanguagein63.3882oftheMiscellaneousMetalPartsandProducts 8  NESHAPandtheNESHAPGeneralProvisionsofsubpartA.      Comment:Onecommenter(IVD13)requestedthatEPAconfirmthattheaffected  L  facilityisallexistingcoatingoperationsatafacility,whenconsideringthecostthresholdfor ^  reconstructionsthatwouldcauseanexistingsourcetobecomeanewsource.Asanexample,ifa   sourceaddsanewcoatinglinebutthecostislessthan50percentofthecostofallfacility "r  coatingoperations,thenewlineisconsideredpartoftheexistingsourceandnotanewsource.     Response:Thecommenterisincorrectinassumingthatthecostthresholdisallofthe 6 existingcoatingoperationsatafacilitywhenconsideringthecostthresholdforreconstructions. H   Section63.2oftheGeneralProvisionstopart63(40CFR63,subpartA)define  reconstructionasfollows: Reconstruction,unlessotherwisedefinedinarelevantstandard,  \ meansthereplacementofcomponentsofanaffectedorapreviouslynonaffectedsourcetosuch n anextentthat:(1)Thefixedcapitalcostofthenewcomponentsexceeds50percentofthefixed    capitalcostthatwouldberequiredtoconstructacomparablenewsource;and(2)Itis 2" technologicallyandeconomicallyfeasibleforthereconstructedsourcetomeettherelevant $ standard(s)establishedbytheAdministrator(oraState)pursuanttosection112oftheAct.Upon F& reconstruction,anaffectedsource,orastationarysourcethatbecomesanaffectedsource,is X ( subjecttorelevantstandardsfornewsources,includingcompliancedates,irrespectiveofany ! * changeinemissionsofhazardousairpollutantsfromthatsource. #l,   Itisimportanttonotethatthedefinitionofreconstructioninvolvesthereplacementof ~$. componentsofanaffectedsource,andthemetalpartsruledefineseachaffectedsourceasthe %0!0 collectionofallcoatingoperations,materials,andequipmentthatareusedforthesurfacecoating B'"2 ofmiscellaneousmetalpartsandproductswithineachsubcategory.(See63.3882(b).) (#4 Therefore,itispossibletoreconstructtheaffectedsourceapplicabletoasinglesubcategory *V%6  withoutreconstructingallofthecoatingoperationsatafacility. h+&8   Forexample,ifafacilityhasonlyonecoatinglineforrubbertometalcoatingoperations,   thenthecostthresholdforreconstructionappliestothatsinglelinebecausethatsingleline b constitutestheaffectedsourceforthatsubcategory.Ifafacilityhastwoormorelinesforrubber t tometalcoating,thenthecostthresholdappliestoalloftherubbertometallines.Ifthesame & facilityalsohasageneralusecoatingoperation,thenthecostthresholdfordeterminingwhether 8  therubbertometalaffectedsourcewasreconstructedwouldnotincludethegeneralusecoating    operationbecausethatisaseparatesubcategoryandconstitutesaseparateaffectedsource.  L    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD11)arguedthatanewsourceshouldbeonethat ^  commencesconstructionafterthepublicationdateofthefinalrule.     Response:Section112(a)(4)oftheCleanAirActdefinesanewsourceas astationary "r  sourcetheconstructionorreconstructionofwhichiscommencedaftertheAdministratorfirst   proposesaregulationunderthissectionestablishinganemissionstandardapplicabletosuch 6 source.SincethedefinitionofanewsourceisspecifiedintheCleanAirAct,EPAhasno H discretiontolimitnewsourcestoonlythosethatcommencedconstructionafterpublicationof  thefinalrule,ratherthanafterthepublicationdateoftheproposedrule.Theapplicabilityofthis  \ ruletonewsourcesisconsistentwithotherstandardsestablishedundersection112oftheClean n AirAct.       Comment:Onecommenter(IVD17)requestedthattherulestatethatcontrol 2" technologiesinstalledtocomplywiththemetalpartsrulewillbeexemptfromNewSource $ Review(NSR).Anothercommenter(IVD44)agreedthatEPAshouldspecificallyexemptthe F& useofaddoncontrolsfromtriggeringtheNSRandPreventionofSignificantDeterioration X ( (PSD)programswheninstalledtocomplywiththemetalpartsNESHAP.Anothercommenter ! * (IVD36)agreedandrequestedthatEPAincludelanguageintherulethatwillensurethat #l, changesmadetocomplywiththerule,includingthereplacementofapplicationequipmentorthe ~$. installationofaddoncontrols,willnottriggeradditionalregulatoryrequirements,suchasNSR, %0!0 PSD,orNewSourcePerformanceStandards.Thecommenter(IVD36)suggestedlanguage, B'"2 whichthecommenternotedissimilartolanguagefoundintheCokeOvenNESHAP[40CFR (#4 63,subpartL,63.307(f)]: *V%6 0  Foranyexisting,neworreconstructedfacility,anychangetothefacilityrelatedto h+&8 compliancewithanyoftherequirementscontainedinthissubpart,includingthose ,(: operationscoveredunderthissubpartbyvirtueof63.3881(d),willnotcausethe  requirementsofPreventionofSignificantDeterioration,NewSourceReview,orNew b SourcePerformanceStandardstoapplytosuchfacility.t(#(#   Response:WearenotincludinginthefinalruleanexemptionfromNSR,PSD,and & NSPSforthosecoatingoperationsthataremodifiedorupgradedinordertocomplywiththis 8  rule.ItwouldbeinappropriatetoincludelanguageinthisNESHAPthatcouldaffectthe    applicabilityoftheseotherprogramssincethesearebetterhandledonacasebycasebasisbythe  L  StatesandRegionsimplementingtheseotherregulations.However,wedonotexpect ^  compliancewiththisruletorequirechangestoexistingcoatingoperationsthatcouldtrigger   applicabilityundertheseotherprograms.Theonlypossibleexceptionscouldbethosefew "r  facilitiesthatinstallcombustiondevicesthatmayleadtoanincreaseinNOxemissionsandthese   shouldbeeligibleforthepollutioncontrolprojectexclusionintheNSRregulations.(See67FR 6 80186,December31,2002forthemostrecentNSRregulationamendmentswhichaddress H pollutioncontrolprojects.)     \ @   9.0EMISSIONLIMITS c. Ԉ  `   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD35)suggestedthatEPAshouldnotmakeanychanges  8  thatwouldmaketheemissionlimitsmorestringentorrequireexistingsourcestouseaddon J  controls.Thecommenterbelievedthatcompliancewouldalreadyrequiresignificantcapital   costsanditisuncertainwhethermorelowHAPcoatingalternativeswillbeavailablebythe ^  compliancedate. p   Response:Weagreewiththecommenterthatnochangesshouldbemadethatwould " maketheemissionlimitsmorestringent.Webelievethattheproposedandfinalemissionlimits 4 accuratelyreflectMACTforthissourcecategory.    Comment:Twocommenters(IVD11,IVD19)hadspecificrequestsregardingthe H emissionlimits.Onecommenter(IVD11)arguedthattheconversionof0.12kgHAP/liter Z coatingsolidsshouldbe1.01lbHAP/galcoatingsolids(not1.00lbHAP/galcoatingsolids).   Anothercommenter(IVD19)statedthatthenumberofsignificantdigitsintheemissionlimits n  formetricandEnglishshouldbeidenticaloratleastcomparable.Thecommenter(IVD19) " suggestedthefollowingchanges: 2$ Generaluse,existingsources:0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2.60to2.6lbHAP/gallonsolids;"((#(# Generaluse,newsources:0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#1.94to1.9lbHAP/gallonsolids;#)(#(# Highperformance,newandexistingsources:0  27.54to27.5lbHAP/gallonsolids;~$*(#(# Rubbertometalbonding,existingsources:0  0(#(#37.70to37.7lbHAP/gallonssolids.j% +(#(#  Rubbertometalbonding,newsources:0  0(#(#6.80to6.8lbHAP/gallonsolids;V&!,(#(# Magnetwire,existingsources:0 h 0h(#h(#0(#(#1.00to1.0lbHAP/gallonsolids;B'"-(#(# Magnetwire,newsources:0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0.05to0.050kgHAP/litersolids;.(~#.(#(#   Response:ThefinalemissionlimitshavebeenrevisedsothatthemetricandEnglish |*%1 equivalentshaveeithertwoorthreesignificantfigures.Compliancewiththeapplicableemission +.'3 limitisdeterminedbythecalculatedvaluefororganicHAPemissionrateforeachcoating @-(5 operationroundedtothesamenumberofsignificantfiguresastherelevantemissionlimitinthe  finalrule.Sourcesshouldcarryonemoresignificantfigurethroughtheircompliance b calculationsthanpresentedintheemissionlimitstoaccuratelycomparetheiremissionratesto t thelimits. &   Theexistingsourceemissionlimitformagnetwirecoatinghasbeenroundedfrom1.00 8  lbHAP/galloncoatingsolidsto1.0lbHAP/gallonofcoatingsolids.Thesameresultwouldhave    beenobtainedhadEPAstartedwith1.01lbHAP/gallonofcoatingsolids.ThepolicyoftheEPA  L  isthatwhenmetriclimitsandEnglishequivalentlimitsarepresentinthesamerule,compliance ^  willbebasedonthemetriclimits.     Comment:Severalcommenters(IVD28,IVD29,IVD47,IVD63)supportedthe "r  emissionlimitsandthesubcategories.Onecommenter(IVD63)supportedsettingtheemission   limitsforthegeneralusecategoryattheMACTfloor.Onecommenter(IVD28)supportedthe 6 subcategoryandseparateemissionlimitsproposedforrubbertometaladhesiveapplications.In H addition,thecommenter(IVD28)supportedtheproposedfacilitywideemissionlimits,stating  thattheflexibilityreducesthepotentialcomplianceburdenoftherule.Anothercommenter(IV  \ D29)agreedwiththeseparatelimitonhighperformancearchitecturalcoatings,statingthat n coatingsuppliershavedeterminedthatreformulationisnotanoption.      Response:TheEPAagreeswiththecommentersontheemissionlimitsand 2" subcategoriesandthesehavebeenretainedinthefinalrule.AsnotedinSection7.7ofthis $ document,wehaveaddedasubcategoryandemissionlimitsforEPFPcoatings. F&   Comment:Threecommenters(IVD36,IVD63,IVD29)supportedemissionlimits X ( basedona12monthrollingaverage.Onecommenter(IVD63)believestherollingaverageis ! * neededtoaddresstheneedsofthisdiversesourcecategorytoaccommodatemonthtomonth #l, variationinthetypesofpartsproducedandthecoatingsused. ~$.   Response:TheEPAagreeswiththecommentersandcompliancebasedona12month %0!0 rollingaveragehasbeenretainedinthefinalrule.However,therulealsocontainsacompliant B'"2 materialoptionwhichwillallowafacilitytodeterminecompliancewithouthavingtotrack (#4 materialsonarolling12monthbasis.Thiswillfacilitatecompliancewithfewercalculationsfor *V%6  thosefacilitiesthatcantakeadvantageofthisoption. h+&8   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD33)statedthatEPAshouldincludeasappliedlimits   pergallonofcoatingfordifferentcategoriesofcoatings(e.g.,topcoat,primer),sincenoneofthe b currentcomplianceoptionsarepracticalforDoDfacilities.Thecommenterpredictedthatitwill t beimpossibletoreformulateallDoDcoatingstomeetthecompliantmaterialsoptionwithin3 & years.Thecommenteralsonotedthatitisimpossibletopredictcoatingneedsintothefuturein 8  ordertousetheaveragingoptionsincecompliancecanonlybedeterminedafterthefact.    Accordingtothecommenter,useofacoatingcannotbestoppedifthefacilityaverage  L  approachestheemissionlimitforasubcategorywithout,incertaincases,compromisingnational ^  security.Finally,thecommenterarguedthattheproposedaddoncontroloptionwillnot   alleviatetheburdenassociatedwithtrackingindividualcoatingsandsolvents. "r    Response:ThefinalrulewillnotapplytoDoDsurfacecoatingoperations.TheEPAwill   bedevelopingaseparateNESHAPforDoDcoatingoperationsthatarenotcurrentlycoveredby 6 theAerospaceManufacturingandReworkNESHAPortheShipbuildingandShipRepair H NESHAP.Thesecommentsontheformatoftheemissionlimitswillbetakenintoconsideration  inthedevelopmentofthatNESHAP.  \   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD33)statedthatEPAshouldexcludecleaningsolvents n inthenumeratoroftheemissionlimits.Thecommenternotedthatifpainttransferefficiencyis    increased,theamountofHAPcleaningsolventsusedremainsthesame,buttheamountofsolids 2" inthedenominatorisdecreased.Theresultisthatapplicatorsarediscouragedfromincreasing $ paintapplicationtransferefficiency. F&   Response:Wedisagreewiththecommenterthatincludingsolventinthecompliance X ( calculationswilldiscourageincreasesinpaintapplicationefficiency.Thepaintsusedina ! * coatingoperationaremoreexpensivethanthecleanupsolvents,sothereisastrongeconomic #l, incentivetoconservepaintsthroughincreasedtransferefficiencythatwilloutweighanyeffect ~$. fromtheformatoftheregulatorycalculations.Increasedtransferefficiencyalsoreducesthe %0!0 consumptionandcostoffloorandwallcoveringsandboothfilters,addingtotheeconomic B'"2 incentivetoimprovetransferefficiency. (#4   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD43)recommendedthatthefinalruleprovideacredit *V%6 forHAPreductionsachievedthroughincreasedtransferefficiency,whichresultsinlower h+&8 coatingsuse.Thecommenterincludedtwopossibleapproaches: ,(: 0  1.0` (#(#Provideacreditforhighefficiencyapplicationmethodsthatwouldbeappliedto  (subtractedfrom)thecalculatedlbHAP/gallonsolidsusage.Thepercentage  wouldreflectthereductionincoatinguserelativetospraycoating:5percentfor t HVLP,electrostatic,orotherhighefficiencyspraycoating;30percentforvacuum ` coatinganddipcoating.L ` (#` (# 0  2.0` (#(#Developaseparatestandardforvacuumcoatinganddipcoatingthatprovidesa $ t higherlbHAP/gallonsolidslimit,reflectingthesameleveloftotalHAP  ` emissionsasforsprayappliedcoatings. L ` (#` (#   Asecondcommenter(IVD37)statedthatotherbestpractices,suchasusingelectrostatic $  paintapplicationtechniques,shouldbeencouragetoreduceoverallpaintuse. 6    Response:Itisnotfeasibleorpracticaltoincorporateacreditforincreasedtransfer   efficiencyasrecommendedbythecommenter.Thepracticesforwhichthecommenterwould J providecreditarealreadybeingemployedbymanyfacilitiesinthemetalpartssurfacecoating \ industry,soitwouldbehardtodeterminehowthecreditshouldbeadjustedtoreflectthecurrent   baselineofcoatingapplicationpractices.Inaddition,asnotedintheresponsetotheprevious  p commentinthissection,facilitiesalreadyhavestrongeconomicincentivestoemployincreased  transferefficiencymethodswheretheyarepracticalandfeasible.Theruleaswrittenwouldalso 4 allowincreasedtransferefficiencyaspartofacompliancestrategyinsomecases.Forexample, F ifafacilityiscomplyingwiththeemissionratealternativeforamixtureofmetalpartscoating  operationsincludingsomerelativelylowHAPcoatingmaterialsandsomehighHAPcoating  Z! materials,thesourcecoulduseatechniquetoimprovethetransferefficiencyofthehighHAP l# coatingoperationsandreducetheuseofthehighHAPcoatings.Thiscouldhelpachievethe  % overallemissionratelimit. 0"'   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD59)suggestedthatEPAshouldconsiderinorganic #) HAPmorethoroughlyinthefinalrule.Thecommenternotedthatthepreamblestatedthat $D + inorganicHAPfromcoatingsaretypicallycontrolledbydryfiltersorwatercurtains(67FR V&!- 52784,August13,2002).Therefore,thecommentersuggestedthatthesecontrolsaretheMACT '#/ floorforinorganicHAP. )j$1   Response:Asstatedintheproposalpreamble,mostofthecoatingsusedinthis |*%3 subcategorydonotcontaininorganicHAP.InorganicHAPispresentonlyinafewspeciality +.'5 coatings.NoinorganicHAPwerereportedincleaningmaterials.Wherecoatingscontaining @-(7 inorganicHAPareapplied,mostoftheinorganicHAPcomponentsremainassolidsontheparts  beingcoated,oraredepositedontothewalls,floorandgratesofthesprayboothsinwhichthey b areapplied.AsmallfractionoftheinorganicHAPparticlesareentrainedinthespraybooth t exhaustair.Throughoutthedatagatheringefforts(includingsitevisits,industryquestionnaires, & andliteraturesearches)forthisrulemaking,wefoundthatcoatingapplicationoperationswere 8  predominatelyequippedwitheitherdryfiltersorwaterwashsystemstoreducetheamountof    overspray >#  4      ׀emittedtotheatmosphere.Suchcontrolsystemsarecommoninmanyothercoating  L  industriesaswell,andareinstalledandmaintainedforanumberofreasons.Thistypeofcontrol ^  reducestheamountofcoatingdropletsemittedtotheatmosphere.BecausetheinorganicHAP   arecontainedinthesedroplets,thesecontrolsystemsreducetheamountofinorganicHAP "r  emissions.Thesecontrolshavebeeningeneraluseformanyyears.Weknowofnoreasonwhy   theindustrywouldremovethesecontrolsafterthefinalruleispromulgated. 