ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053; FLR-] 

RIN 2060-AN47 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area 

Source Standards for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing; 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct Final Rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on amendments to the 

paints and allied products manufacturing area source rule. With 

this direct final rule, EPA is amending the definition of 

“material containing hazardous air pollutants.” It was not 

EPA’s intent to omit the part of this definition that addresses 

non-carcinogens, and this omission could potentially and

erroneously include facilities as applicable to the rule when 

they should not be covered.

This action clarifies text of the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing Area Source Standards which was published 

on December 3, 2009. This action will not change the level of 

Deleted: 6560.50¶

 

Deleted: rule

Deleted: SUMMARY: EPA is 

issuing national emission 

standards for control of 

hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) for the Paints and 

Allied Products 

Manufacturing area source 

category. The final rule 

establishes emission 

standards in the form of 

management practices for 

volatile HAP, and emission 

standards in the form of 

equipment standards for 

particulate HAP. The 

emissions standards for new 

and existing sources are 

based on EPA's determination 

as to what constitutes the 

generally available control 

technology or management 

practices (GACT) for the 

area source category. ¶
2

health protection the final rule provides or the standards and 

other requirements established by the rule.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on [INSERT DATE 105

DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] without 

further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by 

[INSERT DATE 45 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. If EPA receives relevant adverse comment, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing 

the public that the amendments in this rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments.

• Agency website: www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and 

Radiation Docket website.

• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0053 in the subject line of the message.

• Fax: Send comments to (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053.

• Mail: Area Source NESHAP for Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Deleted: EPA has established 

a docket for this action 

under

Deleted: . All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

Federal Docket Management 

System index at 

http://www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in 

the index, some information 

is not publicly available, 

e.g.,
3

and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 

2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please 

mail a copy of your comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk 

Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket's normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information.

 Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2008-0053. EPA's policy is that all comments received will 

be included in the public docket without change and may be made 

available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not 

submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, 

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
4

information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other contact information in the 

body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If 

EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 

cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses.

DOCKET: EPA has established a docket for this action under 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053. All documents in the docket 

are listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at 

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Deleted: in 

www.regulations.gov
5

Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is 

(202) 566-1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Payne, Regulatory 

Development and Policy Analysis Group, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (C404-05), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Telephone number: 

(919) 541-3609; fax number: (919) 541-0242; e-mail address:

payne.melissa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The information presented in this preamble is organized as 

follows: 

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

II. Does this action apply to me? 

III. Where can I get a copy of this document? 

IV. Why are we amending the rule?

V. What amendments are we making to the rule?

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

Deleted: North Carolina

Deleted: , telephone

Deleted: payne.melissa@epa.go

v.

Deleted: supplementary 

Deleted: General Information

Deleted: A.

Deleted: B

Deleted: C. Judicial 

Review¶

II. Background Information 

for This Final Rule ¶

III. Summary of Changes 

Since Proposal¶

 A. Applicability¶

 B. Standards and 

Compliance Requirements¶

 C. Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements¶

 D. Definitions¶

 E. Other¶

Deleted: Summary of Final 

Standards

Deleted: A. Do these 

standards apply to my 

source?¶

 B. When must I comply 

with these standards?¶

 C. What processes does 

this final rule address?¶

 D. What are the 

emissions control 

requirements?¶

 E. What are the initial 

compliance requirements?¶

 F. What are the 

continuous compliance 

requirements? ¶

 G. What are the 

notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements?¶

V. Summary of Comments and 

Responses¶

 A. Applicability¶

 B. 

Compliance/Implementation 

Dates¶

 C. De Minimis Thresholds 

and Subcategorization¶

 D. Emission Standards 

and Management Practices¶

 E. Testing, Monitoring, 

and Inspection Requirements¶

 F. Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements¶

 G. Baseline Emissions 

and Emission Reductions¶

 H. Title V Requirements ¶
6

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

We are publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule 

because we view this as a non-controversial action and 

anticipate no adverse comment. This action amends the 

definition of “material containing HAP” to include noncarcinogens in quantities of 1.0 percent by mass or more. It 

was the intent of EPA to include this complete definition, but 

we inadvertently omitted the language regarding the 1.0 percent 

level for non-carcinogens, as defined by the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) at 29 CFR 1910.1200(g). 

It was not EPA’s intent to omit the part of this definition 

that addresses non-carcinogens, and this omission could 

potentially and erroneously include facilities as applicable to 

the rule that are not part of the source category as defined in 

the inventory, which took into account the Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI) de minimis thresholds. 

Because this is an amendment of regulatory language through 

a rule action, a rule redline has been created of the current 

rule with the amendments, and has been placed in the docket to 

aid the public's ability to comment on the regulatory text. If 

we receive relevant adverse comment on this direct final rule, 

Deleted: General Information

Deleted: A. 
7

we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public that the amendments in this rule will not 

take effect. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by the final rule include:

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

Category NAICS code2 Examples of regulated entities 

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

Paint & Coating 325510 Area source facilities engaged in 

Manufacturing mixing pigments, solvents, and 

binders into paints and other 

coatings, such as stains, 

varnishes, lacquers, enamels, 

shellacs, and water repellant 

coatings for concrete and masonry. 

Adhesive 325520 Area source facilities primarily 

Manufacturing engaged in manufacturing 

adhesives, glues, and caulking 

compounds. 

Printing Ink 325910 Area source facilities primarily 

Manufacturing engaged in manufacturing printing 

 inkjet inks and inkjet cartridges. 

 

All Other 325998 Area source facilities primarily 

Miscellaneous engaged in manufacturing indelible 

Chemical Product ink, India ink writing ink, and 

and Preparation stamp pad ink. 

Manufacturing 

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 

 

2

 North American Industry Classification System. 

Deleted: this 

Deleted: are shown in the table below. 

You are subject to this subpart if you own 

or operate a facility that performs paints 

and allied products manufacturing that is 

an area source of hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) emissions and processes, uses, or 

generates materials containing the 

following HAP: benzene, methylene 

chloride, and compounds of cadmium, 

chromium, lead, and nickel.

Deleted: The paints and 

allied products 

manufacturing area source 

rule (CCCCCCC) covers all 

coatings, but does not 

include resin manufacturing, 

which is covered by the 

chemical manufacturing area 

source standard (VVVVVV). 

Facilities that manufacture 

both resins and coatings are 

required to comply with both 

rules. Paints and allied 

products are defined in Sec. 

63.11607 as any material 

such as a paint, ink, or 

adhesive that is intended to 

be applied to a substrate 

and consists of a mixture of 

resins, pigments, solvents, 

and/or other additives. 

Typically, the industries 

that manufacture these 

products are described by 

Standard Industry 

Classification (SIC) codes 

285 or 289 and North 

American Industry 

Classification System 

(NAICS) codes 3255 and 3259 

and are produced by physical 

means, such as blending and 

mixing, as opposed to 

chemical synthesis means, 

such as reactions and 

distillation. The source 

category does not include 

the following: (1) the 

manufacture of products that 

do not leave a dried film of 

solid material on the 

substrate, such as thinners, 

paint removers, brush 

cleaners, and mold release 

agents; (2) the manufacture 

of electroplated and 

electroless metal films; (3) 

the manufacture of raw 

materials, such as resins, 

pigments, and solvents used 

in the production of paints 

and allied products1

; and 

(4) activities by end users 

of paints or allied products 

to ready those materials for 

application. ¶
8

affected by this action. To determine whether your facility is 

regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability 

criteria in 40 CFR 63.11599, subpart CCCCCCC (NESHAP for Area 

Sources: Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing). If you have 

any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult either the state delegated authority 

or the EPA regional representative, as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of 

subpart A (General Provisions). 

III. Where can I get a copy of this document?

 Electronic Access. In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be 

available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this 

final action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance 

page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 

address: www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information 

and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 

control. 

IV. Why are we amending the rule?

Our intention in this area source rule was to reflect the TRI

de minimis thresholds for both carcinogens (0.1 percent HAP 

concentration) and non-carcinogens (1.0 percent HAP 

concentration) in the definition of “material containing HAP;”

Deleted: B. 

Deleted: proposed 

Deleted: EPA's 

Deleted: A 

Deleted: proposed 

Deleted: TTN's

Deleted: www.epa.gov/ttn/oarp

g.

Deleted: C. Judicial Review¶

Under section 307(b)(1) of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

judicial review of this 

final rule is available only 

by filing a petition for 

review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit 

by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under 

section 307(b)(2) of the 

CAA, the requirements 

established by this final 

rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought 

by EPA to enforce these 

requirements.¶

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the 

CAA further provides that 

“[o]nly an objection to a 

rule or procedure which was 

raised with reasonable 

specificity during the 

period for public comment 

(including any public 

hearing) may be raised 

during judicial review.” 

This section also provides a 

mechanism for EPA to convene 

a proceeding for 

reconsideration, “[i]f the 

person raising an objection 

can demonstrate to EPA that 

it was impracticable to 

raise such objection within 

[the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds 

for such objection arose 

after the period for public 

comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial 

review) and if such 

objection is of central 

relevance to the outcome of 

the rule.” Any person 

seeking to make such a 

demonstration to us should 

submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the 

Office of the Administrator, 

U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel 

Rios Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20460, with a 

copy to both the person(s) ... [1]
9

however, only the threshold for carcinogens is currently 

reflected. To correct this error, we are amending the rule to 

add the 1.0 percent concentration threshold for non-carcinogens. 

These concentration levels are consistent with the OSHA Hazard 

Communication Standard requirements for development of a 

Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), which is how paints and 

allied products manufacturers receive information on the 

toxicity of the raw materials they use (See 29 FR 1910.1200(g)). 

The concentration level for hazardous chemicals is 1.0 percent, 

unless the chemical is an OSHA-defined carcinogen. The 

concentration level for OSHA-defined carcinogens is 0.1 percent.

We inadvertently omitted mentioning the 1.0 percent for noncarcinogens portion of the definition in the definition for 

“material containing HAP” in the area source standards for 

Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing (40 FR 63.11607). 

The amendment will not change the level of health protection 

the rule provides or the standards established by the rule. To 

quote the TRI rule that codified the concentration levels, “EPA 

does not expect that the processing and use of mixtures 

containing less than the de minimis concentration would, in most 

instances, contribute significantly to the threshold 

determinations or releases of listed toxic chemicals from any 

given facility.” (53 FR 4509). In other words, mixtures with 
10

concentration levels under the de minimis levels are not 

concentrations of concern under TRI. 

Furthermore, this amendment will accurately reflect the 

regulated source category, as non-carcinogens with less than 1.0 

percent by mass were not intended to be regulated as part of the 

source category, because the source category as defined excluded 

sources below this level. Also, the complete de mimimis

threshold definition may encourage manufacturers to replace some 

carcinogenic raw materials with noncarcinogenic raw materials. 

No costs or other impacts are associated with this amendment.

V. What amendments are we making to the rule?

On December 3, 2009 the EPA published the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for area source 

paints and allied products manufacturing facilities as subpart 

CCCCCCC in 40 CFR part 63 (74 FR 63504). This action corrects the 

error in this regulation.

As currently written, 40 FR 63.11607 defines “material 

containing HAP” as “a material containing benzene, methylene 

chloride, or compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, and/or 

nickel, in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by 

weight, as shown in formulation data provided by the 

manufacturer or supplier, such as the Material Safety Data Sheet

for the material. Benzene and methylene choloride are volatile 

Deleted: for the material

Deleted: 4

. For example, an area source 

may have two process vessels, one 

containing tetrachloroethylene (which is 

not one of the target HAP)

Deleted: the other containing 

Deleted: chloride, and, under this rule, 

only the process vessel containing 

methylene chloride (one of the target
11

HAP. Compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead and/or nickel are 

metal HAP.” The correct definition is, “...in amounts greater 

than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight for carcinogens or 1.0 

percent by weight for non-carcinogens, as shown in...” (emphasis

added). This single change provides further clarification to 

the applicability provisions that are referenced in the final 

rule, as well as accurately reflecting the thresholds used in 

the TRI and reference at the time the source category was 

defined. This action notifies interested parties of the 

corrections. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

This action is not a "significant regulatory action" under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and is, therefore, not subject to review under the 

Executive Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new information collection 

burden. The proposed amendments result in no changes to the 

information collection requirements of the existing standards of 

performance and will have little or no impact on the information 

collection estimate of projected cost and hour burden made and 

approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the 

 

Deleted: ) would be part of the affected 

source and as such, subject to the process 

vessel standards

Deleted: 1. Standards for 

Metal HAP Emissions¶

This final rule requires 

owners or operators of all 

existing and new affected 

facilities to operate a 

particulate control device 

during the addition of 

pigments and other solids 

that contain compounds of 

cadmium, chromium, nickel, 

or lead, and during the 

grinding and milling of 

pigments and solids that 

contain compounds of 

cadmium, chromium, nickel, 

or lead. ¶

Particulate control devices 

that vent to the atmosphere 

must be maintained such that 

visible emissions from the 

particulate control device 

shall not exceed 10 percent 

opacity when averaged over a 

six-minute period. Affected 

sources using particulate 

control devices that do not 

vent to the atmosphere are 

not subject to the 

requirements of this rule, 

as there are no emissions to 

the atmosphere. ¶

2. Standards for Volatile 

HAP Emissions ¶

 This final rule requires 

new and existing affected 

sources to equip process and 

storage vessels that store 

or process materials 

containing benzene or 

methylene chloride with 

Deleted: Impacts of the Final 

Standards¶

Existing paints and allied 

products manufacturing 

facilities have made 

significant emission 

reductions since 1990 

through product 

Deleted: “

Deleted: ”

Deleted: ,

Deleted: in this rule have 

been submitted for approval 

to 

Deleted: under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The 

information collection 

requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB 

approves them. ¶

The recordkeeping and 

... [2]

... [3]

... [4]
12

development of the existing standards of performance. Therefore, 

the information collection requests have not been amended. 

However, OMB has previously approved the information collection 

requirements contained in the existing regulations (subpart 

CCCCCCC, 40 CFR part 63) under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060-0633 (ICR 23487.02). The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

 The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject 

to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

 For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this direct 

final rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) 

a small business that meets the Small Business Administration 

size standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) 

a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or special district with a 

Deleted: requirements for 

which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to CAA

section 114(c) and the 

Agency’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 

2, subpart B

Deleted: This final NESHAP 

requires Paints and Allied 

Product Manufacturing area 

sources to submit an Initial 

Notification and a 

Notification of Compliance 

Status according to the 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 

of the General Provisions 

(subpart A). Records are 

required to demonstrate 

compliance with the opacity 

and visual emissions (VE) 

requirements. The owner or 

operator of a paints and 

allied products 

manufacturing facility also 

is subject to notification 

and recordkeeping 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 

and 63.10 of the General 

Provisions (subpart A), 

although we have deemed that 

annual compliance reports 

are sufficient instead of 

semiannual reports.¶

The annual burden for this 

information collection 

averaged over the first 

three years of this ICR is 

estimated to be a total of 

2,887 labor hours per year 

at a cost of $322,009 or 

approximately $147 per 

facility. The average 

annual reporting burden is 

almost 3 hours per response, 

with approximately 2 

responses per facility for 

730 respondents. There are 

no capital and operating and 

maintenance costs associated 

with the final rule 

requirements for existing 

sources. Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).¶

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a 

collection of information 

unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control 

number. EPA displays OMB 

control numbers in various 

ways. For example, EPA 

lists OMB control numbers 

for EPA's regulations in 40 

CFR part 9, which we amend 

periodically. Additionally, 

Deleted: 

Deleted: A 

... [5]
13

population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization 

that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

 After considering the economic impacts of this direct final 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Although this direct final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this 

rule on small entities. If adopted, the amended definition for 

“material containing HAP” will reduce the compliance burden of 

the rule without impacting public health, as the thresholds for 

the noncarcinogenic HAP are below the TRI levels of concern for 

this source category. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

 This direct final does not contain a Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector in any one year. This direct final is not 

expected to impact State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, 

this rule would not be subject to the requirements of sections 

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

 This final rule would also not be subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no 

Deleted: This rule is 

estimated to impact a total 

of almost 2,200 area source 

paints and allied products 

manufacturing facilities; 

over ninety percent of these 

facilities are estimated to 

be small entities. We have 

determined that small entity 

compliance costs, as 

assessed by the facilities' 

cost-to-sales ratio, are 

expected to be approximately 

0.13 percent for the 

estimated 460 facilities 

that would not initially be 

in compliance.

Deleted: final rule contains 

requirements for new area 

sources, we are not aware of 

any new area sources being 

constructed now or planned 

in the next 3 years, and 

consequently, we did not 

estimate any impacts for new 

sources.¶

Although this 

Deleted: such 

Deleted: . The standards 

represent practices and 

controls that are common 

throughout the paints and 

allied products 

manufacturing industry. The 

standards also require only 

the essential recordkeeping 

and reporting needed to 

demonstrate and verify 

compliance. These standards 

were developed in 

consultation with small 

business representatives on 

the state and national level 

and the trade associations 

that represent small 

businesses.

Deleted: rule 

Deleted: rule 

Deleted: The nationwide 

annualized cost of this rule 

for affected industrial 

sources is $3.1 million/yr.
14

regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

 This direct final rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on 

the States, on the relationship between the national government 

and the States, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. This direct final does not 

impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments 

 This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

direct final rule imposes no requirements on tribal governments; 

thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

 EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under 

section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the 

Deleted: The rule would not 

apply to such governments 

and would impose no 

obligations upon them.

Deleted: action

Deleted: rule 

Deleted: final 
15

regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because the 

final rule is based solely on technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

 This direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” 

as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 

because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 

to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

 These direct final rule amendments do not involve technical 

standards as defined in the NTTAA. Therefore, this direct final 

rule is not subject to NTTAA.

Deleted: it

Deleted: Further, we have 

concluded that this rule is 

not likely to have any 

adverse energy effects. 

Existing energy requirements 

for this industry would not 

be significantly impacted by 

the additional controls or 

other equipment that may be 

required by this rule.

Deleted: This rulemaking 

involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the 

Agency conducted a search to 

identify potentially 

applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

However, we identified no 

such standards, and none 

were brought to our 

attention in comments.¶

Therefore, EPA has decided 

to use EPA Method 203C and 

EPA Method 22.¶

Under §63.7(f) and §63.8(f) 

of Subpart A of the General 

Provisions, a source may 

apply to EPA for permission 

to use alternative test 

methods or alternative 

monitoring requirements in 

place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications, or 

procedures in the final rule 

and amendments.¶
16

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States. 