6   GiventhecombinationofverylowusageofcoatingscontaininginorganicHAPinthis H surfacecoatingindustryandthecurrent(andexpectedcontinued)useofcontrolstoreduce  oversprayemissions,webelievethatlevelsoforganicHAPemissionsareverylow.Atthistime,  \ itdoesnotappearthatemissionsofinorganicHAPfromthissourcecategorywarrantFederal n regulation.Includingcontrolrequirementssuchasdryfiltersorwaterwashsystemsintherule    wouldnotbeexpectedtoresultinadditionalemissionreductionandwouldonlyaddtothe 2" regulatoryburdenontheindustryandthepermittingauthorities.Forthesereasons,wehavenot $ addedemissionlimitsforinorganicHAPinthefinalrule. F&    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD65)requestedthattheworkpracticerequirementsfor X ( solventsshouldrequirestoragein coveredcontainersandnot closedcontainers.The ! * commenterarguedthattheirexperienceisthatinspectorsinterprettheterm closedtoostrictly, #l, implyingthatcontainersshouldbe sealed,whichisnotpracticalwhenmaterialmustbeadded ~$. toorremovedfromacontainer. %0!0   Response:Therequirementscitedbythecommenterarethefollowingfrom B'"2 63.3893(b)(1),(3),and(4)andremainunchangedinthefinalrule: (#4   (1)AllorganicHAPcontainingcoatings,thinnersand/orotheradditives,cleaning  materials,andwastematerialsmustbestoredinclosedcontainers. b   (3)OrganicHAPcontainingcoatings,thinnersand/orotheradditives,cleaning t materials,andwastematerialsmustbeconveyedfromonelocationtoanotherinclosed & containersorpipes. 8    (4)MixingvesselswhichcontainorganicHAPcontainingcoatingsandothermaterials    mustbeclosedexceptwhenaddingto,removing,ormixingthecontents.  L    Webelievetheintentofthelanguageintheruleisclearfromitscontextandwouldnot ^  causeanymisunderstandinginpracticeamongthoseemployingacommonsenseinterpretation   oftherule.Theterm closedmay,forexample,meanreplacingascrewoncapifoneis "r  availableforacanordrum,oritmaymeanreplacingthecoverforapail.Tocompletelyavoid   thepotentialforconfusioncitedbythecommenter,therulewouldneedtodefinespecificwork 6 practicesfornearlyeverytypeofcontainerthatcouldbeencounteredinasurfacecoatingfacility. H Thiswouldnotbepracticalandwouldmaketheruleunnecessarilycomplicated.   @  10.0COMPLIANCEOPTIONS 'DNԈ  `   10.10  GeneralCommentsonComplianceOptions 'N 8 (#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD13)statedthatEPAshouldverifythatafacilitycan J  choosedifferentcontroloptionsfordifferentlinesatasinglefacility:   \c  0  \c P"0` (#(#  Afacilitycanchoosethecompliantmaterialsoptionforanecoatlineandthe J emissionrateoptionforthetopcoatline.\c P4P݌6` (#` (# Ќ  \c  0  \c=Q"0` (#(#  Ifafacilitychoosestheaddoncontroloptionforasingleline,theworkpractices  standardsapplytoonlythatline.\c=QdQ݌` (#` (# Ќ  \c  0  \cjR"0` (#(#  Ifafacilityhasametalonlylineandalinethatcoatsbothmetalpartsandplastic  parts,themetalonlylinecancomplywithjustthemetalpartsMACTandthe n metalplasticlinecancomplywiththepresumablymorestringentplasticparts Z MACT.\cjRR݌  F` (#` (# O  Response:Thecommenter'sfirsttwoexamplesarecorrect.Xv XXXYoumaychoosedifferent  complianceoptionsfordifferentlinesatthesamefacility.Forexample,onelinemaybeableto F usethecompliantmaterialsoption,whileanotherlinemayneedtheflexibilitytousehigherand X ! lowerHAPmaterialsunderoneoftheemissionratecomplianceoptions.#XX XXvT#ԀXv XXXItmaybemore ! # practicaltouseanaddoncontrolforsomecoatingoperations,suchasaspecificline,thanfor #l% others.Ifyouhaveanaddoncontroldeviceonsomecoatingoperations,theworkpractice ~$' standardf  g f  g sapplyf  g Ԁtoonlythecoatingsandoperationscontrolledbytheaddoncontrols.#XX XXvHV#Ԁ %0!)   Thecommenter'sthirdexampleisnotentirelycorrect.Asnotedinsection6.0ofthis B'"+ document,theoptiontocomplywiththemorestringentNESHAPhasnotbeenretainedinthe (#- finalruleandinsteadafacilitywouldhavetheoptionofusingeitherthepredominantactivity *V%/ alternativeorthefacilityspecificemissionlimitalternativeifthefacilitymeetstheapplicability h+&1 criteriaofmorethanonesurfacecoatingNESHAP. ,(3   Anotherapproachthatyoumayuseistheequivalencybypermitoptionin40CFRpart  63,subpartE(63.94).Underthisapproach,youmaydesignanemissionscontrolprogramthat b issuitedforyourprocessorplantaslongasyoucandemonstratethatyourprogramwillachieve t thesameemissionsreductionsastheNESHAP.YoumustthenworkwithyourState,local,or & tribalairpollutioncontrolagencytosubmitanequivalencydemonstration.Thisequivalency 8  demonstrationwillbereviewedbytheappropriateEPARegionalOffice.Theequivalency    demonstrationisapprovedaspartoftheoperatingpermitapprovalprocess.Formore  L  information,pleaseseethesection112(l)websiteat ^  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112(l)/112lpg.html.f  g      Comment:Onecommenter(IVD44)requestedthatEPAclarifytheruleforfacilitiesin "r  whichsomeoperationsaresubjecttodifferentsubcategorylimits,andwhensomeoperations   complyusingaddoncontrolsandsomedonot.Thecommenterstatedthatitisnotclearwhether 6 theyshouldbeaveragedorkeptseparate.IfasourcecouldoptintoasingleNESHAP,itcould H averagealltheHAPoverallthesolidstodemonstratecompliancewiththemoststringentlimit.    Response:Ifafacilityissubjecttomultiplesubcategoryemissionlimitstheycould  \ complywitheachseparately,usethefacilityspecificemissionlimitalternative,orinsomecases n describedinmoredetailinsection6.0ofthisdocument,theycouldcomplywiththepredominant    activityalternativeifthegeneraluseormagnetwireemissionlimitsrepresenttheirpredominant 2" use.Onceafacilityhasdeterminedtheirpredominantactivityorfacilityspecificemissionlimit, $ theycandemonstratecomplianceusing:thecompliantmaterialsoption;theemissionrate F& withoutaddoncontroloption;ortheemissionratewithaddoncontroloption.Asdiscussedin X ( thefirstresponseinthissection,theycouldusedifferentcomplianceoptionsfordifferentlines. ! * Forexample,theycoulddemonstratecompliancewiththeiremissionlimitusingtheemission #l, ratewithoutaddoncontrolsoptionforonelineandtheemissionratewithaddoncontrolsoption ~$. foranotherline.Thefinalruledoesnotincludeequationsthatwouldallowafacilitytoaverage %0!0 betweenoperationswithaddoncontrolsandotherswithoutaddoncontrols.However,afacility B'"2 couldapplyforpermissiontodosoundertheequivalencybypermitoptionin40CFRpart63, (#4 subpartE(63.94),asdescribedintheresponsetothefirstcommentinthissection. *V%6   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD63)requestedthatEPAclarifyintherulehowto h+&8 switchbetweencomplianceoptions.Thecommenterposedquestionsaboutdetermining ,(: compliancewhenswitchingbetweenthecompliantmaterialsoptionandoptionsthatrequire12  monthrollingaverages: b "3"  0  3Oh2ږ3  0` (#(#  Doesonecompleteanentire12monthinitialdemonstrationperiodbeforestarting & the12monthrollingaverages,ormustoneusetheEmissionRateWithoutAdd   onControlsOptionforthefirstyear?3Ohh݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  0  3j2ږ3  0` (#(#  Mustonecompleteafull12monthperiodusingtheEmissionRateWithoutAdd    onControlsOptionbeforebeingabletoswitchbacktotheCompliantMaterial r   Option?3jUj݌^ ` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  0  3k2ږ3  0` (#(#  Mayonelookbackandswitchbetweencomplianceoptionsretroactively?3kk݌6 ` (#` (# Ќ  |hThecommenter(IVD63)statedthatthefinalruleshouldprovidemaximumflexibilityin   switchingbetweenoptionsaslongasallcomplianceperiodsdemonstratecomplianceunderat 6 leastoneoptionandthenecessarydataareavailableforcalculatingtheneeded12month H averages.    Response:Xv XXXYoumayswitchbetweencomplianceoptionsatanytimeaslongasyounotify  \ yourpermittingauthorityinyournextsemiannualcompliancereport,andyoucomplywithall n monitoring,recordkeeping,andreportingneededforthecomplianceoptiontowhichyouare   switching.Keepinmind,however,thatifyouswitchfromonecomplianceoptiontoanother, 2 youmustbeabletodemonstratecompliancebasedontheprevious12monthsofdata.Asa ! result,youmayneeddatafromtheprevious12monthsofoperationthatwerenotspecifically F# requiredbytheoptionunderwhichyouwerepreviouslydemonstratingcompliance.Thiscould X % beespeciallytrueifyouswitchedfromthecompliantmaterialsoptiontotheemissionrate ! ' withoutaddoncontrolsoptionortheemissionratewithaddoncontrolsoption.#XX XXvbn# #l)   Ifafacilityisswitchingtoeithertheemissionratewithoutaddoncontrolsoptionorthe ~$+ emissionratewithaddoncontrolsoption,thefacilitymustbeabletodemonstratethattheywere %0!- incompliancefortheentire12monthcomplianceperiodthatendedineachmonthincludedin B'"/ theirsemiannualcompliancereport.Therefore,afacilitywillneedtoperformthecompliance (#1 calculationsincludingdatafor(atfirst)the11monthsbeforetheyswitchedoptions,plusthedata *V%3  forthecurrentmonth. h+&5   Afacilitydoesnotneedtoremainunderoneoptionfor12monthsbeforeswitchingto   anotheroption.Itislikelythatcoatingoperationsthatwereincomplianceunderoneoptionwill b notreducetheabilityofafacilitytocomplyunderadifferentoption.However,switching t complianceoptionsfrequentlycouldmakeitmoredifficultforafacilitytoaccuratelyand & confidentlydemonstratecompliance. 8    Afacilitymustdemonstratecomplianceforeach12monthperiodthatendedduringeach    semiannualreportingperiod.Ifafacilitydeterminesitwasnotincomplianceunderoneoption,  L  itcouldperformthecalculationsunderanotheroptiontodeterminewhetheritwouldbein ^  compliance.Forexample,afacilitymaydeterminethatsomematerialshadhigherthanexpected   HAPlevelsandthefacilitycouldnotusethecompliantmaterialsoption.Ifthefacilityhasall "r  therequireddata,itcouldstilldeterminewhetheritisincomplianceundertheemissionrate   withoutaddoncontrolsoptionforthatparticular12monthcomplianceperiod.However,itis 6 importanttonotethat63.3900(a)(1)oftherulerequiresthatyouremainincomplianceatall H times.    10.20  CompliantMaterialsOption ,zn(#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD44)requestedthattheHAPcontentofthinnersand    solventsnotberestrictedtoabsolutezeroforthecompliantmaterialsoptionbecausetheycan 2" pickuptraceamountsofHAPduringtherecyclingprocess. $   Response:Xv XXXInthefinalrule,wehaveclarifiedthatunderthecompliantmaterials F& complianceoption,thinnersandcleaningsolventsdonotneedtobeabsolutelyzeroHAP.We X ( haveincludedadefinitionofnonHAPmaterialsbasedoncommonreportingthresholdsthatare ! * alreadyinuse.Thinnersandotheradditives,cleaningsolvents,andcoatingsareconsiderednon #l, HAPaslongasthef  g organicf  g HAPleveldoesnotexceedtheOSHAreportingthresholdsforHAP ~$. (0.1percentbyweightforOSHAdefinedcarcinogensand1.0percentbyweightforotherHAP). %0!0 Inaddition,wehaveincludedaprovisionthatyoudonotneedtoredeterminethef  g Ԁorganicf  g ԀHAP B'"2 contentofsolventsthatarerecycledoffsite,ifyouhavedocumentationshowingthatyou (#4 receivedbacktheexactsamesolventyouoriginallysentoffsiteforrecycling.This *V%6 documentationensuresthatthesolventyoureceivebackdoesnotrepresentapotentialnet h+&8 increaseinthef  g organicf  g HAPbeingbroughttothesite.#XX XXv|#ԀThesetwochangesaddressthefactthat ,(: solventscanpickuporretaintraceamountsofHAPfromcoatingsduringtheiruseandthe  recyclingprocess.Xv XXXThefinalrulealsocontainsaprovisionthatyoudonotneedtoredetermine b thef  g Ԁorganicf  g ԀHAPcontentofsolventrecycledonsite.#XX XXv# t   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD09)recommendedthattheruleadoptacompliant & materialsoptionforcoatingsandthatcleaningsolventsberegulatedseparatelybasedonHAP 8  compositionorvaporpressure.Thecommentersuggestedthatcompliancewouldbe    demonstratedbylistingcompliantcoatingsusedeachmonthandtheirlbHAP/gallonsolids,  L  listingcompliantsolventsusedandtheirHAPlevel,andmonthlytotalvolumeofcompliant ^  materialsused.     Asecondcommenter(IVD44)arguedthattherequirementtousethinnersandcleaning "r  solventscontainingnoorganicHAPinthecompliantmaterialsoptionshouldberemovedfrom   therule.ThecommenteralsonotedthattheMACTfloorforthiscategorywasnotbasedonthe 6 HAPcontentofcleaners,andnomentionofnonHAPcleanersandthinnerswasincludedinthe H stakeholderdiscussions.Thecommenterarguedthattheonlyrequirementshouldbethatthe  totalemissionsfromthecoatingsmeettheemissionlimitsintheruleandthesourcemaintain  \ recordssufficienttomakesuchademonstration. n   Response:Thecompliantmaterialsoptionisintendedasasimplewaytodemonstrate    complianceforaspecificsubsetoffacilitiesthatarenotusingaddoncontroldevicestocomply 2" withtheemissionlimitsandwhereallthecoatingstheyuseindividuallymeettheemissionlimits $ inthefinalrule.Additionally,becausetheemissionlimitsandcompliancecalculationsinclude F& thinnersandcleaningmaterials,thisspecificsubsetoffacilitiesalsomustuseonly nonHAP X ( thinnersandcleaningmaterials(asdefinedintherule).Whentheserestrictionsaremet,the ! * compliancedemonstrationburdencanbesignificantlyreduced.Asanincentivetothose #l, facilitiesthatchoosetomeettheemissionlimitsthroughthesepollutionpreventionmeasures,we ~$. haveincludedthislessburdensomecompliancedemonstrationintherule.Facilitiesthatmust %0!0 usecleaningmaterialsorthinnersandotheradditivesthatcontainHAPcanuse EmissionRate B'"2 WithoutAddOnControlsOption,whichwasincludedintheproposedruleandisretainedin (#4 thefinalrule. *V%6   Theresponsestoothercommentsinthisdocumentdiscusswhycleanersareincludedin h+&8 theemissionlimitsintheproposedandfinalrule.Inparticular,seesection3.2ofthisdocument. ,(:   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD17)requestedthatthecompliantmaterialsoption  providealowvolumeexemptionforthinnersandotheradditivesthatcontainsmallamountsof b HAP.Accordingtothecommenter,coatingmanufacturerssometimesprovidecustomerswith t  fixativesforreformulatedcoatingtosolveperformanceproblems(e.g.,storage,application, & cure,oraestheticorphysicalproperties).ThefixativesmaycontainasmallamountofHAP. 8    Response:Thefinalruledoesnotcontainalowvolumeexemptionforthinnersandother    additivesinthecompliantmaterialsoption.Afacilityneedingtousethinnersoradditivesthat  L  donotmeetthedefinitionofnonHAPcandemonstratecomplianceusingtheemissionrate ^  withoutaddoncontrolsoptionforthosecoatingsthatneedHAPcontainingthinnersorother   additives. "r    10.30  EmissionRateWithoutAddonControlsOption ,k6(#(#   Comment:Thecommenter(IVD08)supportedEPAsproposedregulationwhich H wouldallowaweightedaveragingofHAPemissionlevelsacrossallcoatingsusedwithina  singlecategoryatasingle,contiguousfacilityforthepurposeofdeterminingcompliance.  \   Response:Weappreciatethecommenterssupportfortheemissionratewithoutaddon n controlscomplianceoption,andhaveretainedthatoptioninthefinalrule.       Comment:Twocommenters(IVD17,IVD24)requestedthatEPArevise63.3942to 2" recognizethatsomecleaningmaterialsdocontainsomesolidsandshouldbealloweda $ proportionateamountofHAPcontent. F&   Response:TheunitofmassofHAPpervolumeofcoatingsolidsusedwasselectedto X ( normalizetheassessmentoforganicHAPemissionsacrossallaffectedsources.Thisunitwas ! * meanttorelatedirectlytoproductionrates,ontheassumptionthataveragedrycoatingfilm #l, thicknessesarefairlyconstantacrossproducttypes.However,thesolidsthatmaybefoundin ~$. somecleaningmaterialsdonotcontributetothesolidsthatformthedryfilmonthemetalparts %0!0 andproducts.Allowingafacilitytoincludetheminthedenominatorwouldallowthatfacility B'"2 excessemissionscomparedtoafacilitythatusedcleaningmaterialswithoutsolids,eventhough (#4 thetwomayhavethesameproductionrate.Therefore,thesolidsthatmaybefoundincleaning *V%6  materialsarenotallowedinthedenominatorofthecompliancecalculations. h+&8   Comment:Twocommenters(IVD17,IVD24)requestedthat63.3951(emissionrate   withoutaddoncontrols)berevisedsothatonlythosesuboperationsthatdonotmeetthe b compliantmaterialslimitsneedtobeaveragedwithothersuboperationsthatarebelowthelimits t tomeettheemissionrate(averaging)complianceoption.Onlythosesuboperationsdesignated & forinclusionintheaveragingmustbeincludedintheemissionratecalculationstodemonstrate 8  compliance.Othersuboperationswoulddemonstratecompliancewiththecompliantmaterials    optionbasedonHAPcontent.Thecommentersbelievedthatfacilitiesshouldnothavetotrack  L  additionalmaterialswithinanoperationthatindividuallymeetthecompliantmaterialslimits. ^    Anothercommenter(IVD61)proposedthatafacilitywithoutcontrolsbeallowedto   showcompliancebyusingtheemissionsequationsinthestandardforjustthosecoatingswith "r  higherHAPlevelsthanthelimitsandaportionoftheirothercoatingoperationsneededtooffset   thehigherHAPcoatings.Therestofthecoatingsoperationsatthefacilitythatusecoatingsthat 6 individuallymeettheHAPlevelswouldnotbeincludedinthefacilityemissionscalculation,but H wouldmeetthecompliantmaterialsoption.Thiswouldsimplifyrecordkeepingwhile  maintainingcompliance.  \   Response:Asthecommentershavesuggested,youmaychoosedifferentcompliance n optionsfordifferentcoatingoperationsorlinesatthesamefacility,andthefinalrulehasbeen    clarifiedin63.3891toindicatethatthisflexibilityisavailable.Forexample,onelinemaybe 2" abletousethecompliantmaterialsoption,whileanotherlinemayneedtheflexibilitytouse $ higherandlowerHAPmaterialsunderoneoftheemissionratecomplianceoptions.Youmay F& alsousedifferentcomplianceoptionswithinasingleline,aslongasdifferentcomplianceoptions X ( arenotappliedatthesametimetothesamecoatingappliedtoasinglepart.Forexample,most ! * ofthecoatingsusedonaparticularlinemaybeabletoindividuallymeettheemissionlimitfora #l, particularsubcategory,butafewcoatingsmayneedahigherHAPcontent.Youcouldaverage ~$. thesehigherHAPcoatingswithsomeofthelowerHAPmaterialsundertheemissionrate %0!0 withoutaddoncontrolsoptionanddemonstratecompliancefortheseseparately,whiletheother B'"2 lowerHAPcoatingscomplyunderthecompliantmaterialsoption.   (#4  10.40  EmissionRatewithAddonControlsOption  ,2h+&8(#(#    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD37)recommendeda streamlinedequivalency   reportingandcomplianceoption.Thecommenterarguedthatsuchanoptionwouldallowthe b facilitytodemonstratethatitmeetsthelimitswithitsworstcase(highestHAP)coatingandwith t theaddoncontroldevicecaptureandcontrolefficiencymeasuredduringtheperformancetest. & Todemonstratecompliance,thecommenterstatedthatthefacilitywouldthenusesupplier 8  informationtoshowallcoatingsusedduringa6-monthperiodhadlowerHAPthantheworst    casecoating,multiplybytheoverallmaterialsusefortheperiod,andmultiplybythecaptureand  L  controlefficiency. ^    Response:Weagreewiththecommenterthatafacilitymaybeabletodemonstrate   numericallythatunderacertainsetofassumptionsandlimitingconstraints,asinthecommenters "r  example,theyareincompliancewiththeemissionlimits.However,thecompleteuniverseof   possiblecompliancescenarioscannotbeanticipatedinasinglerulemaking.Therefore,thefinal 6 rulecontainsonlythosecomplianceoptionsandequationsandrecordkeepingandreporting H requirementsthatwillatleastdemonstratecomplianceforallaffectedfacilities,andatthesame  timeprovideareasonableamountofflexibilityunderthemostlikelycomplianceoptions.  \   Nevertheless,anotherapproachthatafacilitymayuseistheequivalencybypermitoption n in40CFRpart63,subpartE(63.94).Underthisapproach,afacilitymaydesignanemissions    controlprogramthatissuitedfortheirprocessorplantaslongastheycandemonstratethattheir 2" programwillachievethesameemissionsreductionsastheNESHAP.Theymustthenworkwith $ theirState,local,ortribalairpollutioncontrolagencytosubmitanequivalencydemonstration. F& ThisequivalencydemonstrationwillbereviewedbytheappropriateEPARegionalOffice.The X ( equivalencydemonstrationisapprovedaspartoftheoperatingpermitapprovalprocess.For ! * moreinformation,pleaseseethesection112(l)websiteat #l, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112(l)/112lpg.html.f  g  ~$.   Comment:Twocommenters(IVD17,IVD24)statedthatthefinalruleshouldallow %0!0 thatifafacilitycandemonstratethattheemissionrate,consideringthematerialsused,addon B'"2 controls,andemissioncapturesystems,islessthan50percentoftheapplicableemissionlimitin (#4 63.3890,thenthefacilitywouldbeexemptfromthemonthlycompliancedemonstration,work *V%6  practicestandardsin63.3893,andallrequirementsin63.3960through63.3968. h+&8   Response:TheproposedandfinalruleareintheformatoflbHAPemittedpergallonof   coatingsolidsusedandwerenotintheformatofapercentHAPemissionreduction.Thisformat b waschosentoensurethatcomplianceatdifferentfacilitieswasbeingcomparedonanequalbasis t relativetoproductionlevels.Evenifafacilitywereabletodemonstrateduringaonetimetest & thatemissionsweresubstantiallylessthantheemissionlimits,thatdoesnotassurefuture 8  compliancebecauseofchangesthatmayoccurinthetypesofmaterialsthatareusedandthe    relativeamountofmaterialsthatareused(e.g.,anincreaseintheuserofhigherHAPcoatingsor  L  ofHAPcontainingsolventsthatcontainnosolids).Thecompliancecalculationsincludedinthe ^  ruleassurecomplianceatalltimes,evenasanoperationchangesovertime.Furthermore,   monitoringisneededtoassurethatcontroldevicescontinuetobeoperatedastheywereduring "r  theperformancetest.Therefore,thefinalruledoesnotincludethesimplifiedcompliance   demonstrationsuggestedbythecommenters.  6 @Q Q   11.0COMPLIANCEDATESANDAVERAGINGPERIOD bԈ  ` ܹ  Comment:Onecommenter(IVD63)statedthatthefinalruleshouldallowa3year ^  complianceperiodforexistingareasourcesthatbecomemajorsources,ratherthan1yearas   proposed,becausethelevelofeffortneededforexistingsourcestocomplyisnodifferent. The "r  commentercitedtheorganicliquidsdistributionNESHAP(40CFRpart63,subpartEEEE),   whichallows3yearstocomply.Thecommenteralsosupporteda3yearcomplianceperiodfor 6 existingsources. H   Response:Existingareasourcesthatbecomemajorsourceshaveuntiltheexistingsource  compliancedateof3yearsaftertheeffectivedateofthefinalrule(dateofpromulgation)or1  \ yearafterbecomingamajorsource,whicheverislater.TheEPAexpectsthatcompliantcoatings n andlowerHAPcoatingtechnologywillbemorereadilyavailableasmorenewandexisting   sourcesmustcomplywiththeruleinthethreeyearsbetweentheeffectivedateandtheexisting 2 sourcecompliancedate.Therefore,thoseareasourcesthatbecomemajorsourcesafterthe ! existingsourcecompliancedatewillhaveagreaterrangeofcompliantproductsandtechnologies F# attheirdisposalandwillnotneedthethreeyearstocomeintocompliancethatisneededby X % facilitiesthatarecurrentlyexistingmajorsources.Furthermore,anareasourceshouldknowin ! ' advancethatitplanstoexpandormakeanoperationalchangethatwillresultinbecominga #l) majorsource.Thiswillallowadditionaltimebeforeitbecomesamajorsourcetoplanits ~$+ compliancestrategy.Thecomplianceperiodsincludedatproposalwereretainedinthefinalrule %0!- forfacilitiesthatbecomemajorsources. B'"/   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD08)supportedtheuseofa12monthrollingaverage (#1 periodfordeterminingcompliance.Anothercommenter(IVD09)objectedtotheuseofa12 *V%3 monthrollingaveragefortheemissionlimits,becausethiscompliancemetriccanonlybe h+&5 determinedafterthefactand,therefore,operatorsdonotknowwhatcoatingtheycanuseforthe ,(7 month.Athirdcommenter(IVD37)recommendedthattheruleshouldhavethreeoptional  averagingtimesfortheemissionlimits. b "3"  0  32ږ3  0` (#(#  12monthblockaverage.Rollingaveragestranscendbusinessandmarketcycles, t and  can  affecttheabilitytorespondtodemand.3Z݌`` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  0  32ږ3  0` (#(#  Rollingquarterlyaverage,forproductswithmorepredictablebusinesscycles.3݌8 ` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  0  32ږ3  0` (#(#  12monthrollingaverage.3݌   ` ` (#` (# <  Response:Thefinalruleretainsthe12monthrollingaverageasthebasisfor ^  compliance.Thisformatensuresthatafacilitywillbeincompliancewiththeemissionlimitsat   alltimes,whilestillallowingflexibilitytoaccommodateperiodswherehigherHAPcontent "r  materialsmaybeneeded.Wedisagreethatcompliancecanonlybedeterminedafterthefact   withthisformat,althoughcompliancewillrequirethatafacilityplanaheadwithrespecttothe 6 typesandtherelativeamountsofcoatingmaterialsthatareusedineach12monthcompliance H periodandmayneedtouseacombinationoflowerHAPandnonHAPmaterialstoachieve  compliance.  \   A12monthblockaverage(suchasacalendaryear)isnotincludedinthefinalrule n becauseitwouldreduceflexibilityforfacilitiesthatmayneedtousehigheremittingmaterialsat   thebeginningorendofthe12monthperiod.Arollingaverageallowsafacilitytooffsetexcess 2  emissionswithearlierorsubsequentperiodsofreducedemissions.Furthermore,witha " 12-monthblockaverage,compliancecouldonlybedeterminedandreportedonceperyear.The F$ NESHAPandTitleVprogramsrequiresemiannualcompliancedemonstrationreports.It X & benefitsthesourceandtheregulatoryagencytohavemorefrequentcompliancecalculationsso ! ( thatanyproblemsareidentifiedandcanbeaddressedmorepromptly.Witharolling12month #l* average,sourcesmakecalculationseachmonthandcansubmitTitleVsemiannualcompliance ~$, certificationswithconfidence.Aquarterlyrollingaveragewouldnotprovideasubstantial %0!. benefitincalculationsandrecordkeepingovera12monthrollingaverage.Theshortertime B'"0 periodwouldreduceflexibilityforoperationswhosecoatingusecanfluctuateorthathave (#2 seasonalchangesinoperationandwouldbeinconsistentwithrecordkeepingandreporting *V%4  alreadyrequiredbymanysourcesaspartoftheirStateTitleVoperatingpermits. h+&6   Comment:Twocommenters(IVD44,IVD52)expressedconcernaboutcompliance   withtheinitial12monthperiod.Onecommenter(IVD44)statedthatEPAshouldclarifythat b theuseofa12monthrollingcomplianceperioddoesnotmeanthataonetimeexceedence t becomesanautomatic12monthviolation.Onecommenter(IVD44)suggeststhattheinitial & complianceperiodis12monthsandsubsequentcomplianceperiodsareeachmonth,asadded 8  ontotheprevious11monthsinthe12monthaverage.Theothercommenter(IVD52)noted    thatthepreambletotheproposedrule(67FR52785)statedthatifasourceisnotincompliance  L  attheendoftheinitialcomplianceperiod,itisconsideredoutofcomplianceforthewhole ^  period.Thecommenter(IVD52)statedthatthenoncomplianceperiodshouldbelimitedtoa   singlemonthorproratedbasedinthedurationofthenoncompliance.Onecommenter(IVD "r  40)supportedtheconceptthattheinitialcomplianceperiodforthe12monthrollingaverage   beginsontheapplicablecompliancedate. 6   Response:Undertheemissionratewithoutaddoncontrolsoptionandtheemissionrate H withaddoncontrolsoption,compliancewiththeemissionlimitsisbasedonacalculationofthe  emissionratefora12monthcomplianceperiod.Iftheemissionrateisgreaterthantheemission  \ limit,thenitisconsideredtohavedeviatedfromtheemissionlimitfortheentire12month n period. ` Ifafacilityisusingthecompliantmaterialsoption,thenadeviationfromthe    emissionlimitwouldbeforjusttheperiodduringwhichthenoncompliantmaterialswerebeing 2" used.Ifafacilityisusingtheemissionratewithaddoncontrolsoption,adeviationfromthe $ operatinglimitsin63.3892ortheworkpracticestandardsin63.3893wouldbealsoforjust F& theperiodofthedeviationandnotforthe12monthcomplianceperiod. X (   Underallcomplianceoptions,theAgencytowhichenforcementisdelegatedwould ! * determinewhetherornotadeviationconstitutesaviolationoftheemissionlimitations,the #l, durationoftheviolation,andwhetherenforcementactionisappropriate.  ~$.   @t t 12.0COMPLIANCECALCULATIONS laԈ  `   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD65)suggestedthatHAPemissionsfromstorage, ^  mixing,conveying,andwastemanagementofcoatings,thinners,cleaningmaterialsand   associatedwastes,shouldbeexplicitlyexcludedfromtheemissioncalculationsintherule.The "r  commenternotedthatitisdifficulttodirectlyquantifytheseemissionsandthatthereisoftena   lackofgeneralagreementonhowtoquantifysuchlosses.ThecommenteralsonotedthatEPA 6 statedinthepreambletotheproposedrulethatwewerenotabletoobtaindatatoadequately H quantifyHAPemissionsfromstorage,mixingandwastehandling(67FR52790).    Response:Underthecompliantmaterialoptionyoumustdemonstratethattheorganic  \ HAPcontentofeachcoatingusedinthecoatingoperation(s)islessthanorequaltothe n applicableemissionlimitin63.3890,andthateachthinner,additive,andcleaningmaterialused   containsnoorganicHAP.ThecompliantmaterialoptionfocusesontheorganicHAPcontentof 2 coatings,thinners,additivesandcleaningmaterialsasreceivedfromthemanufacturerorsupplier ! andpriortoanyalteration.Noseparateordirectaccountingofemissionsfromstorage,mixing F# andconveyingofcoatings,thinners,additives,cleaningmaterialsandassociatedwastesis X % requiredunderthecompliantmaterialoption.Suchanaccountingclearlyisnotneededwhen ! ' eachcoatingisacompliantcoatingandeachthinner,additive,andcleaningmaterialcontainsno #l) organicHAP. ~$+   Undertheemissionratewithoutaddoncontrolsoptionandtheemissionratewithaddon %0!- controlsoptionalloftheorganicHAPcontentofcoatings,thinners,additivesandcleaning B'"/ materialsisinitiallyassumedtobeemitted.(SeecalculationofthetermsA,BandCin63.3951(e).) (#1 Anyemissionsfromstorage,mixingandconveyingofcoatings,thinners,additives,cleaning *V%3 materialsandassociatedwastesareimplicitlyincludedinthisassumption.Theruledoesinclude h+&5 provisionswhichallowforreclaimedmaterialstobeexcludedfrommaterialusage.(See ,(7 introductorylanguageto63.3951.)TherulealsoincludesprovisionsfortheorganicHAPin  wastematerialssentordesignatedforshipmenttoahazardouswasteTSDFfortreatmentor b disposaltobeexcludedfromthetotalmassoforganicHAPemissions.(Seecalculationoftheterm t Rwin63.3951(e).)Noseparateordirectaccountingofemissionsfromstorage,mixingand & conveyingofcoatings,thinners,additives,cleaningmaterialsandassociatedwastesisrequired 8  undereithertheemissionratewithoutaddoncontrolsoptionortheemissionratewithaddon    controlsoption.SuchanaccountingclearlyisnotneededwhenalloftheorganicHAPcontentof  L  coatings,thinners,additivesandcleaningmaterialsisinitiallyassumedtobeemittedand ^  provisionsaremadetoexcludereclaimedmaterialsfrommaterialusageandtoexclude   organicHAPinwastematerialssentordesignatedforshipmenttoahazardouswasteTSDFfor "r  treatmentordisposaltobeexcludedfromthetotalmassoforganicHAPemissions.     Weagreethatnoseparateordirectaccountingofemissionsfromstorage,mixingand 6 conveyingofcoatings,thinners,additives,cleaningmaterialsandassociatedwastesisrequired H underthisrule.Webelievethatthisissufficientlyclearintherule.Wehavenotmadeany  changesintheruleinregardtothiscomment.  \   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD65)requestedthatHAPfromonsiteproductionof n coatingbeexcludedfromthecompliancecalculations.Thecommenteracknowledgedthatithas    collocatedfacilitiesthatmanufacturecoatingandtheseoperationswillbecoveredbythe 2" NESHAPforMiscellaneousOrganicChemicalManufacturing(40CFR63subpartFFFF)and $ theNESHAPforMiscellaneousCoatingManufacturing(40CFR63subpartHHHHH). F&   Response:CoatingmanufacturingoperationsthataresubjecttotheMiscellaneous X ( OrganicNESHAPwillnotbecoveredbythemetalpartsNESHAP.Theemissionsfromcoating ! * manufacturingoperationsarenotincludedinthecompliancecalculationsforthefinalmetalparts #l, rule.However,theMiscellaneousOrganicNESHAPdoesnotapplytothemixingofcoatings, ~$. thinners,andotheradditivestoprepareacoatingforapplicationbyauserwhoiscoatingmetal %0!0 partsorproducts,sotheseactivitieswouldbepartoftheaffectedsourcesubjecttothe B'"2 MiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsNESHAP. (#4   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD44)supportedtheproposedmethodformassbalance *V%6 calculations,aswellastheuseofthedefaultvaluesfortheHAPcontentofsolventblends. h+&8 However,thecommenterrequestedthatEPArevise63.3893(b)(2)toaddthat theHAP ,(: containedinspilledcoatings,thinners,andcleaningmaterialsisnotincludedintheemission  limitationssetforthin63.3890.Thecommenterarguedthatsuchspillsshouldconstitutean b unusualemission,whichmayrequirereportingunderotherCAAprovisionsorthatconstitutean t upsetormalfunctionduringwhichemissionlimitsdonotapply. &   Response:Inthecompliancecalculationsintheproposedandfinalrule,alloftheHAP 8  thatarecontainedincoatingsusedatafacilityareassumedtobeemittedand,therefore,are    includedinthecompliancecalculations.Ifspilledmaterialswerenotincludedintheemission  L  calculations,spillscouldleadtodeviationsfromtheemissionlimitationsthatarenotreflectedin ^  theemissioncalculations.     