 EPA has determined that this direct final would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because this rule will not change the level of health protection 

the rule provides to all affected populations, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, 

the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, 

which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of Congress and 

Deleted: rule 

Deleted: it increases

Deleted: environmental 

Deleted: for 

Deleted: without having any 

disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population

Deleted: This rule 

establishes national 

standards for the Paints and 

Allied Products 

Manufacturing area source 

category; this will reduce 

HAP emissions, therefore 

decreasing the amount of 

emissions to which all 

affected populations are 

exposed.
17

to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this direct final rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after 

it is published in the Federal Register. This direct final rule

is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This 

direct final will be effective on [INSERT 105 DAYS FROM DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

Deleted: action

Deleted: rule 
18

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area 

Source Standards for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing –

Amendments

Page 18 of 19

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

_________

Dated: 

_______________________________

Lisa P. Jackson 

Administrator 

Deleted: 114

Deleted: 141

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: in
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, 

part 63, subpart CCCCCCC of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

follows: 

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

Subpart CCCCCCC--[Amended]

2. Section 63.11607 is amended by revising the definition

of Material containing HAP to read as follows:

§63.11607 What definitions apply to this subpart? 

 * * * * *

Material containing HAP means a material containing 

benzene, methylene chloride, or compounds of cadmium, chromium, 

lead, and/or nickel, in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 

percent by weight for carcinogens, as defined by the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration at 29 CFR 

1910.1200(d)(4), or 1.0 percent by weight for non-carcinogens, as 

shown in formulation data provided by the manufacturer or 

supplier, such as the Material Safety Data Sheet for the 

material. Benzene and methylene chloride are volatile HAP. 

Compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead and/or nickel are metal 

HAP.

* * * * *

Deleted: stated 

Deleted: Subpart A—[AMENDED]¶

2. Part 63 is amended by 

adding subpart CCCCCCC to 

read as follows:¶

Deleted: — National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Area Sources: 

Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing

Deleted: Applicability and 

Compliance Dates¶

Sec.¶

63.11599 Am I subject to 

this subpart?¶

63.11600 What are my 

compliance dates?¶

Standards, Monitoring, and 

Compliance Requirements¶

63.11601 What are the 

standards for new and 

existing paints and allied 

products manufacturing 

facilities?¶

63.11602 What are the 

performance test and 

compliance requirements for 

new and existing sources? ¶

63.11603 What are the 

notification, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements?¶

63.11604 [RESERVED]¶

Other Requirements and 

Information¶

63.11605 What General 

Provisions apply to this 

subpart?¶

63.11606 Who implements and 

enforces this subpart?¶

Deleted: 63.11608 -- 63.11638 

[RESERVED]¶

Tables to Subpart CCCCCCC of 

Part 63¶

Table 1 to Subpart CCCCCCC 

of Part 63—¶

Applicability of General 

Provisions to Subpart 

CCCCCCC¶

Subpart CCCCCCC -- National 

Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Area Sources: Paints and 

Allied Products 

Manufacturing ¶

¶

Applicability and Compliance 

Deleted: Paints and allied 

products means materials 

such as paints, inks, 

adhesives, stains, 

varnishes, shellacs, 

putties, sealers, caulks, 

and other coatings from raw 

materials that are intended 

to be applied to a substrate 

and consists of a mixture of 

resins, pigments, solvents, 

... [6]

... [7]
Page 8: [1] Deleted ctsuser 5/17/2010 12:58:00 PM 

C. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

judicial review of this final rule is available only by 

filing a petition for review in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 

established by this final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by 

EPA to enforce these requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that 

“[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was 

raised with reasonable specificity during the period for 

public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised 

during judicial review.” This section also provides a 

mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can 

demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public comment] or if the 

grounds for such objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time specified for judicial 

review) and if such objection is of central relevance to 

the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such 
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 

EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 

person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the 

Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel 

(Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background Information for This Final Rule 

 Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to 

establish national emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for both major and area sources of HAP 

that are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A 

major source emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per 

year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of 

any combination of HAP. An area source is a stationary 

source that is not a major source. 

 Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to 

identify at least 30 HAP which, as the result of emissions 

from area sources, pose the greatest threat to public 

health in the largest number of urban areas. Section 

112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or 

subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources 
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban 

HAP are subject to regulation. EPA implemented these 

provisions in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in 

the Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest 

potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are 

referred to as the “30 urban HAP.” A primary goal of the 

Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer 

incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary 

sources. 

 Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to 

promulgate standards or requirements for area sources 

"which provide for the use of generally available control 

technologies or management practices (GACT) by such sources 

to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants." 

Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate 

report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, 

December 20, 1989), which describes GACT as: 

. . . methods, practices and techniques which are 

commercially available and appropriate for application 

by the sources in the category considering economic 

impacts and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control systems. 
Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider 

costs and economic impacts in determining GACT. This is 

particularly important when developing regulations, like 

this one, that may impact many small businesses, as defined 

by the Small Business Administration. 

 Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering 

the control technologies and management practices that are 

generally available to the area sources in the source 

category. We also consider the standards applicable to 

major sources in the same industrial sector to determine if 

the control technologies and management practices are 

transferable and generally available to area sources. In 

appropriate circumstances, we may also consider 

technologies and practices at area and major sources in 

similar categories to determine whether such technologies 

and practices could be considered generally available for 

the area source category at issue. Finally, as noted 

above, in determining GACT for a particular area source 

category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of 

available control technologies and management practices on 

that category. 

 We are promulgating these national emission standards 

in response to a court-ordered deadline that requires EPA 

to issue standards for categories listed pursuant to 
section 112(c)(3) and (k) by November 16, 2009 (Sierra Club 

v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). 

III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal 

 This final rule contains several revisions and 

clarifications to the proposed rule made after considering 

public comments. The following sections present a summary 

of the changes to the proposed rule. We explain the 

reasons for these changes in detail in the summary of 

comments and responses (section V of this preamble). 

A. Applicability 

 We made several changes to clarify the applicability 

of this final rule. Specifically, we have clarified that 

the final rule does not include retail and commercial 

paints and allied products operations which add and mix 

pigments to pre-manufactured products per customer 

specifications. 

 We have revised the definition of “paints and allied 

products manufacturing” to exclude activities by end users 

of paints and allied products to ready those materials for 

application. We have also revised the definition of 

“paints and allied products manufacturing process” to 

exclude weighing, mixing, tinting, blending, diluting, 

stabilizing, or any other handling of these paints and 
allied products to ready these materials for use by end 

users. 

 Furthermore, we clarified the types of operations by 

end users that are not covered by this area source 

category. An end user is someone who applies a coating to 

substrate, similar to the Miscellaneous Coating 

Manufacturing major source rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

HHHHH). The final rule does not apply to activities 

conducted by end users of coating products in preparation 

for application (68 FR 69164, December 11, 2003). Thus, 

operations that modify a purchased coating prior to 

application at the purchasing facility are not included in 

the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing area source 

category; this would apply only if the purchased product is 

already a coating that an end user could apply as 

purchased. The activities and operations described above 

are not subject to today’s rule because they were not part 

of the listed source category under CAA section 112(c)(3).

 In the proposed rule, we proposed that the 

affected source include the entire facility if the facility 

emitted any of the paints and allied products manufacturing 

target HAP. Specifically, under the proposal, all process 

vessels at the facility would be subject to the standards 

if any emissions source at the facility emitted one of the 
paints and allied products manufacturing target HAP1

. After 

consideration of public comments, we modified the scope of 

applicability of this final rule, and we made several 

changes to clarify the applicability provisions. The most 

significant change is that only process vessels that emit 

one or more of the target HAP are subject to the rule. 

B. Standards and Compliance Requirements 

 We have made several changes to the standards for 

paints and allied products manufacturing. For the metal 

HAP standards, we have revised the requirement to conduct 

an initial visible emission test by changing the test 

method from Method 9 to Method 203C. In addition we have 

revised the opacity standard from 5 percent opacity to 10 

percent opacity. We have also removed the requirement to 

conduct additional visible emissions tests every six 

months. Instead, we have added quarterly Method 22 visible 

emission observations. 

 We have also extended the initial particulate control 

device testing date from 60 days to 180 days from the 

 

1 In this preamble, we use the term “target HAP” to mean the urban HAP for which the paints and allied 

products manufacturing source category is listed under section 112(c)(3). Those HAP are benzene, 

methylene chloride, and compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel. Further, the regulations 

define “materials containing HAP” to mean a material containing any of the target HAP in amounts greater 

than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight, as shown in formulation data provided by the manufacturer or 

supplier. See 63.11607. 
compliance date for an existing source, and 180 days of 

start-up of a new system. 

 We have removed the requirement to cover all process 

tanks with a lid or cover. Instead, only process vessels 

that contain benzene or methylene chloride will be required 

to be covered. In addition, we have added a provision to 

allow operators to open any vessel only to the extent 

necessary for quality control testing and product sampling, 

addition of materials, or product removal. 

C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 

 We have revised § 63.11603, ‘‘What are my 

notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements?’’ 

of this final rule to revise the submittal dates for the 

Initial Notification of Applicability and Notification of 

Compliance Status reports. We have extended the initial 

notification of applicability from 120 days after 

publication of the final rule in the Federal Register to 

180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal 

Register. 

D. Definitions 

 We have made several changes to the final rule 

definitions in § 63.11607, ‘‘What definitions apply to this 

subpart?’’, and have added definitions for other terms used 

in this final rule. We added definitions for construction, 
dry particulate control device, responsible official, and 

wet particulate control device. We have revised the 

definition of paints and allied products, paints and allied 

products manufacturing, and paints and allied products 

manufacturing process. 

E. Other 

 We corrected several typographical errors that 

appeared in various sections of the proposed rule. 

IV. Summary of Final Standards 

A. Do these standards apply to my source? 

 This final rule (subpart CCCCCCC) applies to new or 

existing paints and allied products manufacturing 

operations which are area sources of one of the target 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and that process, use, or 

generate materials containing one or more of the following 

target HAP: benzene, methylene chloride, and compounds of 

cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel. “Material containing 

HAP” is defined in the regulations as any material that 

contains benzene, methylene chloride, or compounds of 

cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel, in amounts greater than 

or equal to 0.1 percent by weight, as shown by the 

manufacturer or supplier, such as in the Material Safety 

Data Sheet (MSDS) for the material. 
In the proposed rule, we proposed that the affected 

source include the entire facility if the facility 

processes, uses, or generates any of the target HAP. 