Facilitiesthatusetheemissionratewithaddoncontrolsoptionarerequiredtodevelopa "r  workpracticeplanthatincludes,amongotherthings,elementstominimizespillsoforganicHAP   containingcoatings,thinnersand/oradditives,cleaningmaterials,andwastematerials.Steps 6 mustbetakentominimizespillsespeciallyunderthiscomplianceoptionbecauseitisoften H difficulttoaccuratelydeterminewhethertheHAPemittedfromspilledmaterialsarecaptured  andventedtotheaddoncontroldevice.  \   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD19)statedthatwastecoatingsolidsshouldbe n accountedforinthesamemanneraswasteHAP.Thecommenter(IVD19)statedthatthe    compliancecalculationsshouldbebasedonthesolidsactuallyappliedbysubtractingwaste 2" solids(e.g.,diptanksludge)fromthesolidsinputtotheprocess. $   Response:Thecompliancecalculationsinthefinalrulehavenotbeenrevisedtoaccount F& forsolidsthatareinwastematerials,ifafacilitytakescreditfortheHAPinwastematerials. X ( Wastematerialsgenerallyrepresentasubstantiallysmallerfractionofthetotalsolidsthanoftotal ! * HAPusedatsurfacecoatingfacilitiesbecauseadditionalHAP,butnotsolids,areoftenusedin #l, surfacepreparationandequipmentcleaning.Inaddition,HAPfromcleanupsolvents,thinners, ~$. andadditivesaremorelikelytobecomewastematerialsthancoatingsolidsbecauseoftheir %0!0 lowercostrelativetothecostofcoatingsolids. B'"2   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD36)suggestedthatEPAexpandthecreditallowedfor (#4 HAPcontainedinmaterialscollectedforrecyclingordisposaloffsitetoincludeHAPin *V%6 recycledpaints,cleaningandpurgematerialsforfacilitieswithaddoncontrols.Thecommenter h+&8 suggestedthefollowinglanguagefor63.3951(e)(4)(i): ,(: 0  (i)Youmayincludeinthedeterminationonlywastematerialsthataregeneratedby  coatingoperationsforwhichyouuseEquation1ofthissectionandthatwillbetreatedor  disposedbyafacilityregulatedasaTSDFunder40CFRpart262,264,265,or266orby  virtueofanyotherwastecollectionactivitywherethesourcemaintainsrecordsofthe t materialscollected.`(#(#   Thecommenteralsostatedthatcreditshouldbegivenformaterialsthatarecollectedand 8  reusedinthecoatingoperationsonsitewithoutbeingrecycledortreatedthroughaTSDFas   waste.  L    Response:Section63.3951(e)(4)(i)hasnotbeenrevisedtoallowalternative ^  recordkeepingofwastetreatmentordisposal.Therequirementsin40CFRpart262,264,265,or   266ensureaproperaccountingforprovidingcreditforthetreatmentanddisposalofhazardous "r  wastematerialsthatwouldotherwisebeincludedinthecompliancecalculations.     Section63.3951oftherulehasbeenrevisedtoindicatethatifyouusecoatings,thinners 6 and/orotheradditives,orcleaningmaterialsthathavebeenreclaimedonsite,theamountofeach H usedinamonthf  g f  g mayf  g Ԁbereducedbytheamountofeachthatisreclaimed.Thatis,theamount  usedf  g f  g mayf  g Ԁbecalculatedastheamountconsumedtoaccountformaterialsthatarereclaimed.This  \ changeaddressesthecommenter'srequestforcreditformaterialsthatarecollectedandreusedin n thecoatingoperationsonsitewithoutbeingrecycledortreatedthroughaTSDFaswaste.     Comment:Onecommenter(IVD44)requestedthatthelanguagein63.3941and 2  63.3961beconsistentwithrespecttotherecyclingorreuseofsolventsandcoatingmaterials. " Thecommenter(IVD44)notedthat63.3961appearstonothavetheterm onsite.The F$ commenter(IVD44)arguedthatmaterialsthatarerecycledoffsiteshouldnotbeconsidered X & newmaterialforpurposesofdeterminingHAPcontent,whichcoulddiscouragerecycling. ! (   Response:Section63.3951oftherulehasbeenrevisedtoindicatethatifafacilityhas #l* documentationshowingthattheyreceivebacktheexactsamematerialthatissentoffsitefor ~$, recycling,thenthefacilitydoesnotneedtodeterminetheHAPcontentofthematerialthatis %0!. recycledandtheymayassumethatithasthesameHAPcontentasoriginallypurchased.Ifthe B'"0 exactsamematerialisreceivedbackafterrecycling,therecycledmaterialdoesnotrepresenta (#2 potentialsourceofHAPbeingbroughttothesiteandemittedfromthesite.Ifamaterialfroma *V%4  differentsiteissubstitutedforthematerialsentoutforrecycling,thenthenewmaterialcould h+&6 containahigherHAPcontentthanthematerialthatwasoriginallysentoutforrecyclingandthat  wouldotherwisebereceivedbackatthesiteafterrecycling. b    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD52)requestedthatEPAclarifythattheprovision t allowingasourcetotakecreditforHAPcontainedinwastesolventcollectedforrecyclingor & disposalshouldbeoptionalbecauseoftheadditionalrecordkeepingrequired. 8    Response:Thecompliancecalculationsusingequation1in63.3951(e)and63.3961(h)    inthefinalrulestatethatyoumayassignavalueofzerotoR<8  Lw L8 Ԁ(thetotalmassoforganicHAPin  L  wastematerialssentordesignatedforshipmenttoahazardouswasteTSDFfortreatmentor ^  disposal)ifyoudonotwishtousethisallowance.     Comment:Onecommenter(IVD52)askedhowtoincludepowdercoatingsin "r  calculationstoshowcompliancewiththeemissionrate[withoutaddoncontrols]option.The   equationsarebasedonvolume,whichisnotapplicablefornonliquidcoatings. 6   Response:Thefinalruleincludesamethodfordeterminingthevolumeofsolidsin H powdercoatingsfromtheirweightusingASTMMethodD596502f  f  g , StandardTestMethodfor  SpecificGravityofCoatingPowdersg f  g .f  f  g Afacilitycanusethismethodtodeterminethefilm  \ densityofpowdercoatings(thedensityofthecuredfilmafteritisappliedtoametalpart)sothat n thevolumeofsolidscanbeincludedinthedenominatorofcompliancecalculationsinthe    emissionrate[withoutaddoncontrols]option.  2" @  !  13.0TESTMETHODS icԈ  `   13.10  ASTMMethods icU^ (#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD01)pointedoutthatseveralASTMmethodsthatare   incorporatedintherulehavebeenupdated:D236998isnowD236901;D401796aisnowD "r  401702;D445785isnowD445702;D474787isnowD474702;andPS994hasbeen   withdrawnwithnoreplacement.Thecommenterofferedtoexplainthechanges. 6   Response:ThecommenteroffersASTMstandardsthathavebeenupdatedbyASTM H sincebeing?+ 4 <DL!X?listedintheproposal.Section12(d)oftheNationalTransferTechnologyTransfer  andAdvancementAct(NTTAA)of1995(PublicLawNo.104113;15U.S.C.272note)directs  \ theEPAtousevoluntaryconsensusstandardsintheirregulatoryandprocurementactivities n unlessdoingsowouldbeinconsistentwithapplicablelaworotherwiseimpractical.Voluntary   consensusstandardsaretechnicalstandardsdevelopedoradoptedbyoneormorevoluntary 2 consensusbodies.TheEPAconductssearchestoidentifystandardscompatiblewithEPA ! Methods,inthiscaseEPAMethods24and311. F#   ThemethodsASTMD236995,ASTMD401796a,andASTMD445785(Reapproved X % 91),amongothers,areincorporatedbyreferenceintoEPAMethod24.ThemethodsASTMD ! ' 474787andASTMPS994,amongothers,areincorporatedbyreferenceinEPAMethod311. #l) ThesestandardsarealreadyacceptableproceduresthatwereincorporatedbyreferenceinMethod ~$+ 24andMethod311astheywereestablishedatthetimeofEPAreview. %0!-   However,themethodsincorporatedbyreferencecannotbechangedtoreflectthedates B'"/ specifiedbythecommenter.Wecannotcitethenewdatesoftheupdatedstandardsbecausewe (#1 havenotbeenabletodetermineiftheseupdatedversionsaretechnicallythesameasthe *V%3 previouslyincorporatedversions.Iftheupdatedversionsofthesemethodsweretechnically h+&5 differentfromthepreviouslyincorporatedversions,theirusemightchangetheapplicationsof ,(7 theMethods.ThismightinturnaffectthestringencyoftheemissionlimitsthatuseMethods24  and311todeterminecompliance. b   13.20  ComparingFormulationDataandDefaultHAPContentstoEPATestMethods ic!&(#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD17)supportedtheuseofmanufacturersformulation 8  datafordeterminingtheHAPcontentofcoatings.Anothercommenter(IVD21)requestedthat    thefinalruleallowfacilitiestorelysolelyonthemanufacturersrepresentationstodemonstrate  L  theHAPcontentofcoatings.Thesecondcommentercited,asanexample,thefactthatthe ^  AerospaceManufacturingNESHAPdoesnotapplytocertaincoatingsthatafacilitydetermines   tohaveHAPcontentsbelow0.1weightpercentforOSHAdefinedcarcinogensand1.0percent "r  forallotherHAP,basedsolelyonthemanufacturersrepresentations.     Twocommenters(IVD17,IVD36)disagreedthatEPAtestmethodsshouldprevailin 6 caseswherethereisdisagreementwithformulationdataorthedefaultvaluesfortheHAP H contentofsolventblendsthatarepresentedinTables3and4intheproposedrule.One  commenter(IVD17)citedseveralreasons:limitationsoftestmethods;thewiderangeoftest  \ resultsthatcanbeobtainedbydifferentlaboratories;andthehighcostofusingtestingasthesole n basis.ThecommenteralsonotedthatthestandardsarebasedonformulationdataandState    VOCrulesthatwerenotsubjecttoanytestingunderMethod311.Thecommenter 2" recommendedmodifyingtheruletosaythattestdatashallgovernunlessthesourcecan $ demonstratetothesatisfactionoftheenforcementagencythattheformulationdatawerecorrect. F&   Onecommenter(IVD44)suggestedthatdifferencesbetweenvendordata(e.g.,MSDS) X ( andMethod311resultsshouldnotbeviewedasdeviationsorexceedences,butshouldtriggera ! * plantomoreaccuratelydeterminetheHAPcontentofcoatingstobeusedinthefuture.The #l, commenterstatedthatprecisionneedstobeaccountedforwhencomparingEPAMethod311 ~$. resultstovendordataonHAPcontentandarguedthatiftheexceedenceofavendorHAP %0!0 contentiswithintheerrorofthemethod,thenthevendorsinfoshouldbepresumedcorrect. B'"2   Onecommenter(IVD36)alsoarguedthatasourceshouldbeheldharmlessiftheyused (#4 ingoodfaiththedefaultvaluesforsolventblendsinTables3and4oftheruleandMethod311 *V%6 testresultsshowedhigherHAPcontents,orthesourceshouldbeallowedtorebutthe h+&8 Method311testresults.Otherwise,thecommenterargued,sourceswillnotbeabletorelyon ,(: thedefaultvaluesforsolventblendsandwillneedtoperformexpensivetestingofcoating  materials. b   Response:ItisEPAsgeneralregulatoryapproachforsurfacecoatingsourcesthatthe t EPAtestmethodswillprevailinadiscrepancybetweenformulationdatasuppliedbythecoating & supplierandtestdata,andthefacilitywillbeheldresponsiblefordeviationsfromtheemission 8  limitsduetotheseinconsistencies.(Theenforcementauthoritywilldetermineifthedeviationis    aviolationofthestandard.)Facilitiesusingformulationdataforcompliancedemonstrations  L  shouldonlydosoiftheyarecomfortablethattheformulationdatasuppliedbythecoating ^  supplierarecorrect.Forexample,coatingsmanufacturersshouldusetheappropriatetestmethod   orshouldhavecertifiedHAPcontentdocumentationprovidedtothembytheirrawmaterial "r  suppliers.Itistothebenefitofthefacilitythatthefacilitypursueahighdegreeofcertaintyin   theformulationdatatheyacceptforuseincompliancedemonstrations. 6   In63.3941(a)oftheproposedrule,afacilitycoulduseeitherEPAMethod311,EPA H Method24,analternativemethod'stestresultsormanufacturers'sformulationdatatodetermine  theHAPcontentofmaterialsusedincompliancedemonstrations.Afacilitycouldusethe  \ defaultHAPcontentsforsolventblendsinTables3and4.However,ifadifferencewaspresent n betweenthetestresultsandmanufacturers'dataorthedefaultvaluesforsolventblends,thetest    methodresultswouldtakeprecedence.Assuggestedbythecommenters,aprovisionhasbeen 2" addedto63.3941(a)thatinadisagreementbetweenmanufacturers'dataorthedefaultvalues, $ andtheresultsofatest,thetestmethodresultswillnottakeprecedencef  g Ԁifyoudemonstratetothe F& satisfactionoftheenforcementagencythattheformulationdataordefaultvalueswerecorrectf  g . X ( Thedemonstrationcouldinclude,amongotherthings,ashowingthattheformulationdataor ! * defaultvaluesandtestmethoddatawerewithintheprecisionoraccuracyofthetestmethod #l, resultsandnosignificantdifferenceexistsbetweenthetwo. ~$.   Comment:Twocommenters(IVD17,IVD36)statedthatthefinalruleshouldallow %0!0 HAPconcentrationstobebasedontheaverageofarangeonanMSDS,adjustedtoamaximum B'"2 compositionof100percent,whereHAPcontentisreportedasarange.Accordingtothe (#4 commenters,asingleMSDSisoftenprovidedbythesupplierwithHAPcontentsexpressedin *V%6 rangestorepresentagroupofdifferentcolorsofthesameproduct.Athirdcommenter(IVD h+&8 24)statedthatprovidingspecificformulationdataforeachcolorwouldbeburdensomewithno ,(: environmentalbenefit.Onecommenter(IVD36)suggestedthatusingtheaverageofthe  reportedrangewouldpreventafacilityfromhavingtodeterminetheactualcomposition,and b thuswouldbeconsistentwithTRIreporting.Thecommenter(IVD36)arguedthata t requirementtousetheupperlimitofarangewouldleadtoagrossoverstatementoftheHAP & contentofmaterials. 8    Response:IfarangeoforganicHAPispresented,itisuptotheusertodeterminethe    appropriatevalue.Itisimportanttoremember,however,thatintheeventofanyinconsistency  L  betweenformulationdataandMethod311analyses,theMethod311datawilltakeprecedence ^  unlesstheusercandemonstratetothesatisfactionoftheenforcementagencythattheformulation   datawerecorrect. "r    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD36)requestedthatEPAincludethefollowing   procedurestoassureconsistencyinusingEPAMethod311,oratleastincludelanguageallowing 6 afacilitytorebutMethod311testresults: H "3"  0  3`@2ږ3  0` (#(#  Thefacilityshouldhavetheoptiontodivideanysamplecollectedbyanyagency  thatimplementsandenforcestheMACTstandard.3`@@݌` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  0  3A2ږ3  0` (#(#  Thefacilitywillprovidetotheapplicableagencyitsdeterminationoftheproper n testparameterstobeusedandthetemperatureatwhichtheanalysisshouldbe Z performed;and3A B݌F` (#` (# Ќ  "3 "  0  3tC2ږ3  0` (#(#  Boththeapplicablecontrolagencyandthefacilityshallbeauthorizedtobe n! presentwhiletestingand/orsamplingunderMethod311isbeingconducted.3tCC݌ Z"` (#` (# Ќ  @  Response:Thefinalruleincludeslanguageallowingafacilitytorebuttheresultsofa X % Method311testofHAPcontent. ! '   13.30  UsingOSHAReportingCutoffsWhenDeterminingHAPContent anE~$+(#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD44)supportsusingtheOSHAcutoffsforMSDSfor %0!- evaluatingHAPcontent. B'"/   Response:TheEPAagreesthatuseoftheOSHAlevelsisappropriate.TheOSHA (#1 levelsarecommonreportingthresholdsthatarealreadyinuse,arereflectedonMSDSsheetsfor *V%3 materials,andarefamiliartomaterialsuppliersandusers.Theuseofthesethresholdswill h+&5 minimizetherecordkeepingandreportingburden. ,(7   Comment:Twocommenters(IVD28,IVD47)objectedtotheproceduresfor  determiningtheHAPcontentofcoatings,thinners,andcleaningsolvent,particularlythe b interpretationoftheterm noorganicHAP.Accordingtothecommenters,othersurface t coatingNESHAPallowthefacilitytocountonlythoseHAPthatarepresentabovetheminimum & reportingthresholdforSARAandOSHAusedinMSDS(i.e.,above0.1percentforcarcinogens 8  andabove1percentforotherorganicHAPcompounds).Thecommentersnotedthatthe    proposedmetalpartsruleallowsthesethresholdstoapplyonlyforcertainoptions(i.e.,where  L  Method311isusedandwheremanufacturersformulationdataareusedtodetermineHAP ^  content)andthethresholdsarenotallowedwhereMethod24,analternativetestmethod,orthe   solventblendtablesareused.ThecommentersmaintainedthatEPAhasnotexplainedwhythe "r  procedurewasexcludedinsomeinstancesandrecommendedthatthethresholdsshouldapplyin   allcases. 6   Response:ThesamethresholdsfordeterminingandreportingtotalHAPcontentapply H forallmethodswhereHAPisdetermined,whetheritisMethod311,analternativemethodfor  determiningHAP,themanufacturer'sformulationdataforHAP,orwhereHAPisdetermined  \ fromtheHAPcontentofsolventblends.However,whereMethod24isusedtomeasureVOCas n asurrogateforHAP,themethodonlymeasurestotalVOCcontentanddoesnotmeasure    individualspeciesofVOC,soitisnotpracticaltoapplythesamethresholds,unlessthetotal 2" VOClevelislessthan1.0percentbyweight,whichisunlikelyforliquidcoatings. $   ThefinalruleincludesadefinitionofnonHAPcoating,whichmeansacoatingthat F& containsnomorethan0.1percentbymassofanyindividualf  g organicf  g HAPthatisanOSHA X ( definedcarcinogenasspecifiedin29CFR1910.1200(d)(4)andnomorethan1.0percentby ! * massforanyotherindividualHAP.Therefore,thefinalruleismoreconsistentwiththeuseof #l, theterm nonHAPinothersurfacecoatingNESHAPandclarifiesthatnonHAPdoesnot ~$. meanzeroHAP,aswasimpliedbythelanguageintheproposedrule. %0!0   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD52)requestedthatEPAclarifythattheOSHA B'"2 reportingthresholdsforHAP(0.1percentforcarcinogens,1.0percentforallothers)applyforall (#4 complianceoptionsandnotjustforthecompliantcoatingoption. *V%6   Response:ThemethodsfordeterminingHAPandsolidscontentofcoatingslistedin h+&8 63.3941applytoallthreecomplianceoptionsandnotjustthecompliantmaterialsoption. ,(: Ratherthanrepeatingtheseprovisionsundereachcomplianceoption,theothercompliance  optionsreferencethissectionfordeterminingHAPandsolidscontentofcoatings.Webelieve b thatincrossreferencingtheseprovisions,theyapplytotheothercomplianceoptionsintheir t entiretyandnofurtherclarificationintheruleisneeded. &   13.40  ReactiveCoatings  anW  (#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD32)statedthatthefinalruleshouldallowf  sourcesg f  g Ԁor  L  materialssupplierstousealternativestoEPAMethod24todeterminetheamountofHAPthatis ^  actuallyemittedfromreactiveadhesivesastheyareused.Theproposedruleandassociatedtest   methodsassumedthatallHAPcontainedincoatingsoradditivesareemitted.However,in "r  reactiveadhesives,someoftheHAPspeciesreactwithotheringredientstoformsolidsandare   notemittedtotheatmosphere.Therefore,theamountofHAPemittedcanbesignificantlyless 6 thantheamountofHAPpresentintheliquidadhesive. H   Response:AnalternativemethodfordeterminingthefractionofHAPemittedfrom  reactiveadhesiveshasbeenincludedinappendixAtosubpartPPPP40CFRpart63.f  Thefinal  \ metalpartsrulesreferencesthismethod.Sourcesg f  g Ԁusingreactiveadhesivesmayusethismethod n fordemonstratingcompliancebasedonthef  g Ԁorganicf  g ԀHAPactuallyemitted,ratherthanusing    Method311,Method24,orcompositiondata.Themethodreliesonpreparingasample(of 2" knownweight)oftheadhesiveasitwillbeapplied,allowingittofullycure,bakingthesample, $ andthenweighingthecuredadhesivetodeterminetheweightloss.Theweightlossrepresents F& thevolatilefractionthatisemittedfromtheadhesive. X (   13.50  UsingVOCasSurrogateforHAP an^#l,(#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD66)statedthatthefinalruleshouldallowfacilitiesto ~$. usetheVOCcontentofacoating,withoutanycorrectionfactor,asasurrogatefortheHAP %0!0 contentfordeterminingcompliance,aslongasalloftheHAPinthecoatingarealsoVOCs. B'"2 (Thatis,thereisnopotentialfortheHAPcontenttoexceedtheVOCcontent.)Thecommenter (#4 requestedthatthisrevisionwouldreducetherecordkeepingburdenonfacilitiesthatarecurrently *V%6  complyingwithlocalVOClimitsandwouldencouragetheuseoflowVOCcoatings. h+&8   Response:TheruleallowssourcestouseEPAMethod24todeterminethemassfraction   ofnonaqueousvolatilematterincoatingsandtousethatvalueasasubstituteformassfractionof b organicHAP.Therefore,ownersandoperatorswishingtorelyonthissurrogateapproachhave t beenprovidedwithsuchanoption.  & @   14.0MONITORING,RECORDKEEPING,ANDREPORTINGREQUIREMENTS ancԈ  `    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD08)statedthatthenotificationandrecordkeeping  8  provisionsareburdensome,particularlyforfacilitiesthatoperateonlywith compliantcoatings J  atorbelowtheHAPcontentforGeneralUseand/orHighPerformancecoatings.Thecommenter   (IVD08)askedEPAtodeveloprecommendedformsfornotificationsandrecordkeepingto ^  fosterunderstandingandeaseofcompliance.Anothercommenter(IVD52)statedthat p 63.3910(c)(4)(10)(notificationofcompliancestatus)hasveryburdensomerecordkeeping " andreportingrequirements. 4   Response:Wehavemadeeffortstoexplainthecompliancedemonstrationand  recordkeepingandreportingclearlyintherule.Wealsoplantodevelopimplementation H materialstofurtherassistcompaniesandenforcementagencies.Thecompliantmaterialsoption Z isprovidedasasimplerwayofdeterminingcompliancethantheemissionratecalculation   method.ItrequirescalculationofthelbHAP/galsolidsforeachindividualcoatingmaterial n  used,butdoesnotrequirecalculationoftheemissionratefortheoverallcoatingoperation.The " NotificationofComplianceStatuscontainstheminimuminformationEPAneedstodetermine 2$ thatasourceisincompliance.Thisincludesastatementofthecomplianceoptionthatisbeing D!& usedandwhetherasourceisincompliance,andadescriptionofanydeviationsfromthe "( emissionlimitations.WealsorequireoneexamplecalculationforthelbHAP/galsolidsfora $X* coatingmaterialtobesurethatthesourceisperformingthiscalculationcorrectly.Similarly,if j% , youareusingoneoftheemissionrateoptions,yourcalculationoftheemissionratemustbe &". submitted.Becausesomeofthecalculationscanbecomplex,theenforcementagencyneedsto .(~#0 beabletocheckthemethodologyusedfortheinitialcompliancedemonstrationstoverifythat )$2  thesourceisincomplianceandbringanymisunderstandingsorcalculationproblemstothe *B&4 sourcesattention.Insubsequentsemiannualreportsyoudonotneedtosubmittheexample  calculations. b    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD60)statedthefinalrulewouldimposeasignificant t recordkeepingburdenwhilenotprovidingasignificantemissionreduction.Thecommenter & addedthatthe250gallonexemptionwouldnotprovideanyreliefbecauseoftherecordkeeping 8  neededtoseparatethecoatingsusedonjustthemetalpartsinordertoclaimtheexemption.The    commenterisayachtmanufacturersubjecttotheBoatManufacturingNESHAP,andstatedthat  L  mostvolumeboatbuilderswillprobablyusemorethan250gallonsonmetalpartsinayear. ^    Response:TheMiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsNESHAPisexpectedtoresultin   anationalHAPemissionsreductionofover25,000tonsperyear,ora48percentreduction.In "r  thefinalrule,wehaveclarifiedapplicabilitytoreducethepotentialforoverlapwithothersurface   coatingNESHAP.Asexplainedinsection6.6ofthisdocument,thefinalruleclarifiesthatthe 6 MiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsNESHAPdoesnotapplytosurfacecoatingofboatsor H metalpartsofboats(including,butnotlimitedtotheuseofassemblyadhesives)wherethe  facilitymeetstheapplicabilitycriteriaforboatmanufacturingfacilitiesintheBoat  \ ManufacturingNESHAP(40CFR63,subpartVVVV),exceptwherethesurfacecoatingofthe n boatisametalcoatingoperationperformedonpersonalwatercraftorpartsofpersonal    watercraft.Wehavealsoretainedthe250gallonexemptioncitedbythecommenter.For 2" facilitieswithcoatingoperationssubjecttothemetalpartsruleandotherNESHAP,wehave $ addedthepredominantactivityalternativeandthefacilityspecificemissionlimitalternativeto F& facilitatecompliance,asexplainedinchapter6.  X (   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD10)supportstheprovisionsoftherulethatdonot ! * requiremonitoring,recordkeeping,orreportingformaterialsthatdonotcontainHAP. #l,   Response:Weappreciatethecommenter'ssupportandagreethattheruleisnotintended ~$. toregulatenonHAPcoatings.However,wewouldliketopointoutthatdependingonthe %0!0 complianceoptionchosen,asourcemayneedtokeeprecordsofnonHAPcoatings.For B'"2 example,itafacilityisusingtheemissionratewithoutaddoncontrolsoptionandusesamixture (#4 ofhighHAPcoatingsnonHAPcoatings,itwillneedtoincludethenonHAPcoatingsinits *V%6  compliancedemonstrationcalculationsinordertomeettheemissionlimits. h+&8   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD16,IVD46)statedthatfacilitiesshouldbeallowedto   usetheircurrentrecordkeepingandreportingproceduresforcomplyingwithRACTandtheir b TitleVpermitsasanequivalentcomplianceprovisiontotheproposedMACTcompliance t requirements. &   Twocommenters(IVD36,IVD44)statedthatEPAshoulddelete63.3920(a)(4), 8  whichincludestherequirementtoreportthatnodeviationsoccurred,andshoulddefertoTitleV    requirements,specifically40CFR70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A).Ataminimum,thecommenter(IVD36)  L  statedthatEPAshouldclarifythatthestatementisnotaguaranteethattherewerenodeviations ^  becauseallcertificationsarebasedoninformationandbeliefformedafterreasonablereviewof   themonitoringinformation.Theothercommenter(IVD44)statedthattherequirementshould "r  bedeletedsincesourcesmustalreadyreportdeviations.Ifnodeviationsarereported,the   commenter(IVD44)believesitisimplicittherewerenodeviations.Thecommenter(IVD44) 6 alsosuggestedthat63.3942(c)berevisedtodeletetherequirementforanaffirmativestatement H ofcomplianceandthateachthinnerandsolventcontainednoHAP,sincethecommenter  believesthisprovisionisinconflictwithTitleVreporting.Alternatively,thecommenter(IVD  \ 44)suggestedtheruleincludelanguagethatcompliancewithTitleVreportingconstitutes n compliancewiththerule.      Onecommenter(IVD40)claimsthatthelanguageof63.3920(a)(2)precludesits 2" intendedpurpose,whichistoallowTitleVdeviationreportstosatisfytherequireddeviation $ reportingforthemetalpartsNESHAP.Thecommenter(IVD40)suggestedarevisionsuchthat F& anyTitleVdeviationreportforanaffectedsourcewillsuffice,regardlessofthecontentaslong X ( asitmeetsthefacilitysTitleVrequirement.Onecommenter(IVD52)askedforconfirmation ! * thataccordingto63.3920(a)(2),semiannualcompliancereportscanbesubmittedwith #l, semiannualTitleVreportsevenwhentheTitleVreportsarenotonacalendaryearschedule. ~$.   Response:Sourcesmustcomplywiththeemissionlimitations,monitoring, %0!0 recordkeepingandreportingrequirementsofthisNESHAP.ThepurposeoftheNESHAP B'"2 programistosetuniformnationalemissionlimitations(includingnumericalemissionlimits, (#4 operationslimits,andworkpracticestandards),andtoestablishthetesting,monitoring, *V%6 recordkeepingandreportingneededtodemonstratecompliancewiththeemissionlimitations. h+&8 TherequirementsofthisNESHAPthatapplytoasourcemustbeincludedinthesourcesTitleV ,(: permitwhenthepermitisissued,amended,orrenewed.AstateRACTprogrammaynotbe  equivalenttothisNESHAP.However,oneapproachthatyoumayuseistheequivalencyby b permitoptionin40CFRpart63,subpartE(63.94),whichisbrieflysummarizedinother t responsesinthisdocument. &   Wedisagreewiththecommenterthattheaffirmativestatementsregardingtheabsenceof 8  certaindeviationsrequiredby63.3942(c)shouldbedeletedduetoconflictswithexistingTitle    Vprograms.As6monthmonitoringreportsarenotrequiredbypart70orpart71tocontainsuch  L  affirmativestatements,thereisnoduplicationinrequiringsuchstatementsunderthisrule.Such ^  affirmativestatementsallowapermittingauthoritytoquicklyascertainwhetherasourcehas   experiencedcertaindeviationswhichinturnallowsforthemoreefficientallocationofresources. "r     Intermsofconsolidatingreports,thefinalrule,consistentwiththeproposedrule,allows   foranaffectedsourcetosubmititssemiannualcompliancereportalongwith,oraspartof,its6 6 monthmonitoringreportrequiredby40CFRpart70orpart71.Thereportscanbesubmittedon H thesamescheduleastheTitleVsemiannualreports.See63.3920(a)(1)(iv)and(a)(2)ofthe  finalrule.  \   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD17)recommendedthatfacilitiessubjecttothisrulebe n exemptedfrominitialnotificationrequirements,becausethesefacilitieswillhavealready    notifiedEPAunderthesection112(j)Part1application.Othercommenters(IVD36,IVD44) 2" recommendedthatEPAamend63.3910toexemptsourcesfromtherequirementtosubmitan $ initialnotificationiftheyhavealreadysubmitteda112(j)Part1application. F&   Response:TheGeneralProvisionsspecifiedin40CFR63SubpartAapplytoall X ( NESHAPsourcecategoriesinPart63.Under63.9(b),theowneroroperatorofafacilitysubject ! * toaNESHAPforagivensourcecategorymustsubmitaninitial,writtennotificationtotheEPA #l, withintheapplicabletimeperiodidentifyingthefacilityandthespecificNESHAPsubpartto ~$. whichthefacilityissubject.Inthiscase,theowneroroperatorofafacilitywithmetalpartsand %0!0 productssurfacecoatingoperationssubjecttotheNESHAPisrequiredtoprepareandsubmitan B'"2 initialnotification.Section112(j)oftheActrequiresownersandoperatorsofmajorsources (#4 withinasourcecategorytoapplyforaTitleVpermitshouldtheEPAfailtopromulgate *V%6 emissionstandardsforthatsourcecategorybythedatespecifiedintheregulatoryschedule h+&8 establishedthroughSection112(e)oftheAct.Theapplicationrequirementsarespecifiedunder ,(: 40CFR63SubpartB.AlthoughtheSubpartBapplicationrequirementsincludesomeofthe  sameinformationrequiredfortheSubpartAinitialnotification(e.g.,facilityname,address,brief b descriptionofsource),thetwodocumentsservedifferentadministrativepurposesunderthe t NESHAPprogram.Therefore,itisnotappropriatetoprovideanexemptionasrequestedbythe & commenterinthefinalrule. 8     Comment:Onecommenter(IVD24)assertedthattherecordkeepingcostspresentedin    thepreambleareunderestimated,consideringthesubstratetrackingrequirements,volumetric  L  tracking,andrecordkeepingforcontroldevices.Theextensiverecordkeepingdoesnotprovide ^  anaddedenvironmentalbenefit.Accordingtothecommenter(IVD24),thecostof   recordkeepingis$25,000perfacilitycomparedtoacostof$5,000formaterialconversionsto "r  meetthestandards.Thecommenter(IVD24)addedthattheMACTstandardwasnotintended   tobearecordkeepingstandard,therebyimposingsignificantcompliancecostsonfacilitieswith 6 littleornoenvironmentalbenefit. H   Response:Multiplecomplianceoptionsarewritteninthefinalruletoallowflexibility.  Weanticipatethatafacilitywillchoosethemostcosteffectivecomplianceoptionthatbestfits  \ therangeofoperationsandorganicHAPemissionstypicalforthefacility.Ifafacilitycan n demonstratecomplianceusingthecompliantmaterialsoption,thiswillminimizethe    recordkeepingrequirementsforthefacility.Mostfacilitieswillusecoatingsandothermaterials 2" thatcanmeeteitherthecompliantmaterialsoremissionratewithoutaddoncontrolscompliance $ demonstrationoptionsandwillnotuseaddoncontroldevicestocomplywiththerule,sofew F& facilitieswillberequiredtoperformcontroldevicemonitoringandrecordkeeping. X (   Therecordsandreportsrequiredbytherulearetheminimumneededtodetermineand ! * documentcomplianceforeachcomplianceoption.Itshouldalsobenotedthatthemonitoring, #l, reporting,andrecordkeepingestimatesreferredtobythecommenterareaveragesusedto ~$. producenationwidecostestimates.Aparticularfacilitycouldincurhigherorlowercosts %0!0 dependingonthenumberofprocessoperationssubjecttostandards,thecomplianceoptions B'"2 chosen,andthesophisticationoftheprocessmonitoring/recordkeepingsystemusedbythe (#4 facility.Forexample,afacilityusingacomputerizedrecordkeepingandinventorysystemsto *V%6 monitorcoatingmaterialsuse,productionand/oraddoncontrolequipmentoperationwillhavea h+&8 centralizeddatabaseofthematerialsusedandprocessandcontroldeviceoperatingparametersto ,(: supportthecompliancedetermination.Afacilityusingsuchasystemtomonitorproduction  shouldincurlessthantheestimatedaverageMRRcosts,whereasafacilitywithaless b sophisticatedsystemmightincurmorethantheestimatedaverageMRRcosts.Thecommenter t hasnotprovidedspecificdatathatwouldindicatethattheburdenhasbeenunderestimated. & Therefore,theestimateofmonitoring,reportingandrecordkeepingcostshasnotbeenrevised. 8    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD24)expressedthatafacilityshouldbeabletoestablish    ratiosbetweenproductsandproduceareasonablecomplianceplan.Forexample,afacility  L  shouldbeabletoknowthatacertainmixofpaint,reducer,andhardenershouldachieve ^  complianceorthatacertainratioofcleanertopaintcanachievecompliance.Thecommenter   (IVD24)believesthatrecordkeepingshouldbefocusedonthehighHAPproducts,asopposed "r  tothewholeuniverse,toencouragetheuseofmorecompliantmaterials.     