Specifically, under the proposed rule, if the facility 

processes, uses, or generates any of the target HAP, then 

they would be required to control all HAP that is 

processed, used, or generated at the facility. In response 

to comments, we have revised the final rule to define the 

affected source as only those processes that process, use, 

or generate the target HAP. In the proposed rule, we 

proposed that the affected source include the entire 

facility if the facility emitted any of the target HAP. 

Specifically, under the proposal, all paints and allied 

products manufacturing processes at the facility would be 

subject to the standards if any emissions source at the 

facility emitted one of the target HAP. In response to 

comments, we narrowed the scope of applicability of this 

final rule, and we made several changes to clarify the 

applicability provisions. The most significant change is 

that only those process units that emit one or more of the 

target HAP are subject to the rule. The final rule further 

specifies that each process vessel that emits one of the 

target HAP is subject only to requirements that apply to 

the same type of target HAP that triggered applicability, 
not requirements for all types of HAP. For example, a 

process vessel that uses only one or more target metal HAP 

(i.e., compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel) is 

required to control all CAA section 112(b) metal HAP. 

Similarly, a process vessel that uses only target volatile 

HAP (i.e., benzene or methylene chloride) is required to 

control all CAA section 112(b) volatile HAP. 

Paints and allied products manufacturing operations 

include the production of paints, inks, adhesives, stains, 

varnishes, shellacs, putties, sealers, caulks, and other 

coatings from raw materials, the intended use of which is 

to leave a dried film of solid material on a substrate. 

Typically, the manufacturing industries that produce these 

materials are described by SIC codes 285 or 289 and NAICS 

codes 3255 and 3259 and are produced by physical means, 

such as blending and mixing, as opposed to chemical 

synthesis means, such as reactions and distillation. 

Paints and allied products manufacturing does not include: 

(1) the manufacture of products that do not leave a dried 

film of solid material on the substrate, such as thinners, 

paint removers, brush cleaners, and mold release agents; 

(2) the manufacture of electroplated and electroless metal 

films; (3) the manufacture of raw materials, such as 

resins, pigments, and solvents used in the production of 
paints and coatings; and (4) activities by end users of 

paints or allied products to ready those materials for 

application. Quality assurance and quality control 

laboratories are not considered part of a paints and allied 

products manufacturing process, as they were not part of 

the listed paints and allied products source category. 

Additionally, the standards do not apply to research and 

development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of 

the CAA. Quality assurance and quality control 

laboratories and research and development facilities were 

inadvertently omitted from the proposal, but the final rule 

corrects this omission. 

If you have any questions regarding the applicability 

of this action to a particular entity, consult either the 

air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional 

representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A 

(General Provisions). 

B. When must I comply with these standards? 

 All existing area source facilities subject to this 

rule are required to comply with the rule requirements no 

later than [INSERT THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. New sources are 

required to comply with the rule requirements upon [INSERT 
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or upon

startup of the facility, whichever is later. 

C. What processes does this final rule address? 

 There are four general process operations common to 

the paints and allied products manufacturing source 

categories that emit one or more of the target HAP. These 

four process operations are: (1) preassembly and premix, 

(2) pigment grinding, milling, and dispersing, (3) product 

finishing and blending, and (4) product filling and 

packaging. 

 For premix and assembly, the final rule addresses the 

target HAP emissions that are generated during the addition 

of pigments and other solid materials to the process or 

mixing vessels. The preassembly and premix step involves 

the collection of raw materials that will be used to 

produce the desired coating product. These materials are 

added to a high speed dispersion or mixing vessel. The 

types of raw materials that are used for solvent-based 

coatings include resins, organic solvents, plasticizers, 

dry pigment, and pigment extenders; water, ammonia, 

dispersant, pigment, and pigment extenders are used for 

water-based coatings. 

 The final rule addresses HAP emissions from pigment 

grinding, milling, and dispersing. Pigment grinding or 
milling entails the incorporation of the pigment into the 

paint or ink vehicle to yield fine particle dispersion. 

The three stages of this process include wetting, grinding, 

and dispersion, which may overlap in any grinding 

operation. The wetting agent, normally a surfactant, wets 

the pigment particles by displacing air, moisture, and 

gases that are adsorbed on the surface of the pigment 

particles. Grinding is the mechanical breakup and 

separation of pigment clusters into isolated particles and 

may be facilitated by the use of grinding media such as 

pebbles, balls, or beads. Finally, dispersion is the 

movement of wetted particles into the body of the liquid 

vehicle to produce a particle suspension. 

 For product finishing and blending, the final rule 

addresses the HAP emissions that occur during heat-up 

losses during operation of the mixers; surface evaporation 

during mixing and blending; and the addition of pigments 

and other solid materials to the process or mixing vessels. 

 For product filling and packaging, the final rule 

addresses HAP emissions from the addition of small amounts 

of pigments, solids, or liquids to achieve the required 

color or consistency of the final product. 

D. What are the emissions control requirements? 
 The following is a description of the control requirements for the paints and 

allied products manufacturing process described in section IV.C above. The 

control requirements only apply when an operation is being performed at a 

process vessel that uses materials containing HAP. As stated earlier, the 

regulations define “ materials containing HAP” as 

Page 11: [2] Deleted ctsuser 5/17/2010 12:58:00 PM 

 1. Standards for Metal HAP Emissions 

 This final rule requires owners or operators of 

all existing and new affected facilities to operate a 

particulate control device during the addition of pigments 

and other solids that contain compounds of cadmium, 

chromium, nickel, or lead, and during the grinding and 

milling of pigments and solids that contain compounds of 

cadmium, chromium, nickel, or lead. 

 Particulate control devices that vent to the 

atmosphere must be maintained such that visible emissions 

from the particulate control device shall not exceed 10 

percent opacity when averaged over a six-minute period. 

Affected sources using particulate control devices that do 

not vent to the atmosphere are not subject to the 

requirements of this rule, as there are no emissions to the 

atmosphere. 

2. Standards for Volatile HAP Emissions 

 This final rule requires new and existing affected 

sources to equip process and storage vessels that store or 

process materials containing benzene or methylene chloride 

with covers or lids. The covers or lids can be of solid or 
flexible construction, provided they do not warp or move 

around during the manufacturing process. The covers or 

lids must maintain contact along at least 90 percent of the 

vessel rim and must be maintained in good condition. 

Mixing vessels that process or store materials containing 

one or more of the target volatile HAP must be equipped 

with covers that completely cover the vessel, except for 

safe clearance of the mixer shaft. All vessels that store 

or process materials containing benzene or methylene 

chloride must be kept covered at all times, except for 

quality control testing and product sampling, addition of 

materials, material removal, or when the vessel is empty. 

The final rule requires that leaks and spills of 

materials containing benzene or methylene chloride must be 

minimized and cleaned up as soon as practicable, but no 

longer than 1 hour from the time of detection. Rags or 

other materials that use a solvent containing benzene or 

methylene chloride for cleaning must be kept in a closed 

container. The closed container may contain a device that 

allows pressure relief but does not allow liquid solvent to 

drain from the container. 

E. What are the initial compliance requirements? 
To demonstrate initial compliance with this final 

rule, owners or operators of affected new or existing 

sources must certify that they have implemented all 

required control technologies and management practices and 

that all equipment associated with the processes will be 

properly operated and maintained. In addition, a visual 

emission test using EPA Method 203C is required to be 

performed on the particulate control device on or before 

the compliance date. 

F. What are the continuous compliance requirements? 

 This rule requires owners and operators of affected 

facilities to inspect the particulate control device 

annually to check the structural integrity of the 

particulate control device, and to perform a visual 

emission test using EPA Method 22 on the particulate 

control device every 3 months. If visible emissions are 

observed for two minutes of the required 5 minute Method 22 

observation period, a Method 203C (40 CFR part 51, appendix 

M) test must be conducted within 15 days of the time when 

visible emissions were observed. If the Method 203C test 

indicates an opacity greater than 10 percent, you must take 

corrective action and retest using Method 203C within 15 

days. The owner/operator will continue to take corrective 
action and retest each 15 days until a Method 203C test 

indicates an opacity equal to or less than 10 percent. 

Failure to meet the 10 percent opacity standard is a 

deviation and must be reported in your annual compliance 

report along with the corrective actions taken. 

G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements? 

New and existing affected sources are required to 

comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart A). Each new source is required 

to submit an Initial Notification no later than 180 days 

after initial startup of the operations or [INSERT 180 DAYS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

whichever is later. Existing affected sources must submit 

the Initial Notification no later than [INSERT 180 DAYS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

Notification of Compliance Status reports are required to 

be submitted according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 

in the General Provisions no later than [INSERT 3 years AND 

180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 

for existing sources, or no later than 180 days after 

initial startup, or by [INSERT 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later 

for new sources. 
The affected source is required to prepare an annual 

compliance certification report. The annual compliance 

certification report contains the company name and address, 

a statement signed by a responsible official that certifies 

the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the certification 

report, and a statement of whether the source has complied 

with all of the relevant standards and other requirements 

of this rule. If there are any deviations from the 

requirements of this subpart, the facility must submit this 

annual compliance certification report with any deviation 

reports prepared during the year. The deviation reports 

must describe the circumstance of the deviation and the 

corrective action taken. 

Facilities are also required to maintain all records 

that demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with 

this final rule, including records of all required 

notifications and reports, with supporting documentation; 

and records showing compliance with management practices. 