Response:TheEPAagreesthatsourcesmaybeabletoestablishsimplifyingassumptions 6 specifictotheirsourcesthattheycouldusetoplanforandensurecompliancewiththe H requirementsofthisruleundereachcomplianceoption.However,theuniverseofsuchsite  specificpossibilitiesisbeyondthescopeofthisrulemaking.Thefinalruleincorporatesarange  \ ofcomplianceoptionsthatcanbewidelyusedbyallfacilities.Eachsourcemustretainthe n recordsrequiredbytheNESHAPforthecomplianceoptionstheychoose.Differentcompliance    optionscanbeusedfordifferentlinesorcoatingoperationswithinthesamefacility.For 2" example,thisfacilitymaybeabletousetheemissionratewithoutaddoncontrolsoptionto $ demonstratecompliancefortheirhighHAPmaterialsandenoughlowHAPmaterialstoachieve F& theemissionratelimit,andshowcompliancefortheremaininglowHAPmaterialsusingthe X ( simplercompliantmaterialsoption.Forafacilitythatwouldliketouseauniquesitespecific ! * approachfordemonstratingcompliance,anotheroptionistheequivalencybypermitoptionin40 #l, CFRpart63,subpartE(63.94),whichisbrieflysummarizedinotherresponsesinthis ~$. document. %0!0   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD24)recommendedthatthefinalruleallowforrecords B'"2 tobeavailableelectronicallyasanalternativetohavinghardcopyrecordsphysicallyonsite. (#4 Compliancerecordsarebecomingmorecomplexandcompaniesareusingmorecentralized *V%6 recordlocationswithstafftomaintainandinterpretthem.Anothercommenter(IVD63) h+&8 recommendedthattheruleallowrecordstobe readilyaccessiblefromthesite,notstoredon ,(: site.Thiswouldallowrecordstobestoredelectronicallyonoffsiteservers.Thecommenter  (IVD63)proposedalternativelanguagefor63.3931(c).Anothercommenter(IVD37) b recommendedthattherulebemodifiedtoallowelectronicrecordkeepingandreportingsystems, t accessibleovertheweb.ThisoptionwouldbeavailabletofacilitiesthathaveISO14000orother & EnvironmentalManagementSystemsinplacebythecompliancedate. 8    Response:Thelanguageintheruleisconsistentwith,andreferences,63.10(b)(1)ofthe    NESHAPGeneralProvisions,andtherefore,hasnotbeenrevised.Itshouldbenotedthatthe  L  rulerequiresthatasourcekeeprecordsinaformsuitableandreadilyavailableforexpeditious ^  review.Therecordsmaybemaintainedonmicrofilm,onacomputer,oncomputerfloppydisks,   onmagnetictapedisks,oronmicrofiche.Thislanguagewouldincludecentralizedrecordsthat "r  arereadilyaccessiblefromacomputeronsite.     Comment:Twocommenters(IVD24,IVD40)requestedthatEPAallowupto%  60days%) 6 tosubmitperiodiccompliancereports(63.3920(a)(1)(i)and(iii)),giventheamountofdata H thatmustbecollectedandanalyzedforeachreport.ThistimeframematchesotherMACT  standardstowhichthecommenter(IVD40)mustcomply.  \   Response:The30dayreportingperiodisconsistentwithothersurfacecoatingNESHAP n andshouldbeanadequateperiodoftimeforthissourcecategory.Ithasbeenretainedinthe    finalrule.However,ifaparticularsourceneedsadditionaltimeorwishestoadjusttheschedule, 2" 63.9(i)and63.10oftheGeneralProvisionsspecifyproceduresforrequestinganalternative $ reportingscheduleorpostmarkdateorawaiverofrecordkeepingandreportingrequirements. F& RequestsmustbesubmittedtoandapprovedbytheAdministrator(ortheirdelegated X ( representative,suchasastateagency)asspecifiedintheGeneralProvisions.  ! *   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD44)statedthatthecertificationrequirementsfor #l, semiannualreportsin63.3920(a)(3)(ii)shouldclearlybemadethesameasthosefortheTitleV ~$. programbyaddingareferenceto40CFR70or71.Thecommenter(IVD44)believestherule %0!0 shouldstatethatTitleVpermittingagencieshavetheauthoritytoconsolidatereporting B'"2 requirementsanddates.Anothercommenter(IVD40)supportedtheoptiontoconsolidatethe (#4 semiannualreportintotheTitleVsemiannualdeviationreport. *V%6   Response: Intermsofconsolidatingreports,theruleallowsforanaffectedsourceto h+&8 submititssemiannualcompliancereportalongwith,oraspartof,its6monthmonitoringreport ,(: requiredby40CFRpart70orpart71.See63.3920(a)(1)(iv)and(a)(2)oftherule.However,  thereportmustcontaintheinformationrequiresbytheMiscellaneousMetalPartsandProducts b NESHAPforreasonsexplainedinpreviousresponsesinthischapter.  t   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD44)requestedthatEPArevisetherequirementsin & 63.3920(a)(5)(iv)and(a)(6)(iii)andelsewheretobeconsistentwiththeapplicableTitleV 8  permitprogramfor promptreportingofdeviations.Insomecases,deviationsmustbereported    evenbeforeacausecanbedetermined.Ataminimum,thecommenter(IVD44)requestedthat  L  therequirementbemodifiedtorequirethereportingofthe suspectedcauseofthedeviation. ^    Response:Wedisagreewiththecommentthattheruleshouldberevisedsothatthe   reportingofstartup,shutdown,andmalfunctioneventsisconsistentwiththerequirementsofthe "r  applicableTitleVpermitconditionsfor promptreportingofdeviations.Asstatedin40CFR   70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B),apermittingauthorityisrequiredtodefine promptinrelationtothedegree 6 andtypeofdeviationlikelytooccurandtheapplicablerequirements.Therefore,asrequiredby H thisprovision,applicablerequirements,includingthosefoundin63.3920(c)ofthefinalruleand  40CFR63.10(d)(5),mustbetakenintoaccountbyapermittingauthoritywhenitdefines  \  prompt.Therefore,itistheresponsibilityofthepart70permittingauthoritytodetermine n whetherthereportingrequirementsfoundin63.3920(c)ofthefinalruleandtheNESHAP    GeneralProvisionsin40CFR63.10(d)(5)aresufficienttomeetthepermittingauthoritys 2" requirementsforthepromptreportingofdeviations.Apermittingauthoritymaydecidefora $ particularsourceorsourcecategory,orasageneralmatter,toimposemorestringentreporting F& requirements(suchastypeofreport,contentofreport,and/orfrequencyofsubmission)than X ( thosespecifiedinanapplicablerequirement.However,therequirementsin63.3920(c)ofthe ! * finalruleand63.10(d)(5)areapplicablerequirementsandmustbemetbyasourcewhichis #l, subjecttothisrule. ~$.   TheruleprovidessomeflexibilityfortheAdministrator(i.e.,theEPAAdministratoror %0!0 theirauthorizedrepresentative,whichmaybeastateagency)toalterthetimingoftheimmediate B'"2 deviationreports.Section63.3920(c)(ii)saysyoumustsubmittheletterwithin7workingdays (#4 aftertheendoftheeventunlessyouhavemadealternativearrangementswiththeAdministrator *V%6 asspecifiedin63.10(d)(5)(ii)oftheGeneralProvisions.Section63.10(d)(5)(ii),asrecently h+&8 amendedin2003,statesthat aftertheeffectivedateofanapprovedpermitprograminthestate ,(: inwhichtheaffectedsourceislocated,theowneroroperatormaymakealternativereporting  arrangements,inadvance,withthepermittingauthorityinthatstate.Proceduresgoverningthe b arrangementofalternativereportingrequirementsunderthisparagraph(d)(5)(ii)arespecifiedin t 63.9(i). &   Wedonotbelievethatchangestotheruleareneededtorequiresourcestoreportthe 8   suspectedcauseforeachdeviationversusthe causeforeachdeviation.Reportingbasedon    thebestinformationthatisavailableatthetimeisallthatisrequiredwhethertherulerefersto  L  the causeorthe suspectedcauseforadeviation.Moreover,certificationsoftruth,accuracy, ^  andcompletenessunder40CFR70.5(d)and71.5(d)aretobebasedoninformationandbelief   formedafterreasonableinquiry.Therefore,thereisnoconflictbetweenthisruleandState "r  TitleVprograms.However,newinformationregardingthecauseofadeviationmustbe   reportedtoapermittingauthoritywhenitbecomesknown. 6   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD52)statedthat63.3920(a)(3)(v)and(a)(8)(ii) H shouldbeconsistent!thenotificationofcompliancestatusshouldrequirenomoreinformation  thanthesemiannualcompliancereports.Currently,thenotificationofcompliancestatusrequires  \ thecalculationofthetotalHAPemissionsandvolumesolidsforeachmonth,andthe12month n organicHAPemissionrate.Thesemiannualcompliancereportsrequireonlytheemissionrate    foreach12monthperiod.Thecommenter(IVD52)requestedthatonlyresultsshouldbe 2" submittedandthatcalculationsshouldbemaintainedandmadeavailableifrequested. $    Response:ThepurposeofrequiringthatthecalculationsbesubmittedintheNotification F& ofCompliancestatusistoallowtheregulatoryagencytoverifyupfrontthatthesource X ( understandsthecalculationprocedures,isimplementingthemcorrectly,andisincompliance. ! * Becausethecompliancecalculationscanbefairlycomplex,itwillbenefitthesourceaswellas #l, theregulatoryagencytosubmitthecalculationsthefirsttimesothatanyproblemsor ~$. misunderstandingscanbeidentifiedandcorrected. Toreducethereportingburden,wearenot %0!0 requiringthecalculationstobesubmittedineachsubsequentsemiannualreport.Thesourcewill H'"2 continuetousethesametypesofcalculationsandproceduresthatweresubmittedinthe (#4 NotificationofComplianceStatusandreviewedbytheregulatoryagency,soitinnotnecessary  *\%6 tosubmitthedetailedcalculationsineachsemiannualreport.However,recordsofthe n+&8 calculationsmustberetainedonsiteandmadeavailabletotheenforcementagencyifrequested. , (:   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD44)earliersuggestedthatEPAremovethe  requirementunderthecompliantmaterialsoptionthatallcleaningsolventsandthinnerscontain b noHAP.(Seesection10.2ofthisdocument).  Asafollowup,thesamecommenterrequested t thatEPAremovefromtherequirementsforreportingdeviationstheprovisionin & 63.3920(a)(5)(i)thatthefacilityidentifyeachthinnerandsolventthatcontainedHAP. 8    Response:Forthereasonsdiscussedundersection10.2,theEPAhasnotremovedthe    requirementunderthecompliantmaterialscomplianceoptionthatallsolventsandthinners  L  containnoHAP.However,EPAhasclarifiedthat noHAPsolventsandthinnerswasnot ^  meanttomeanzeroHAP.AdefinitionofnonHAPthatisconsistentwithestablishedOSHA   reportingthresholdshasbeenaddedtothefinalrule.Ifyouareusingthecompliantmaterials "r  option,itwouldbeadeviationtousesolventsandthinnerstocontainHAP(abovethereporting   thresholdsinthedefinition),andthatdeviationmustbeincludedinsemiannualcompliance 6 reports. H   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD44)requestedthatEPAclarifythestatementinthe  firstcolumnofpage52788ofthepreambleunder InitialNotificationsthatsourcesneedto  \ sendanotificationofplannedconstructionorreconstructionofasourcesubjecttotheruleand n applyforapprovaltoconstructorreconstruct.Thecommenter(IVD44)believesthatthe    requirementiswithinthecurrentpermitprogramineachStateanddoesnotrepresentaseparate 2" requirement. $   Response:Wedisagreewiththiscommenter.Therequirementstowhichthecommenter F& refersinthereferencedpreamblestatementcanbefoundin63.9oftheNESHAPGeneral X ( Provisions,whichaddressesnotificationrequirements,and63.5(d)whichaddressesapplications ! * forapprovalofconstructionorreconstruction.TheserequirementsfromtheGeneralProvisions #l, applytoaffectedsourcesunderpart63andbothrequirementsapplytoaffectedsourcesunder ~$. thisruleasdescribedinTable2tothefinalrule.However,63.9(a)(3)providesthatifaState %0!0 requiresanoticethatcontainsalloftheinformationrequiredinanotificationunder63.9,then B'"2 theowneroroperatormaysendtheAdministratoracopyofthenoticesenttotheStatetosatisfy (#4 therequirementsof63.9.Copiesofsuchnotificationswouldneedtobesubmittedatthetimes *V%6  specifiedin63.9. h+&8   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD44)requestedthatEPArevise63.3891todeletethe   requirementthatsourcesincludeintheirnextsemiannualreportthattheyhaveswitched b complianceoptions.Thecommenterarguedthatthesourceshouldonlyberequiredtodocument t theswitch.Accordingtothecommenter(IVD44),mostsemiannualreportsaredoneonState & formsthatdonothavespacetoreportactionsthatdonotresultinadeviation.Thecommenter 8  (IVD44)statedthatEPAshoulddeleteallrequirementstoreportallactionsthatdonotresultin    adeviation.  L    Response:Wedisagreewiththechangesuggestedbythecommenter.Inorderforthe ^  regulatoryauthorityresponsibleforcompliancetoevaluatethesemiannualcompliancereport   requiredby63.3920(a),itisimperativetoknowwhichcompliancedeterminationmethodthe "r  sourceisusing.Manymetalpartsandproductssurfacecoatingfacilitiesareverycomplexwith   manycoatingapplicationandcleaningoperations,andthefinalruleallowsseveraldifferent 6 methodsofcomplianceforeachoftheseoperations.Inorderfortheregulatoryauthorityto H understandhowsuchafacilitydemonstratedcompliance,thecomplianceoptionsmustbe  known.Theinformationthatmustbesubmittedtodemonstratecontinuingcompliancediffers  \ dependingonwhichcomplianceoptionischosen.Moreover,thereisnoconflictwiththis n requirementandaTitleVpermittingprogram,asapermittingauthoritymustknowwhat    complianceoptionsasourceisoperatingunderinordertoascertainwhetherthesourceisin 2" compliancewithitsapplicablerequirements. $   Comment:Thecommenter(IVD52)askedEPAtoclarifytheterm usageandwhether F& purchasequantitiescanbeusedinplaceofactualamountusedincompliancecalculations.The X ( commenter(IVD52)notedthatusageisespeciallyhardtotrackforcoatingswithlowusage ! * ratesandmostfacilitieshavepurchasedata,butnotaccurateusagedata. #l,   Response:Inmanycases,afacilitycanusepurchaserecordsandmaketheassumption ~$. thatallthecoatingmaterialsthatarepurchasedareusedintheircoatingoperationinorderto %0!0 simplifycompliancecalculations.However,insomecases,purchaserecordswouldnotbe B'"2 sufficient.Forexample,ifafacilityisusingthesamecoatingsfordifferentsurfacecoating (#4 operationsthataresubjecttodifferentemissionlimits,orifthefacilityhaselectedtouse *V%6 differentcompliancedemonstrationoptionsfordifferentcoatinglinesoroperationswithinthe h+&8 facility,thenthefacilitywillneedtotrackcoatingusageintheirdifferentcoatingoperations. ,(:    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD52)requestedthat63.3931(b)berevisedtorequire  thatrecordsbekeptforonlythreeyearsandnotfive.Duetotheincreasedamountof b recordkeeping,thecommenterbelievesfiveyearsisunnecessarilylong. t   Response:Theminimumrecordretentionperiodsrequiredforallsourcecategory & NESHAParespecifiedintheGeneralProvisionsspecifiedin40CFR63SubpartA.Anowner 8  oroperatorisrequiredtoretainallrecordsforatleast5yearsfollowingthedateofeach    occurrence,measurement,maintenance,correctiveaction,report,orrecord.Therecordsforthe  L  mostrecent2yearsmustberetainedonsite;recordsfortheremaining3yearsmayberetained ^  offsitebutmuststillbereadilyavailableforreview.Thefilescanberetainedonmicrofilm,   microfiche,acomputer,ormagneticdisks.Therearenospecialcircumstancesthatjustify "r  shorteningtheseminimumrecordretentionperiodsforthemetalpartsandproductssurface   coatingsourcecategory.Furthermore,the5yearrecordretentionperiodisconsistentwith 6 TitleVpermitprogramrequirements. H   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD59)notedthatthequantityofHAPsusedduringa  deviationarerequiredtobeusedincompliancecalculationsasthoughtheywereusedonan  \ uncontrolledcoatingoperation;however,norecordsarerequiredasdocumentation.The n commenter(IVD59)requestedthat63.3930(j)berevisedtoread, Youmustkeeprecordsof    thedate,time,andduration,ofeachdeviationandthevolumeofcoating,thinners,andcleaning 2" materialusedduringeachdeviation. $   Response:Wedonotagreethatthechangesuggestedbythecommenterisneeded. F& Section63.3961(h)(4)oftherulespecifieshowtocalculatethemassoforganicHAPinthe X ( coatings,thinnersand/orotheradditives,andcleaningmaterialsusedincontrolledcoating ! * operationsduringdeviationsusingEquation1Dofthatsection.Section63.3930(c)(4)(iii) #l, specifiesthatyoumustkeeprecordsforthecalculationofthemassoforganicHAPemission ~$. reductionbyemissioncapturesystemsandaddoncontroldevicesusingEquations1and1A %0!0 through1Dof63.3961andEquations2,3,and3Athrough3Cof63.3961.Therefore,these B'"2 provisionsalreadyrequireyoutokeeptherecordssuggestedbythecommenter. (#4   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD63)statedthatifthecompliantmaterialsoptionis *V%6  used,thefinalruleshouldnotrequirerecordsofthevolumeofcompliantmaterialsused.This h+&8 informationwouldservenopurpose.Thecommenterhasproposedalternativelanguagefor  63.3930(d)withnewtextunderlined: b  0  (d)Arecordofthename andvolume ofeachcoating,thinner,andcleaningmaterialused t duringeachcomplianceperiodregardlessofthecomplianceoptionusedbythesource.In & addition,arecordofthevolumeofeachcoating,thinner,andcleaningmaterialused 8  duringeachcomplianceperiodunlessthecompliantmaterialoptionisusedbythesource.  (#(#   Response:TheEPAagreesthattheserecordsarenotneededifasourceisusingthe  L  compliantmaterialsoptionforallcoatingoperationsandplanstodosoatalltimesinthefuture. ^  However,EPAdisagreesthatthisinformationwouldservenopurposeandismaintainingthis   requirementinthefinalruleforthefollowingreasons.Keepingarecordofthevolumeofeach "r  coatingusedallowsverificationthatallcoatingmaterialsused(exceptthosethatqualifyforthe   lowvolumeexemption)havebeenaccountedforandincludedinthecompliancedemonstration. 6 Ifasourceisusingthecompliantmaterialsoptionforsomecoatingoperationsandtheemission H ratewithoutaddoncontrolsortheemissionratewithaddoncontrolsoptionforothercoating  operations,thesourcewillneedrecordsoftheamountofcoatingusedineachoperationunder  \ eachcomplianceoptiontoaccountforallmaterialssubjecttothisrule.Similarly,ifasource n switchesfromthecompliantmaterialsoptiontoanotheroption,thesourcewillneedto    demonstratethatitisincompliancebasedonthepast12monthsofdataandconsumptiondata 2" wouldbeneededforthatdemonstration.Finally,otherairprogramsundertheActandother $ environmentalprogramsfrequentlyrequirereportingofenvironmentalreleases(suchasthe F& ToxicReleaseInventory)thatmustbecalculatedfromconsumptiondata,soitislikelythatthese X ( recordsarealreadymaintainedbythosesourcesthatwillbesubjecttothisrule.Asdescribedin ! * apreviousresponse,manysourcesmayusepurchaserecordswhichtheyalreadyhaveavailable #l, todetermineusage. ~$.   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD52)requestedthatEPArevise63.3930(h)and %0!0 63.3951(e)(4)todeletetherequirementtokeepastatementofwhichsubpartsunder40CFR262, B'"2 264,265,and266applytothefacility.Thecommenter(IVD52)statedthisrequirementis (#4 redundantofrecordsalreadyrequiredunderthosesubparts. *V%6   Response:Wehaveretainedthisrequirementinthefinalrulebecausewebelieveitis h+&8 necessarytoensurecompliancewiththeMiscellaneousMetalPartsandProductsNESHAP.In ,(: calculatingtheemissionrate,metalpartscoatingfacilitiesareallowedtotakecreditforthemass  oforganicHAPcontainedinwastematerialssentordesignatedforshipmenttoahazardous b wasteTSDFthatisregulatedunder40CFRpart262,264,265,or266.Inordertobesurethat t thecreditclaimedbyametalpartscoatingfacilityisallowable,weneedtoknowthatthewasteis & beingsenttoaregulatedTSDF.TherequirementtokeeprecordsoftheTSDFfacilitynameand 8  thesubpartunderwhichitisregulatedareneededtoallowverificationthatthesourceiseligible    totakecreditforthewastematerials.  L    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD63)statedthatEPAdoesnothaveCleanAirAct ^  authoritytorequirerecordkeepingandreportingofsurfacecoatingmaterialwastedisposal   becausewastedisposalisregulatedundertheResourceConservationandRecoveryAct(RCRA). "r  Thecommenter(IVD63)statedthatrecordsofwastedisposal,includingquantities,arealready   requiredbyRCRAandthatmaintainingseparaterecordstocomplywiththisruleisunnecessary. 6 Ifthisinformationwereneededforanenforcementaction,thecommenter(IVD63)believes H EPAhasauthorityunderRCRAtoinspecttheserecords.Thecommenter(IVD63)  recommendeddeleting63.3930(h)(1)andproposedalternativelanguagefor63.3930(h)(2).  \   Response:Wehaveauthoritytorequiretherecordsandreportsthatareneededto n determinecompliancewithandenforcetheNESHAP.TheMiscellaneousMetalPartsand    ProductsNESHAPallowssourcescomplyingwiththeemissionrateoptiontotakecreditforthe 2" massoforganicHAPcontainedinwastematerialssentordesignatedforshipmenttoahazardous $ wasteTSDF.Totakecredit,thesewastematerialsmustbefromanoperationatthemetalparts F& coatingfacilitythatissubjecttothemiscellaneousmetalpartsandproductsNESHAPandis X ( usingtheemissionrate(withorwithoutaddoncontrols)complianceoption.Toverifythemass ! * ofHAPthatarecredited(i.e.subtractedfromtheemissionratecalculation)indetermining #l, compliancewiththeemissionratelimit,weneedrecordsofwhichmetalpartscoatingoperations ~$. generatedthewaste,theamountofwastefromthemetalpartscoatingoperationthataresentor %0!0 designatedforshipment,andtheamountofHAPcontainedinthewaste.Afacilitymayuse B'"2 recordsthatitisrequiredtokeepunderRCRAaspartofthisdocumentation.However,the (#4 RCRAdocumentationmaynotsatisfyalltherequirementsoftheNESHAP.Forexample,the *V%6 RCRAdocumentationmightgivethetotalamountofwasteandHAPcontentforallwaste h+&8 shippedoffsite,butifonlyaportionofthatwasteisfromametalpartscoatingoperationthatis ,(: usingtheemissionratecomplianceoption,thanthefacilitymustkeeprecordsshowingthe  amountofwasteandtheassociatedmassofHAPfromthatparticularcoatingoperation.Because b theserecordsareclearlyneededtodeterminecompliancewiththeemissionlimitinthemetal t partsrule,theyhavebeenretainedinthefinalrule.  & @[[ 15.0ADDONCONTROLS  ` 15.10  GeneralComments 8 (#(#   Comment:Threecommenters(IVD12,IVD28,IVD47)maintainedthatthe J  compliancerequirementsforcapturesystemsandaddoncontrolsareexcessiveand   unreasonable.Onecommenter(IVD12)argueditwillbeexpensivetoconducttestingandto ^  developaworkpracticeplanandstartup,shutdown,andmalfunction(SSM)plansforallofthe p situationsthatarelikelytoarise.Twocommenters(IVD28,IVD47)objectedthat(1)therule " requiresfarmorereportingthanisspecifiedintheGeneralProvisionsand(2)theextra 4 requirementsareexcessiveandunnecessary,particularlythereportingrequirementsfor  deviations.Thecommentersclaimedthattherulerequiresreportingofeverychangetoa H continuousparametermonitoringsystem,coatingoperation,emissioncapturesystemandaddon Z controldevicesimplybecausetherehasbeenasingledeviationinareportingperiod.The   commentersrecommendedthattheruleconformtotherequirementsoftheGeneralProvisions. n    Response:Themonitoring,recordkeeping,andreportingrequirementsoftheruleare " consistentwiththosefoundintheGeneralProvisionsandaretheminimumnecessaryto 2$ demonstratethatthesourceisachievingtheemissionlimitationsatalltimes,asrequiredbythe D!& GeneralProvisions.Thereportingrequirementsfordeviationsareconsistentwiththeminimum "( reportingrequiredbytheGeneralProvisions.Table2tosubpartMMMMcomparesthe $X* requirementsofthisruletothoseoftheGeneralProvisions.InspectionofTable2willreveal j% , thatonlythosepartsoftheGeneralProvisionsthatarerelevanttocompliancewiththisNESHAP &". applyandthatnosubstantiveadditionalrequirementshavebeenadded. .(~#0   )$2   &     15.20  PerformanceTestingRequirements a (#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD24)requestedthatEPAallowaonetime b demonstrationofcaptureandcontrolefficiency.Thecommenterstatedthat63.3960shouldbe t ' revisedsuchthatsourceswithacontroldevicewillhavetomakeonlyaonetimedemonstration & thatthecombinedcaptureandcontrolefficiencywillreducetheemissionratefromallmaterials 8  toalevelequivalenttothelimitsintherule.Thisshouldrequirenoadditionalcompliance    calculations.Thecommenterbelievesthattheproposedrecordkeepingwoulddissuadefacilities  L  fromusingaddoncontrols.Sincetheruleistechnologybasedandnotanannualemissionlimit, ^  sourcesshouldbeabletouseasuperiortechnologywithoutadditionalrecordkeeping.     Thesamecommenter(IVD24)alsosuggestedthat63.3960shouldberevisedsuchthat "r  sourceswithaddoncontrolsthatachieveanemissionrateequalto50percentorlessoftherule   limitsshouldbeexemptfromusagetrackingandcontrolsystemparametermonitoring. 6   Response:ThisruleisanumericalemissionlimitintermsoflbofHAPemittedper H gallonofcoatingsolidsused.Itisnotintheformatofapercentemissionreduction.Sincethe  amountofthedifferenttypesofcoatingsandadditivesused,andtheirHAPandsolidscontents,  \ canaffecttheemissionratefromafacility,theymustbeincludedinthecompliancecalculations n inordertoensureafacilityisachievingthenumericalemissionlimits.Thecommenterprovided    noinformationtoshowhowaonetimecompliancedemonstrationoraonetimedemonstration 2" thatthesourcewasachievinganemissionrateequalto50percentorlessoftherulelimitswould $ ensurethatasourceisachievingthenumericalemissionlimitonacontinuousbasis.Therefore, F& thefinalruleretainstherequirementthatsourceswithaddoncontrolsperformthemonthly X ( compliancecalculations. ! *   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD24)believes63.3960shouldberevisedsuchthat #l, existingcontroldevicesshouldbegrandfatheredinasfarasdemonstrationofcontrolefficiencies ~$. andestablishmentofcomplianceparametermonitoringconditions. %0!0   Response:Giventhevariableperformanceofexistingcontroldevicesandthemonitoring B'"2 requirementsassociatedwiththem,itisnotfeasibletograntablanketprovisionthatexisting (#4 controlsandmonitoringconditionswillconstitutecompliancewiththecontrolandmonitoring *V%6 provisionsofthisNESHAP.Existingcontrolandmonitoringrequirementswereestablishedat h+&8 sourcesfordifferentreasonsassociatedwithdifferentairpollutioncontrolprogramsand ,(: stringencylevels,andmaynotbeadequatetodeterminecontinuouscompliancewiththe  NESHAP. b   Comment:Threecommenters(IVD28,IVD40,IVD47)objectedtotherequirement t thattheperformancetestforexistingsourcesmustbeconductedatthecompliancedate,rather & than180daysafterthecompliancedate(asspecifiedintheNESHAPGeneralProvisions).One 8  commenter(IVD40)notedthat63.3960(b)(1)statesthatexistingsourcesmustconducta    performancetestnolaterthanthecompliancedateandsuggestedthatthismeanstheactual  L  complianceperiodislessthan3yearsafterpromulgation.Thecommenterrequestedthe ^  performancetestbeconductednolaterthan180daysafterthecompliancedatesothatexisting   andnewsourceshaveanequalcomplianceburden.Twocommenters(IVD28,IVD47) "r  maintainedthatthetimingdoesnotallowforsufficientshakedownofcontrolandmonitoring   devicesandmayrequirethattestingbeperformedincoldweather,whichraisessafetyissues. 6 ThecommentersstatedthatEPAprovidednorationaleforoverridingtheGeneralProvisions. H   Response:Webelievethatthedatespecifiedintheproposedruleforcompleting  performancetestsatexistingsourcesallowssufficienttimetoinstallemissioncapturesystems  \ andaddoncontrols,ifasourcechoosestousethem,andcompletetheperformancetest.By n completingtheperformancetestbeforethecompliancedateandestablishingoperatinglimits    basedonthetestdata,EPAhasagreaterassurancethatexistingsourcesareincomplianceatall 2" timesduringtheinitialcomplianceperiod. $   Sincethecompliancedatefornewsourcesistheirstartupdate,itisnotfeasibleto F& conductacompliancetestpriortothecompliancedate.Therefore,thecompliancetestmustbe X ( performednolaterthan180afterthecompliancedate.Thisdifferencefromtherequirementsfor ! * existingsourcesreflectstheinherentdifferencebetweennewandexistingsourcesthatisalso #l, reflectedinotherpartsoftherule. ~$.   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD13)arguedthatafacilityshouldbeallowedtouse %0!0 previoustestsofcapturesystemefficiencyandcontroldevicedestructionefficiencyto B'"2 demonstratecompliance.Thecommenter(IVD13)suggestedaddingthesamelanguagefound (#4 in63.5160(a)ofthemetalcoilcoatingMACTtoestablishrequirementsfordatafromprevious *V%6  tests: h+&8   (1)Thecontroldeviceisequippedwithcontinuousemissionmonitors[CEM]for   determiningtotalorganicvolatilematterconcentration,andcaptureefficiencyhasbeen b determinedinaccordancewiththerequirementsofthissubpart;andthecontinuousemission t monitorsareusedtodemonstratecontinuouscomplianceinaccordancewith63.5150(a)(2);or &   (2)Youhavereceivedawaiverofperformancetestingunder63.7(h);or 8    (3)Thecontroldeviceisasolventrecoverysystemandyouchoosetocomplybymeans    ofamonthlyliquidliquidmaterialbalance.  L    Response:Weagreethatthemostrecenttestdatacanbeusedtodemonstratecompliance ^  andtoestablishtheoperatinglimitsrequiredbythisrule,aslongastheprevioustestdatameets   theperformancetestrequirementsdetailedinthefinalrule.However,dependingontheactual "r  timingandmethodologyofthemostrecentperformancetest,youwouldneedtodiscusstheneed   fornewtestdatawithyourenforcementauthorityandincludesuchinformationinyourinitial 6 notification. H   ThewaiverofperformancetestingforacontroldeviceequippedwithaCEMinthemetal  coilrulewouldonlyapplytosourcesinthemetalpartssourcecategoryiftheCEMmeasured  \ bothinletandoutletconcentrationtodeterminedestructionefficiency.However,sincethemetal n partsrulerequiresthatasourcedeterminescontroldevicedestructionefficiency,afacilityusing    aCEMasspecifiedinthemetalcoilrulewouldbefulfilling(atleastinpart)thetesting 2" requirementsinthemetalpartsruleiftheyobtainedpermissiontouseanalternativemethod $ under63.7(f)oftheGeneralProvisions. F&   WaiversofperformancetestingasspecifiedbytheGeneralProvisionsin63.7(h)are X ( grantedonacasebycasebasismustbeappliedforasspecifiedin63.7(h).Thefinalrulecross ! * referencesthisprovisionwhichclarifiestheconditionsunderwhichawaivermaybegranted. #l,   Sourcesthatareusingasolventrecoverysystemandperformingaliquidliquidmaterial ~$. balancearealreadyexemptfrommanyoftheperformancetestingrequirementsinthefinalrule. %0!0   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD13)requestedthatEPArevisetheruletoreplacethe B'"2 measurementofTVHwiththemorefamiliartotalorganiccompounds(TOC)asdeterminedby (#4 EPAMethod25or25A(25measuresTOCwithoutmethaneforsourcescontrolledby *V%6  combustiondevicesusingnaturalgasasfuel).Thecommenter(IVD13)arguedthatthiswould h+&8 bemoreconsistentwithotherNESHAPthatrequireperformanceteststomeasureTOC  excludingmethaneandethane. b    Response:Wedonotagreewiththecommentersconcernandbelievethedefinitionfor t totalvolatilehydrocarbon(TVH)isappropriatefortheintendeduseinthetestmethods. & Methods204AthroughFarethecorrectmethodsfordeterminingcaptureefficiency.Allof 8  thesemethodsrelyontheuseofaflameionizationanalyzer(FIA)astheanalyticaltechnique.    Thisruledoesnotchangeormodifythemethodsexcepttochangetheterminologyofthe  L  compoundsmeasuredbythe(FIA)from VOCto TVH.Ifthecommenterisnotconcerned ^  withtheterminologybut,infact,believesthatMethods204AthroughFarenottheappropriate   methodsfordeterminingcaptureefficiency(orwishestomodifythemethodsinsomeway),the "r  owner/operatorcanapplyfortheuseofanalternativemethodundertheprovisionsof   63.3965(e). 6   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD11)expressedsupportforthealternativecapture H efficiencyprotocolof63.3965(e).Anothercommenter(IVD19)requestedthatthefinalrule  shouldallowsourcestorequestalternativerequirementsformeasuringcaptureefficiencyfrom  \ permanenttotalenclosuresandpartialenclosures.Onecommenter(IVD36)statedthatEPA n shouldallowsourcestodevelopanduseothercapturesystemefficiencymeasurementprotocols    appropriatefortheshapeandsizeoftheirpartsandcoatingsthatwouldbeapprovedbytheEPA 2" ordelegatedagency.Accordingtothecommenter,alternativeprotocolsshouldnothavetomeet $ thedataqualityobjective(DQO)orlowerconfidencelimit(LCL)approachinAppendixAto40 F& CFR63subpartK,asrequiredbyproposed63.3965(e). X (   Response:Section63.3965oftheruleprovidestheproceduresandtestmethodsfor ! * determiningtheemissioncapturesystemefficiency.Theruledoesnotrequire100percent #l, captureefficiency,butprovidesanoptionforassuming100percentcaptureefficiencyifthe ~$. capturesystemisdesignedandoperatedtomeetthePTEcriteriaofMethod204.Youcanusea %0!0 partialenclosure(anenclosurethatdoesnotmeetthePTEcriteria)andmeasurethecapture B'"2 efficiencyofthesystemusingtheproceduresinMethod204and204AthroughF(63.3965(b (#4 d)).Furthermore,63.3965(e)specificallyallowsyoutouseanalternativeprotocoltodetermine *V%6 thecaptureefficiencyofthesystem.Thesealternativeprotocolscanbedesignedtobemost h+&8 appropriateforthecoatingsandtheshapeandsizeofthepartsatafacility,asrequestedby ,(: commenterIVD36,buttheDQOandLCLcriteriawillassurethattheprotocolaccurately  measurestheefficiencyofthecapturesystem. b   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD13)requestedthatEPAallowcaptureefficiencytest t runsshorterthan3hoursiftheyarerepresentativeofVOCcapturesystemperformance. &   Response:TheEPAMethods204and204AthroughFspecifythateachcapture 8  efficiencytestrunshouldbe3hoursorthedurationofaproductionrun,whicheverislonger,up    toamaximumof8hoursperrun.Sourcescanapplyforapprovaltouseashorterperiodunder  L  63.7(f)oftheGeneralProvisionsorapplyforapprovalofanalternativeprotocolmeetingthe ^  DQOorLCLcriteriainAppendixAto40CFR63subpartK.     Comment:Onecommenter(IVD13)askedforclarificationonwhethercapture "r  efficiencytestsarerequiredwhenonlypartofthecoatingline(e.g.,booth,flashoffarea,or   dryingandcuringoven)isenclosedbyaPTE.Thecommenternotedthatonsomecoatinglines, 6 onlytheboothorovenemissions,butnotbotharecaptured. H   Response:IfonlypartofthecoatingoperationisenclosedinaPTE,suchasaspray  booth,thenthecaptureefficiencyoftheentirecoatingoperationmuststillbedetermined.  \ However,ifpartofthecoatingoperationisaPTE,thenafacilitymaybeabletosimplifythe n captureefficiencydeterminationbyhavingtoconstructatemporarytotalenclosureonlyaround    thepartofthecoatingoperationthatisnotenclosedbythePTE. 2"   Comment:Twocommenters(IVD28,IVD47)statedthattherequirementsfor $ measuringcaptureefficiencyarenotfeasibleforrubbertometaloperations.Thecommenters F& explainedthatneithertotalpermanentenclosuresnortemporarytotalenclosuresarepracticalfor X ( rubbertometaloperations.Therefore,thecommenterspredictedthatmanyrubbertometal ! * bondingfacilitieswouldneedtorelyon63.3965(e)todevelopanalternativeprotocolfor #l, measuringcaptureefficiency.ThecommentersaskedEPAtoreview63.3965(e)toensurethatit ~$. allowssourcestodevelopanalternativetestmethodofmeasuringcaptureefficiencybasedonthe %0!0 HAPcontentofthematerialapplied,volumeofmaterialappliedasdeterminedbymaterial B'"2 balance,andtheinletandoutletHAPconcentrationsasdeterminedbystacktesting. (#4   Thesecondcommenter(IVD47)statedthatthecompliancetestingcostsare *V%6 unreasonableforadhesivecoatingoperationsforrubbertometalbonding.First,thecommenter h+&8 statedthatpermanenttotalenclosuresarenotalwaysfeasiblefortheseprocesses.Second,where ,(: aPTEcannotbeused,Method204mustbeusedtodemonstratetheperformanceforcapture  systems.Accordingtothecommenter,Method204isacomplicatedandexpensiveprocedure b becausetheairflowratefromthetemporarytotalenclosuremustbecarefullyregulatedsoasnot t tointerferewiththeproperoperationofthepermanentcapturesystem,andtheemissionsfrom & thepermanentcapturesystemandthetemporaryenclosuremustbothbebothmeasured 8  simultaneouslytodeterminecaptureefficiency.      Response:Section63.3965(e)allowsasourcetouseanyalternativemethodthatmeets  L  thedataqualityobjectives(DQO)orlowerconfidencelimits(LCL)asdescribedinAppendixA ^  to40CFR63,subpartKK.Thisappendixestablishesstatisticalcriteriafordeterminingcapture   efficiencybasedonamassbalanceoftheHAPintroducedtoacapturesystemandtheamountof "r  HAPmeasuredattheexitofthecapturesystemortheinlettotheaddoncontroldevice.   Therefore,thisprovisioncanbeusedbysourcestodevelopanalternativetestmethodof 6 measuringcaptureefficiencybasedontheHAPcontentofthematerialapplied,volumeof H materialappliedasdeterminedbymaterialbalance,andtheinletandoutletHAPconcentrations  asdeterminedbystacktesting,assuggestedbythecommenter.  \ B.` hp x (#XB  Comment:Onecommenter(IVD47)statedthattheruleisunclearaboutthephysical n extentofthecoatingprocessthatmustbeenclosedfortheMethod204capturesystemefficiency    determination.Afteracoatedparthaspassedthroughthefinalprocessequipment,asmall 2" amountofresidualorganicHAPmaterialmaybepresentonthecoatedproductafteritgoesto $ storage.Thecommentersuggestedthatthefinalrulespecifythatthecoatingprocessendsatthe F& pointthatthecoatedpartexitsoutofthefinaloven,andemissionsbeyondthispointneednotbe X ( consideredindeterminingcaptureefficiency. ! *   Response:Asdefinedin63.3981,a coatingoperationalwaysincludesatleastthe #l, pointatwhichagivenquantityofcoatingorcleaningmaterialisappliedtoagivenpartandall ~$. subsequentpointsintheaffectedsourcewhereorganicHAPareemittedfromthespecific %0!0 quantityofcoatingorcleaningmaterialonthespecificpart.Therefore,allprocessequipmentin B'"2 whichcoatingapplicationandcuringoccursmustbeenclosedfortheMethod204capture (#4 efficiencydetermination.IfHAPareemittedafterapartleavestheemissioncapturesystem *V%6 (suchasthefinaldryingandcuringoven)thentheseemissionsmustbeaccountedforin h+&8 determiningcaptureefficiencyandthefacilitycannotassumethatallemissionsarecaptured. ,(:   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD37)statedthatthetestmethodsin63.3966(c)arenot  appropriatebecauseinsomeregenerativethermaloxidizer(RTO)designs,theexhaustfromthe b concentratorreturnstotheprocesswithoutventingtotheatmosphere.Thesecasesrequirethat t theconcentrationbemeasuredseparately,makingtheproposedtestmethodsinappropriate.The & correctapproachistomeasurethecaptureefficiencyofthebuildingenclosureusingMethod 8  204EandtheefficiencyofthethermaloxidizerusingMethod25A.      Response:Thecommenteriscorrect.Section63.3966(c)specifiesthatiftwoormore  L  addoncontroldevicesareusedforthesameemissionstream(suchasaconcentratorandthermal ^  oxidizerusedinserieswitheachhavinganoutlettotheatmosphere),thenyoumustmeasure   emissionsattheoutlettotheatmosphereofeachdevice.If,asinthecommentersexample,the "r  concentratorexhaustisreturnedtoabuildingenclosurethatqualifiesasaPTE(orforwhich   captureefficiencyismeasuredusingMethod204or204AthroughF),thenitdoesnotneedtobe 6 measuredsinceitwillnotbeemitteduntilaportionofitispassedthroughthethermaloxidizer. H Therefore,onlytheefficiencyofthethermaloxidizerneedstobemeasured.    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD37)requestedthattheruleshouldinclude  \ measurementmethodsinplaceofEPAMethod25Athatexcludemethanefromthetotal n hydrocarbonmeasurementstodeterminereductionefficiency.Thecommenternotedthat    methaneistheprincipalcomponentofnaturalgasandnaturalgasfiredheatersareusedinsome 2" paintingoperationsandfordesorbingsomeconcentrators.Accordingtothecommenter,the $ methaneintheexhaustfromtheseheaterswillbemeasuredasahydrocarbonbyMethod25A F& andwillleadtoanincorrectandlowermeasurementofreductionefficiency.Thecommenter X ( reportedthatinCalifornia,BayAreaAQMDMethodST7andSouthCoastAQMDMethod ! * 25.1arebothvalidatedmethodsformeasuringtotalgaseousnonmethaneorganic(TGNMO) #l, compounds. ~$.   Response:Thecommenteriscorrectthatanaturalgasfiredcombustionsourceupstream %0!0 ofthemeasurementpointmayintroduceenoughmethaneintotheemissionstreamfrom B'"2 unburnednaturalgasthatitcouldaffecttheremovalefficiencymeasurementsusingMethod25A (#4 tothedetrimentofthefacilitydemonstratingcompliance.Section63.3966(b)oftherule *V%6  instructedsourcestomeasuretotalgaseousorganicmassemissionsascarbonattheinletand h+&8 outletoftheaddoncontroldevicesimultaneously,usingeitherMethod25or25AofappendixA  to40CFRpart60:f  g  b    (1)UseMethod25iftheaddoncontroldeviceisanoxidizerandyouexpectthetotal t gaseousorganicconcentrationascarbontobemorethan50partspermillion(ppm)atthecontrol & deviceoutlet. 8    (2)UseMethod25Aiftheaddoncontroldeviceisanoxidizerandyouexpectthetotal    gaseousorganicconcentrationascarbontobe50ppmorlessatthecontroldeviceoutlet.  L    (3)UseMethod25Aiftheaddoncontroldeviceisnotanoxidizer. ^    Under63.7(f)oftheGeneralProvisions,afacilitymayapplyforpermissiontouse   Method25oranalternativemethodtomeasureTGNMOinsteadoftotalvolatilehydrocarbons "r  usingMethod25A.      Comment:Onecommenter(IVD59)requestedthatthetestdatarequiredin 6 63.3967(c)(1)[thetotalregenerationdesorbinggas(e.g.,steamornitrogen)massflowforeach H regenerationcycle,andthecarbonbedtemperatureaftereachcarbonbedregenerationand  coolingcycle]forcarbonadsorbersbemonitoredandrecordedaftereachtestruninsteadofafter  \ eachtesttogivethreedatapointsfromwhichtoselecttheminimumormaximumvalue.This n interpretationisreinforcedbyuseofthepluralelsewherein63.3967(c).      Response:Forcarbonadsorbers,thecarbonbedsareoftendesorbedandregeneratedonly 2" onceperdayduringperiodsofnonproductionoronlyonceeveryseveralhours.Sincethe $ performancetestrequiresthreerunslastingonly1houreach,itislikelythatthetestwouldbe F& completedbetweendesorbingandregenerationcycles.Therefore,itisnotpracticaltocollectthe X ( desorbinggasmassflowandcarbonbedtemperatureaftereachrun. ! *   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD59)suggestedthattheword simultaneousbeadded #l, totheendofthefirstandlastsentencesof63.3966(c).Thecommenternotedthatmeasurement ~$. oftheefficiencyofadd-oncontrolsrequiresthesimultaneousmeasurementofVOCattheinlet %0!0 andoutletofthecontroldevice.Section63.3966(c)requiresthetestingofeachoutletifmore B'"2 thanonecontroldeviceisusedforthesameemissionstreambutdoesnotrequiresimultaneous (#4 measurementofmultipleoutlets. *V%6   Response:Thecommenteriscorrectthatthemeasurementsofmultipleoutletsshouldbe h+&8 simultaneousandthischangehasbeenmadetothefinalrule. ,(:   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD63)suggestedthatthefinalruleshouldallowtheuse  ofMethod18asanalternativefortestingaddoncontrols.Methods25and25Adonot b differentiatebetweenHAPandnonHAPorganicmaterial,andthereforeareinappropriatewhen t acoatingcontainsamixtureofHAPandnonHAPs. &   Response:WehavenotincludedMethod18asacompliancetestmethodinthefinal 8  rule.WerecognizethatMethod18alsoisanappropriatemethodfordeterminingcompliancein    manyinstances.However,insomecases,(suchaswhentheemissionstreamincludesmany  L  speciesofHAP)theuseofMethod18becomesdifficulttoapply.Iftheowneroroperator ^  believesMethod18isanappropriate(orpreferred)methodfordemonstratingcompliance,the   owneroroperatorcanrequesttheuseofMethod18undertheprovisionsforusinganalternative "r  testprocedure(40CFR63.7(f)).     15.30  WorkPracticesRequirements erH(#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD33)requestedthatEPAremovethewastehandling  requirementsfromtheworkpracticestandardsin63.39893associatedwithaddoncontrolsand  \ requirethatitisdoneinaccordancewithRCRA.WasteiscoveredbyRCRAregulationsand n thesedonotincreaseemissionreductionsmorethanRCRA.      Response:Theintentoftheworkpracticestandardsistohaveacompleteplanfor 2" minimizingairemissionsfromrawmaterialsstorageandhandlingthroughmaterialsuseand $ wastehandling,becausealloftheseareasarepotentialsourcesofemissionsfromthecoating F& operationcoveredbythemetalpartscoatingrule.Thefinalruleincludesthewastehandling X ( requirementsintheworkpracticestandardsin63.3893.Thissectionrequiresthatafacility ! * developaworkpracticesplanwhichspecifiesthat,amongotherthings,wastematerialsbestored #l, inclosedcontainers,spillsofwastemustbeminimized,andwastemustbeconveyedinclosed ~$. containersorpipes.Thecommenterprovidednosupportingdataorinformationthatcomplying %0!0 withtheserequirementswouldpresentanadditionalburdenorconflictwiththeRCRA B'"2 requirements. (#4   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD36)objectedtotherequirementin63.3963thatthe *V%6  facilitydocumentthattheworkpracticesplanforsourceswithaddoncontrolscontinually h+&8 minimizesemissions.Thecommenterbelievesitiscommonsensethatitwillreduceemissions  iftheplaniscontinuallyfollowed. b    Response:Section63.3963containsnorequirementthatthesourcedocumentthatthe t workpracticesplancontinuallyminimizesemissions.Section63.3963(e)requiresyouto & demonstratecontinuouscompliancewiththeworkpracticestandardsin63.3893.Thatis,you 8  mustdemonstratethattheproceduresyouspecifiedinyouplanhavebeenfollowed.      Comment:Onecommenter(IVD36)statedthatifthefinalruleincludestheHAPfrom  L  cleaningmaterialsintheemissionlimitcompliancecalculations,ratherthanadoptingwork ^  practicestandardsforcleaningoperations,thentherequirementforaworkpracticeplanfor   sourceswithaddoncontrolsshouldbeeliminatedsinceitwouldbeoverlyburdensomefor "r  facilitieswithaddoncontrols.     Response:ThefinalruleincludestheHAPfromcleaningmaterialsintheemissionlimit 6 compliancecalculationsandalsoretainstherequirementforaworkpracticeplanforsources H withaddoncontrols.TherationaleforincludingtheHAPfromcleaningmaterialsinthe  emissionlimitcompliancecalculationsisprovidedinsection3.2ofthisdocument.Thework  \ practiceplanrequirementsareretainedinthefinalrulebecausetheserequirementsareintended n tominimizeemissionsfrommaterialhandlingoperations,includingemissionsfrommixingand    storagecontainersandfromspills,thatwouldnotbecapturedbytheemissioncapturesystemand 2" ventedtotheaddoncontroldevice.Intheothercomplianceoptionsinthefinalrule,allHAP $ containedincoatingmaterials,includingcleaningmaterials,areassumedtobeemitted,whether F& thatoccursduringmixing,storage,application,oraccidentallythroughspills. X (   15.40  OperatingLimitsandMonitoringforEmissionCaptureSystems er#l,(#(#   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD16)suggestedtheoperatingrequirementsforlocked ~$. bypasslinesaredangeroustoworkerandprocesssafety,sincebypasslimesshouldbeavailable %0!0 forsafetyventing.Thecommenteralsoarguedthatmonitoringabypasslineflowcontrol B'"2 positionindicatorevery15minutesisunreasonablycostlyandthatmonitoringoncepershift (#4  wouldbesufficienttoensurethataddoncontrolsarenotbeingcircumvented. *V%6   Response:Theruleincludesfouroptionsforbypasslinemonitoringtoprovideflexibility  tosources.Notalloftheoptionspresenttheissuescitedbythecommentersanddifferent b sourcescanchoosedifferentoptionstosuittheirparticularsituation. t    Comment:Onecommenter(IVD37)requestedthatEPAeitherremoveorexplainthe & requirementin63.3968(g)(1)(i)foraflowsensorineachductfromthebuildingenclosuretothe 8  controldevice,sincetherequirementappearstoservenocompliancepurpose.      Response:EmissioncapturesystemsthatarenotPTEasdefinedin63.3965(a)must  L  monitorflowrateandcomplywithaflowrateoperatinglimit(specifically,seeline7ofTable1 ^  foremissioncapturessystemsthatarenotpermanenttotalenclosures).Therequirement   specifiedin63.3968(g)(1)(i)isapplicableonlytoemissioncapturesystemsthatmustcomply "r  withtheoperatinglimitsspecifiedinLine7ofTable1tosubpartMMMM.Forthesetypesof   emissioncapturesystems,flowrateismonitoredtoensurethattheemissioncapturesystemis 6 maintainingthesamecaptureefficiencyasduringtheoriginalperformancetest. H   Comment:Onecommenter(IVD59)requestedthatthefinalruleexplainwhyflow  controlpositionindicatorsaretheonlybypassmonitoringdevicesin63.3968(b)(1)thatdonot  \ requireamonthlyinspectiontoverifythatitwilldetectadiversion. n   Response:Theflowcontrolpositionindicatorsspecifiedin63.3968(b)(1)(i)donot    requireamonthlyinspectionbecausetheyarerequiredtocreatearecordevery15minutesof 2" whetherflowisdirectedtoordivertedfromtheaddoncontroldevice,aswellasarecordof $ everytimetheflowdirectionischa