Owners and operators must also maintain records of the 

following, if applicable: date and results of the 

particulate control device inspections; date and results of 

all visual determinations of visible emissions, including 

any follow-up tests and corrective actions taken; and date 
and results of all visual determinations of emissions 

opacity, and corrective actions taken. 

V. Summary of Comments and Responses 

 We received a total of 27 comments on the proposed 

NESHAP from industry representatives, trade associations, 

federal and state agencies, and the general public during 

the public comment period. Sections V.A through V.F of 

this preamble provide responses to the significant public 

comments received on the proposed NESHAP. 

A. Applicability 

1. General Applicability 

Comment: Several commenters believe that the proposed 

rule subjects all retail and commercial paints and allied 

products operations that add and mix pigments to premanufactured products per customer specifications to the 

requirements in this rule. The commenters believe that 

this was not the intent of the rule, as demonstrated by the 

discussion of the affected number of sources, and economic 

impacts of the rule. The commenters suggest that EPA 

revise its definitions of “paints and allied products,” 

“paints and allied products manufacturing,” and “paints and 

allied products manufacturing process” to exclude 

operations that only add and mix small amounts of pigment 

per container of pre-manufactured paint or allied products 
for commercial or retail purchase per customer 

specification. 

One commenter suggests that EPA refer to the language 

used in the major source miscellaneous coatings 

manufacturing rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH), which 

clarified its intent to regulate the coatings 

manufacturers, not activities by end users to prepare or 

modify coatings in preparation for application. 

Another commenter requests that the definitions 

clarify that the rule does not apply to raw material 

production, as some larger area source facilities will be 

co-located with such operations. 

 Response: In response to comments, we re-examined 

the record supporting the initial listing of the Paints and 

Allied Products Manufacturing source category. Based on 

our review of the record supporting that listing, we agree 

with the commenters that the source category that was 

listed did not include retail and commercial paints and 

allied products operations which add and mix pigments to 

pre-manufactured products per customer specifications. 

EPA’s intent in the proposed rule was not to include the 

activities of end users, which include retail and 

commercial paints and allied products operations which add 
and mix pigments to pre-manufactured products per customer 

specifications, and we recognize that the definitions used 

in the proposal were confusing in this regard. In light 

of the scope of the listed source category and the 

confusion that resulted from some of the definitions in the 

proposed rule, we have revised the definitions of “paints 

and allied products,” “paints and allied products 

manufacturing,” and “paints and allied products 

manufacturing process” to exclude operations that add and 

mix pigments to pre-manufactured products and to clarify 

that only facilities that manufacture paints and allied 

products from raw materials, as described under NAICS 

325510, 325520, 325910 and selected sectors under 325998, 

are covered by this rule. The revised definitions follow: 

Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing means the 

production of paints, inks, adhesives, stains, varnishes, 

shellacs, putties, sealers, caulks, and other coatings from 

raw materials, the intended use of which is to leave a 

dried film of solid material on a substrate. Typically, 

the manufacturing processes that produce these materials 

are described by Standard Industry Classification (SIC) 

codes 285 or 289 and North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes 3255 and 3259 and are produced by 

physical means, such as blending and mixing, as opposed to 
chemical synthesis means, such as reactions and 

distillation. Paints and allied products manufacturing 

does not include: 

(1) The manufacture of products that do not leave a 

dried film of solid material on the substrate, such as 

thinners, paint removers, brush cleaners, and mold 

release agents; 

(2) The manufacture of electroplated and electroless 

metal films; 

(3) The manufacture of raw materials, such as resins, 

pigments, and solvents used in the production of 

paints and coatings; and 

(4) Activities by end users of paints or allied 

products to ready those materials for application. 

Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Process means all 

the equipment which collectively functions to produce 

paints and allied products from raw materials A process 

may consist of one or more unit operations. For the 

purposes of this subpart, the manufacturing process 

includes any, all, or a combination of, weighing, blending, 

mixing, grinding, tinting, dilution, or other formulation. 

Cleaning operations, material storage and transfer, and 

piping are considered part of the manufacturing process. It 
does not cover activities by end users of paints or allied 

products to ready those materials for application. Quality 

assurance and quality control laboratories are not 

considered part of a paints and allied products 

manufacturing process. 

In terms of the breadth of the rule’s applicability, 

some manufacturing facilities may have co-located or 

affiliated operations which meet the definition of paints 

and allied products manufacturing, and to which this rule 

does apply. 

2. Applicability Based on HAP Used/Emitted 

Comment: Commenters note that the proposed rule would 

apply to paint and allied products manufacturing area 

sources that process, use, or generate one or more of the 

six target HAP: benzene, methylene chloride, cadmium 

compounds, chromium compounds, lead compounds, and nickel 

compounds. Commenters also note that these HAP are 

referred to as the “target HAP” for this regulation. 

Commenters further state that, under the proposed rule, 

once a facility is determined to be subject to the rule, 

the emission limitations and management practices then 

would apply to all processes at all times, regardless of 

whether any target HAP (or any HAP) was being processed, 
used, generated, or emitted. Commenters request that EPA 

limit applicability of the rule to those times when a 

process vessel is actually processing, using, generating, 

or emitting one or more of the target HAP. 

One commenter supports EPA’s decision to apply the 

standard to all HAP. The commenter notes that EPA has the 

discretion under § 112(d) of the Clean Air Act to issue 

standards for areas sources “to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants,” and EPA’s discretion is not 

limited to only regulating only the target HAP in the area 

source program. 

Several commenters request that EPA limit the 

rulemaking’s applicability to those operations at a 

facility that are actually utilizing one of the target HAP. 

The commenters believe that EPA should revise the 

applicability language to make it clear that the rule only 

applies to processes with target HAP emissions at an 

affected source, as opposed to any operation at an affected 

source, regardless of whether or not the process involves 

one or more of the target HAP. One of the commenters notes 

that this approach is used in the Area Source Standards for 

Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating 

Operations and the Area Source Standards for Nine Metal 

Fabrication and Finishing Source Categories. Several of 
the commenters state that the intent of the area source 

regulations was to regulate the 30 Urban Air toxics, and 

EPA is significantly increasing the burden on industry, 

especially small businesses, by expanding the rule beyond 

the target HAP, without commensurate environmental benefit. 

One of the commenters requests that only the presence of 

one or more of the target metal HAP should trigger the 

requirements for other metal HAP, and that only the 

presence of benzene or methylene chloride should trigger 

the requirements for other volatile HAP emissions. 

Response: Like the proposed rule, the final rule 

applies to any facility that performs paints and allied 

products manufacturing that is an area source of HAP 

emissions and processes, uses, or generates materials 

containing one or more of the target HAP: benzene, 

methylene chloride, and compounds of cadmium, chromium, 

lead, and nickel. 

To develop the emissions standards in today’s rule, we 

identified the emission points that emit the target HAP and 

determined GACT for those emission sources. The proposed 

regulatory text required that these GACT requirements apply 

at all times, whether any of the target HAP was or was not 

being used. However, the preamble to the proposed rule (74 

FR 26147) stated that the requirements of the rule would 
apply when any operation is being performed that processes, 

uses, or generates any HAP. EPA intended to propose 

regulatory text that required that the rule’s requirements 

apply when any operation is being performed that processes, 

uses, or generates any of the target HAP. The regulatory 

text in the final rule has been revised accordingly to 

state that the control requirements only apply when the 

facility is processing, using, or generating any of the 

target HAP. 

The commenters requested that the GACT requirements 

only apply when the target HAP are being processed, used, 

or generated. They did not claim that EPA lacks the 

authority under §112(d) of the Clean Air Act to regulate 

HAP other than the target HAP, but rather based their 

arguments on claims of potential burdens of expanding the 

rule beyond the target HAP. However, these commenters did 

not provide specific information regarding the potential 

additional burden to support these assertions. We believe 

there may be a minimal increase in the burden associated 

with controlling emissions in the instances when a nontarget HAP is being used (without a target HAP also being 

present). Facilities that process, use, or generate one or 

more of the target HAP must have the required controls in 
place, and these same controls will control other metal 

and/or volatile HAP. 

We did make changes in the final rule to clarify our 

original intent that the requirements apply only when a 

target HAP is processed, used, or generated. We also 

further refined this to specify that the requirement to 

keep process and storage vessels covered only applies when 

the vessel contains target volatile HAP. 

Comment: Several commenters suggested that EPA 

include an applicability exemption for process tanks under 

a prescribed size. The commenters recommend an exemption 

for process tanks smaller than 250 gallons, both for 

consistency with the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rulemaking and 

to limit burden. One commenter stated that it is more 

difficult to install particulate controls on high 

dispersion process tanks that are less than 250 gallons and 

install covers on process tanks less than 250 gallons. In 

addition, if the 250 gallon threshold is not included, 

every "process tank" would need to be covered, including 

very small containers like 5 gallon containers and 55 

gallons drums. 

Another commenter noted that EPA has already 

determined in other Part 63 NESHAP regulations (such as the 
HON in subpart G container definition at §63.111) and the 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subpart CC regulations at 40 CFR 

264/265.1080(b)(2) that containers of a capacity less than 

or equal to 0.1 cubic meters (m3) produce insignificant 

emissions and thus are exempted from the regulations. 

Additionally, the commenter stated that the HAP mandated to 

be regulated should be specifically listed in order to 

avoid any confusion. 

Response: From the permit information we obtained for 

the rulemaking, we found that 8 out of 30 facilities are 

required to cover storage tanks or process vessels that 

contain VOC or organic solvents to prevent vaporization of 

VOCs. In a separate study, the Washington State Department 

of Ecology found that the 18 facilities that they visited 

or surveyed used lids or covers on all vessels2. The survey 

also stated that the use of covers or lids is considered to 

be a standard practice by the paint manufacturing industry. 

Industry representatives also provided estimates that 

around 90-95 percent of facilities use covers on their 

process and storage tanks to prevent product loss; these 

data do not provide any information on tank size. 

 

2 Paint and Coatings Manufacturing Sector, Pollution Prevention Assessment and Guidance, Washington 

State Department of Ecology, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program, Publication #98-410, 

Revised November 2002. 
None of the information that we found limited the use 

of lids or covers to the size of the tank. Therefore, we 

believe it is appropriate to require the use of lids or 

covers on all process and storage tanks that contain one or 

more of the target HAP, regardless of the size of the tank. 

The commenters did not provide any information to explain 

why covering a process tank of less than 250 gallons is 

burdensome. The commenters also provided no information to 

support adopting different requirements for smaller process 

tanks, nor do they provide any information explaining that 

process tank covers for the smaller tanks are not generally 

available control technology. The volatile HAP to be 

controlled are listed at §63.11599(3). 

3. Pollution Prevention Alternative Exemption

Comment: The commenters stated that a facility should 

be able to “opt out” of this rule in the future if the 

facility eliminates the processing, use, production or 

generation of the target HAP; otherwise, there is no 

incentive for coatings manufacturers or their raw material 

suppliers to move away from these HAP. Additionally, 

several commenters stated that facilities that do 

reformulate or cease producing a certain product that 

subjected them to the rulemaking in the first place will be 

mandated to continue to operate costly and energy-consuming 
control equipment (e.g., particulate controls) for no 

environmental benefit. The facility’s continued 

recordkeeping and reporting would be additional cost and 

burden. 

One commenter believes that EPA’s 1995 “once in/always 

in” policy applies to major sources subject to MACT 

standards and would not apply to this area source 

regulation. The commenter requested that EPA officially 

confirm that this policy does not apply to this final 

rulemaking and/or facilities that no longer use the target 

HAP after the date of implementation have the ability to 

opt-out of the rule. 

Response: The comment concerning the “once in/always 

in” policy is not relevant to this rule. The regulated 

entities subject to this rule include the owner/operator of 

a facility that performs paints and allied products 

manufacturing that is an area source of HAP emissions and 

processes, uses, or generates materials containing the 

following target HAP: benzene, methylene chloride, and 

compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel. If a 

facility that was covered under the rule discontinues 

processing, using, or generating the target HAP through 

pollution prevention practices or otherwise, then that 
facility is no longer covered by the rule. However, should 

the same facility reinstate processing, using or generating 

the target HAP, it would once again be subject to the 

requirements of this rule, including notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting. Additionally, terminating 

use of the target HAP would require submittal of a report 

pursuant to §63.9(j) and also require maintenance of the 

record as required by §63.1(b)(3). 

B. Compliance/Implementation Dates 

Comment: Two commenters state that §63.11603(a)(1) 

requires existing sources to notify EPA within 60 days of 

publication of the final rule, and for new sources within 

60 days of startup. The commenters state that the 

notification of Compliance Status found in §63.11603(a)(2) 

requires that all sources report on their compliance status 

within 120 days of their respective compliance date. The 

commenters recommended that the deadlines be changed to 180 

days in all cases, to provide time for small sources to 

comply and to be consistent with other similar federal 

rules. 

Response: We agree with the commenters that because 

most of the affected facilities are small businesses, and 

some might be complying with EPA regulations for the first 

time, they should be provided additional time to comply 
with the requirements. Per the General Provisions, we have 

pushed back the initial notification date to 120 days from 

the date of publication of the final rule. The compliance 

date is 180 days from the date of publication of the final 

rule. 

C. De Minimis Thresholds and Subcategorization 

1. De Minimis Thresholds 

Comment: Several commenters suggest that EPA exempt 

small paints and allied products manufacturing facilities 

from the final regulation. The commenters propose using a 

de minimis level of 100 lbs/year of one or more of the 

target HAP. The commenters claim that sources with lower 

emissions levels were not included in the 1990 baseline 

emissions inventory. Another commenter suggests a massbased de minimis level of 2.0 Megagrams (2.2 tons per year) 

for target HAP that are processed, used, produced, or 

generated. Alternatively, commenters suggested 

subcategorization of the source category into “small 

emission” and “large emission” facilities based on a 100 

lb/year HAP actual emission threshold, and then exempting 

the small emission subcategory from all requirements. 

The commenters claim that EPA has provided de minimis 

exemptions in previous area source rules, including Clay 

Ceramics, Glass Manufacturing, and the Benzene NESHAP for 
Waste Operations. One commenter states that precedence for 

a de minimis threshold (beyond the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) de minimis threshold) is 

established in earlier NESHAP rulemakings, where EPA 

determined that the use of coatings containing urban air 

toxics below certain thresholds do not negatively impact 

human health and the environment. Specifically, the 

commenter notes that in the Clay Manufacturing Area Source 

Rule, EPA included an applicability de minimis based on the 

argument that emissions from facilities with annual 

production of less than 50 tons/year were not included in 

the 1990 baseline emissions inventory that was used in the 

basis for the area source category listing. The commenter 

states that only those above the 50 ton/year threshold were 

in the basis for listing, so only those facilities are 

covered by the rule. The commenter believes the same is 

true for the paints and allied products manufacturing rule. 

Other commenters stated that state rules for paints and 

allied products manufacturing contain de minimis thresholds 

that exclude lower volume production facilities, waterborne 

production facilities, and small process tanks. The 

commenters state that since EPA can look to state 

regulations as part of the GACT analysis, EPA has the 

authority to adopt a 100 lb/year emission de minimis 
threshold. Several commenters believe that without a de 

minimis emission threshold, a facility that relies on a 

supplier MSDS may find itself out of compliance if, for 

example, a supplier reports a new trace metal constituent 

on the MSDS. The commenters note that the metals of 

concern are often contaminants in purchased raw materials. 

The commenters note that if the supplier’s raw material 

source changes and the supplier’s analysis begins to show 

higher traces of a metal, that a manufacturer would be out 

of compliance upon receiving this new MSDS, even though no 

reportable emissions of the metal have occurred. 

Response: EPA does not believe it is appropriate to 

establish a de minimis threshold exempting sources emitting 

less than 100 lb/year of the target HAP, or sources 

processing, using, or producing less than 2.0 Megagrams 

(2.2 tons per year) of the target HAP from the final 

regulations. Section 112(c)(3) requires that EPA list 

categories or subcategories of area sources sufficient to 

ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the 

area source emissions of the 30 HAP that present the 

greatest threat to public health in the largest number of 

urban areas are regulated. EPA listed the Paints and 

Allied Products Manufacturing area source category in 2002 

as one of the categories needed to ensure that 90 percent 
of such area source emissions are regulated. The listed 

source category included sources emitting less than 100 

lbs/year of the target HAP for the Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing source category. Therefore, were 

EPA to exempt those sources from regulation, the statutory 

requirement to regulate area sources representing 90 

percent of area source emissions of the urban HAP would not 

be met. For this reason, EPA does not believe a de minimis 

exemption would be appropriate. The rules commenters cite 

where de minimis thresholds were established were issued 

under section 112(d)(2) for major sources (i.e., MACT 

standards), not for area sources under section 112(d)(5). 

Therefore, those major source categories were not part of 

the list of source categories established to meet EPA’s 

obligation under section 112(c)(3). Further, commenters’ 

claims that EPA established de minimis exemptions in 

several area source rules are incorrect. In these rules, 

after examining the record on which the initial listing was 

based, EPA clarified the scope of the listed source 

category. Contrary to commenters’ assertion, EPA did not 

create any exemptions in those rules. For example, in the 

case of Clay Ceramics, EPA stated: 

“With this action, we are also clarifying that artisan 

potters, small ceramics studios, noncommercial 
entities, and schools and universities with ceramic 

arts programs, which typically have annual production 

rates of 45 Mg/yr (50 tpy) or less, are not a part of 

the source category listed pursuant to section 

112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), and are, therefore, not 

covered by this area source standard. Urban HAP 

emissions from these facilities were not included in 

the 1990 baseline emissions inventory that was used as 

the basis for the area source category listing.” 

EPA set standards in each of the area source rules cited 

above for all sources that were part of the listed source 

category to meet the statutory obligation in section 

112(d)(3) to regulate sources representing 90 percent of 

area source emissions of the urban HAP. EPA also notes 

that the commenter’s reference to state law requirements is 

irrelevant. EPA is required to establish area source 

standards pursuant to the requirements of section 112(d), 

and cannot create exemptions to those standards based on 

state law requirements. 

Finally, commenters are concerned that without a de 

minimis emission threshold, a facility that relies on a 

MSDS may find itself out of compliance if a raw material 

source changes and the supplier’s analysis begins to show 
higher traces of a metal, and those higher levels are not 

reflected on the MSDS. The CAA section 112(k) inventory 

was primarily based on the 1990 Toxics Release Inventory 

(TRI), and that is the case for the paints and allied 

products manufacturing area source category as well. The 

reporting requirements for the TRI do not require reporting 

of de minimis concentrations of toxic chemicals in 

mixtures, as reflected in the above concentration levels; 

therefore, the CAA section 112(k) inventory would not have 

included emissions from operations involving chemicals 

below these concentration levels. See 40 CFR 372.38, Toxic 

Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right-To-Know 

(Reporting Requirements). Accordingly, the scope of the 

listed source category is limited to facilities using 

materials containing one or more of the target HAP in 

quantities greater than 0.1 percent. 

In addition, EPA believes the regulations as proposed 

adequately address the commenters’ concern regarding 

reliance on the MSDS. For facilities that rely on a 

supplier MSDS, the manufacturer would only be out of 

compliance if the materials containing one or more of the 

target HAP greater than 0.1 percent are used in the 

process, without the required controls in place. 

Therefore, a manufacturer would be required to submit the 
appropriate forms if the manufacturer intends to use the 

material containing HAP greater than 0.1 percent by weight 

in the manufacturing process. Commenters provide no 

evidence to indicate that MSDS from suppliers will be 

inaccurate and will result in noncompliance with the 

regulation. 

2. Subcategorization 

Comment: One commenter states that the legal basis for 

EPA’s subcategorization of the Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing area source category into large and small 

facilities is well established. The commenter asserts that 

section 112(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act provides that EPA 

“may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within a 

source category or subcategory in establishing such 

standards.” 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(1). The commenter also 

notes that the Clean Air Act supports an EPA determination 

that work practice standards and general management 

practices constitute GACT for small Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing sources. 

According to the commenter, a review of the 

commenter’s internal data show significant differences 

between larger and smaller facilities based on production 

levels, matching EPA estimates that the metal HAP emissions 
for a typical “small emission” area source facility are 

only about 10 percent of the level of emissions for a 

typical “large emission” area source facility. 

The commenter states that in the area source rule for 

Chemical Manufacturing, EPA evaluated impacts for two 

groupings or subcategories for metal HAP and considered a 

threshold because of an observed difference in operation 

depending on the emission rate. The commenter further 

notes that EPA realized that there was a difference between 

facilities with higher HAP emissions that manufactured 

products containing HAP as an intended part of the product, 

and a majority of facilities with low emissions where the 

HAP originated from impurities in raw materials. The 

commenter believes there is a similar observed difference 

in operations depending on the emission rate for the paints 

and allied products manufacturing industry as well. The 

commenter states that facilities with actual emissions of 

paints and allied products manufacturing metal HAP 

(cadmium, chromium, nickel and lead) above 100 lb/yr 

produce products that contain the HAP as an intended part 

of the product. The commenter also asserts that EPA has 

the discretion to create subcategories of area sources, and 

that EPA should do so in the paints and allied products 
manufacturing rule based on cost considerations, as well as 

differing industry practices and processes. 

The commenter claims that two of the management 

practices EPA proposed to identify as GACT are used 

frequently: (1) sweeping/cleaning, and (2) purchasing only 

materials that are free (to the greatest extent possible) 

of HAP metals. Of the particulate matter (PM) control 

technologies EPA proposed as GACT, the commenter claims 

that large paints and allied products manufacturing 

facilities frequently use baghouses to reduce PM/HAP 

emissions, while smaller (less than 100 lb/year emission) 

facilities most often do not. The commenter also states 

that the consideration of costs and economic impacts is 

especially important for determining GACT for small paints 

and allied products manufacturing facilities because, given 

their extremely low level of HAP emissions, requiring 

additional controls would result in only marginal 

reductions in emissions at very high costs for modest 

incremental improvement in control. 

Response: EPA does not believe that subcategories in 

the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing area source 

category are warranted. In particular, EPA has no 

information demonstrating that paints and allied products 

manufacturing facilities that emit more than 100 lbs/year 
of HAP are of a different class, type, or size than similar 

facilities with lower emissions. In contrast, in the 

Chemical Manufacturing Area Source rule, EPA had 

information to support a conclusion that facilities above a 

certain total resource effectiveness value had different 

continuous process vents than facilities below that TRE 

value. See 73 Fed. Reg. 58352, 58364-65 (Oct. 6, 2008). 

We do not have any such information for the Paints and 

Allied Products Manufacturing source category. Absent such 

a demonstration, the Agency has no basis to support 

subcategorizing facilities with higher emissions from those 

with lower emissions. Further, while the commenters assert 

that larger facilities use baghouses while smaller ones do 

not, the commenter provided no data or information to 

support this assertion, and EPA has no data or information 

to substantiate this claim. 

D. Emission Standards and Management Practices 

1. Generally Available Control Technology 

Comment: One commenter stated that, as described in § 

112(k)(1), the purpose of the area source program is to 

“achieve a substantial reduction in emissions of hazardous 

air pollutants from area sources and an equivalent 

reduction in the public health risks associated with such 

sources . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 7412(k)(1). For area sources, 
EPA may set either MACT standards, or alternative standards 

(sometimes referred to as “GACT” standards) that “provide 

for the use of generally available control technologies or 

management practices ... to reduce emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants.” 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(5). 

The commenter stated that EPA provides no explanation 

for its decision to issue GACT standards instead of MACT 

standards for the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing 

area source category. 

Response: As the commenter recognizes, in CAA section 

112(d)(5), Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue 

alternative emission standards for area sources. 

Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(5), which is entitled 

“Alternative standard for area sources,” provides: 

With respect only to categories and subcategories 

of area sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) 

of this section, the Administrator may, in lieu 

of the authorities provided in paragraph (2) and 

subsection (f) of this section, elect to 

promulgate standards or requirements applicable 

to sources in such categories or subcategories 

which provide for the use of generally available 

control technologies or management practices by 
such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants. 

See CAA section 112(d)(5) (Emphasis added). 

There are two critical aspects to CAA section 

112(d)(5). First, CAA section 112(d)(5) applies only to 

those categories and subcategories of area sources listed 

pursuant to CAA section 112(c). The commenter does not 

dispute that EPA listed the area source category noted 

above pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3). Second, CAA 

section 112(d)(5) provides that, for area sources listed 

pursuant to CAA section 112(c), EPA “may, in lieu of” the 

authorities provided in CAA section 112(d)(2) and 112(f), 

elect to promulgate standards pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(5). CAA Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission 

standards established under that provision “require the 

maximum degree of reduction in emissions” of HAP (also 

known as MACT). CAA section 112(d)(3), in turn, defines 

what constitutes the “maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions” for new and existing sources. See CAA section 

112(d)(3)3

. Webster’s dictionary defines the phrase “in 

 

3 Specifically, CAA section 112(d)(3) sets the minimum degree of emission reduction that MACT 

standards must achieve, which is known as the MACT floor. For new sources, the degree of emission 

reduction shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source, and for existing sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not be less 

stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing 

sources for which the Administrator has emissions information. CAA Section 112(d)(2) directs EPA to 

consider whether more stringent emission reductions (so called beyond-the-floor limits) are technologically 
lieu of” to mean “in the place of” or “instead of.” See 

Webster’s II New Riverside University (1994). Thus, CAA 

section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to promulgate standards 

under CAA section 112(d)(5) that provide for the use of 

GACT, instead of issuing MACT standards pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does not set any 

condition precedent for issuing standards under CAA section 

112(d)(5) other than that the area source category or 

subcategory at issue must be one that EPA listed pursuant 

to CAA section 112(c), which is the case here4. 

We disagree with the commenter’s assertion that we 

must provide a rationale for issuing GACT standards under 

section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards. Had Congress 

intended that EPA first conduct a MACT analysis for each 

area source category, Congress would have stated so 

expressly in section 112(d)(5). Congress did not require 

EPA to conduct any MACT analysis, floor analysis or beyondthe-floor analysis before the Agency could issue a section 

112(d)(5) standard. Rather, Congress authorized EPA to 

issue GACT standards for area source categories listed 

 

achievable considering, among other things, the cost of achieving the emission reduction. 

4 CAA Section 112(d)(5) also references CAA section 112(f). See CAA section 

112(f)(5) (entitled “Area Sources” and providing that EPA is not required to conduct a 

review or promulgate standards under CAA section 112(f) for any area source category 

or subcategory listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3), and for which an emission 

standard is issued pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5)). 
under section 112(c)(3), and that is precisely what EPA has 

done in this rulemaking. 

Although EPA need not justify its exercise of 

discretion in choosing to issue a GACT standard for an area 

source listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3), EPA still must 

have a reasoned basis for the GACT determination for the 

particular area source category. The legislative history 

supporting section 112(d)(5) provides that GACT is to 

encompass: 

“... methods, practices and techniques which are 

commercially available and appropriate for application 

by the sources in the category considering economic 

impacts and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control systems.” 

The discussion in the Senate report clearly provides that 

EPA may consider costs in determining what constitutes GACT 

for the area source category. Congress plainly recognized 

that area sources differ from major sources, which is why 

Congress allowed EPA to consider costs in setting GACT 

standards for area sources under section 112(d)(5), but did 

not allow that consideration in setting MACT floors for 

major sources pursuant to section 112(d)(3). This 

important dichotomy between section 112(d)(3) and section 

112(d)(5) provides further evidence that Congress sought to 
do precisely what the title of section 112(d)(5) states, 

i.e. provide EPA the authority to issue ‘‘alternative 

standards for area sources.’’ 

Notwithstanding the commenter’s claim, EPA properly 

issued standards for the area source categories at issue 

here under section 112(d)(5), and in doing so provided a 

reasoned basis for its selection of GACT for these area 

source categories. As explained in the proposed rule, EPA 

evaluated the control technologies and management practices 

that reduce HAP emissions at paints and allied products 

manufacturing facilities, including those at both major and 

area sources. In its evaluation, EPA used information on 

pollution prevention from industry trade associations, and 

reviewed operating permits to identify the emission 

controls and management practices that are currently used 

to control volatile and particulate HAP emissions. We also 

considered technologies and practices at major and area 

sources in similar categories. 

Finally, even though not required, EPA did provide a 

rationale for why it set a GACT standard in the proposed 

rule. In the proposal, we explained that the facilities in 

the source categories at issue here are already well 

controlled for the urban HAP for which the source category 

was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Consideration of 
costs and economic impacts proves especially important for 

the well-controlled area sources at issue in this final 

action. Given the current, well-controlled emission 

levels, a MACT floor determination, where costs cannot be 

considered, could result in only marginal reductions in 

emissions at very high costs for modest incremental 

improvement in control for the area source category. 

2. Metal HAP Standards 

Comment: One commenter states that although 

particulate control devices are generally available, EPA 

has not adequately supported its proposal to set an opacity 

standard rather than a particulate matter standard. The 

commenter notes that EPA acknowledged that most of the 

State operating permits for facilities in this category 

impose a “concentration or mass emission particulate limit 

that requires testing using an appropriate particulate test 

method, in most cases EPA Method 5.” The commenter says 

that EPA rejected this widespread approach of a 

concentration or mass emission limit, instead adopting 

opacity as a surrogate for assessing mass emissions. The 

commenter states that EPA failed to demonstrate that the 

use of opacity as a surrogate is sufficient to achieve the 

levels of reduction that are already imposed by the State 

operating permits that rely on particulate testing. The 
commenter says that EPA’s reliance on a 1991 study of 

benefits of opacity monitors applied to Portland Cement 

Kilns was unpersuasive. The commenter also notes that in 

the recently proposed NESHAP for the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry, EPA rejected the use of an opacity 

standard, stating that “we do not believe that opacity is 

an accurate indicator of compliance with the proposed PM 

emissions limit.” 

Another commenter notes that there is no definition of 

capture or control efficiency in the proposed rule. The 

commenter recommends that EPA consider implementing capture 

and control system efficiencies parallel to those in the 

NESHAP for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Sources (40 

CFR 63, Subpart XXXXXX). In this rule, the commenter 

states that the term "adequate emissions capture methods" 

is defined in §63.11522 to include "...drawing greater than 

85 percent of the airborne dust generated from the process 

into the control device." The commenter continues by 

saying that the Metal Fabrication and Finishing NESHAP 

requires spray paint booths to be fitted with PM filter 

technology that is "...demonstrated to achieve at least 98 

percent capture...." 

Response: As the commenter pointed out, particulate 

control devices were determined to be GACT for the control 
of the particulate HAP emissions. Based on the existing 

operating permit requirements for paints and allied 

products manufacturing, we found a variety of formats and 

units, e.g., percent opacity, allowable PM or PM10 emission 

rates (pounds per hour or tons per year), and outlet 

concentrations (grains per dry standard cubic foot 

(gr/dscf)). We evaluated GACT for these format options and 

determined that an opacity limit was the most appropriate 

selection. As discussed below, there are cost and 

technical issues associated with demonstrating compliance 

with a PM numerical emission limit or a percent reduction 

standard, such that they do not constitute GACT for this 

source category. 

As was stated in the proposal, we had concerns with 

the economic impact of particulate matter testing on the 

affected facilities, many being small businesses. A 

typical EPA Method 5 PM emissions test used for an emission 

limit or a percent reduction standard would cost between 

$3,000 and $10,000, while the cost of performing a Method 

203C test is approximately $2,000, assuming an off-site 

contractor conducts the test.5

 In addition, the manufacture 

of paints and allied products is a batch process. The 

 

5

 Revision of Source Category List for Standards Under Section 112(k) of the Clean Air Act; and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Ferroalloys Production Facilities, 

September 15, 2008. 
addition of pigments and solids, when the particulate 

control device would need to operated, can be completed in 

minutes, whereas the typical Method 5 test is run for sixty 

minutes. This presents technical issues with stopping and 

starting the Method 5 test method in order to capture a 

representative sample of the particulate emissions from the 

particulate control device during the addition of pigments 

and solids. Based on these cost and technical issues, we 

determined that an opacity standard would minimize the 

economic burden on the facilities covered by this rule 

while still ensuring that the particulate control device is 

well-designed and operated. 

EPA’s statements in the May 6, 2009 proposed 

amendments for the Portland Cement NESHAP (74 FR 211360) 

are not relevant here. Our statements in that proposal 

were in relation to the use of an alternative opacity 

standard to demonstrate compliance with a numeric PM limit. 

In contrast, in the Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing area source NESHAP the opacity limit is not 

used to demonstrate compliance with a numeric PM limit. 

The opacity limit established in this rule is a standard 

and not a surrogate for particulate matter. The statements 

in the Portland Cement proposal did not question the use of 

an opacity limit for the specific purpose for which EPA is 
adopting such a limit in today’s action. Therefore, we 

believe our decision to establish GACT as the requirement 

to capture and route PM emissions to a control device that 

achieves a specified opacity is warranted. This format is 

retained in the final rule. 

In summary, we believe the requirement to capture and 

route PM emissions to a control device that achieves a 

specified opacity limit is GACT. This technology is 

generally available, and opacity is a reasonable and 

effective means of ensuring that the control device is 

functioning correctly and achieving emission reductions. 

Comment: EPA proposed that new and affected sources 

must capture particulate emissions and route them to a 

particulate control device during the addition of pigments 

and other solids and during the grinding and milling of 

solids. Two commenters agree with EPA that, after the 

addition processes, the pigments and associated metal HAP 

are in solution and emissions are minimal. Two commenters 

question whether particulate controls are needed during the 

grinding and milling stage, which occurs after the addition 

process when the pigments are in solution. One of the 

commenters notes that often grinding and milling equipment 

is fully enclosed, and there are typically no HAP emissions 

from the process. Two commenters suggest that particulate 
controls only be required when pigments and solids are 

added to the high speed dispersion tanks. 

Response: There are a number of different milling and 

grinding methods and equipment that are used in the paints 

and allied products manufacturing industry. As the 

commenters note, many grinding and milling processes are 

fully enclosed and typically do not emit HAP from this 

process. In addition, there are minimal HAP emissions from 

the grinding and milling processes that occur when the 

pigments are in solution. Therefore, the final rule has 

been revised to provide three additional compliance options 

other than the use of a particulate control device. A 

particulate control device must be used during the addition 

of dry pigments or other dry materials that contain HAP to 

the grinding and milling equipment. However, the use of 

pigments or materials that contain HAP in paste, slurry, or 

liquid form instead of in dry form is an alternative means 

of compliance for this area source rule. In addition, 

fully enclosing the grinding and milling equipment is a 

second alternative means of compliance, in lieu of using a 

particulate control device. In addition, the requirements 

of the rule are satisfied if the pigments and solids that 

contain HAP in the grinding and milling equipment are in 

solution. These revisions do not change the intent of the 
rule, which is to reduce HAP emissions; in the case of each 

of these revisions, minimal HAP are emitted. In other 

words, we are not requiring use of a particulate control 

device during periods when alternative compliance methods 

will ensure that particulate emissions will be 

controlled. Each of these compliance alternatives will 

achieve at least as much reduction of emissions of the 

target HAP as will use of a particulate control device. 

Therefore, we believe that these revisions address the 

commenters’ concerns because use of a particulate control 

device is not required if a facility does not have any 

metal HAP emissions, whether it is because the metal HAP is 

in paste, liquid, or slurry form during grinding and 

milling or because a facility is not venting emissions to 

the atmosphere. 

We agree with the commenter that particulate controls 

should be used during the addition of solid materials that 

contain HAP to high speed dispersion. 

Comment: Several commenters object to the 5 percent 

opacity limit. One of the commenters states that most 

paint facilities with particulate controls do not have 

opacity limits, and for those facilities that do, the 

existing limits are not as stringent as the proposed 5 

percent opacity limit. Based on the operating permit 
information in the docket, the commenter believes that 

EPA’s proposal of 5 percent is arbitrary and indicated that 

based on real-world experiences; they stated that 30 

percent opacity is more realistic. Two of the commenters 

note that only three of the 44 facilities evaluated for 

this rulemaking had a 5 percent opacity requirement. The 

commenters indicate that the remaining facilities have 

opacity requirements of 20 percent or greater. Given these 

facts, the two commenters believe that an opacity standard 

of 20 percent would be more in line with what is intended 

by GACT. One commenter reviewed the 44 operating permits 

in the docket for this rulemaking and found that only 3 had 

a 5 percent opacity limit; 11 had a 20 percent limit, 2 had 

30 percent limit, 13 had 40 percent limit, and 2 had an 

observed or no opacity limit. The commenter states that 

since this rule is governed by GACT, EPA is obligated to 

determine the control and work practices that are most 

commonly used or that are most prevalent. The commenter 

maintains that EPA has not appropriately set the standard, 

and that GACT would be an opacity level of 30 percent. In 

addition, the commenter states that as most of the affected 

sources under this rulemaking are small businesses, EPA 

should not maintain an opacity emissions limit requirement 

in the final rulemaking. However, the commenter says that 
if EPA does decide to codify an opacity emissions level, it 

be no less than 30 percent. 

Response: The commenter’s statement that GACT must 

be based on the control technologies or emission 

limitations of the majority is incorrect. Rather, GACT 

reflects what is generally available, and a control 

technology may be generally available even if a majority of 

sources are not currently using it. However, in the case 

of paints and allied products manufacturing, we found that 

the use of particulate control devices is a common 

practice; the permits we obtained indicated that 79 percent 

of the facilities were currently equipped with a 

particulate control device. 

We disagree with the commenter’s interpretation of the 

opacity limitations in the permit data. The majority of 

opacity limitations in the permits are general opacity 

limits that are intended to limit the amount of fugitive 

emissions that are emitted to the atmosphere from an 

industrial facility. These fugitive emissions include road 

dust, storage pile and other non-process emissions from an 

industrial facility. We believe that many of these opacity 

limits in the permits are not intended to limit the 

emissions from a particulate control device. To determine 
an appropriate opacity limit for this rule, we reviewed 

documents related to opacity and particulate control 

devices. Based on this review, we concluded that the 

opacity from a properly operated particulate control device 

would be zero or near zero. Therefore, we proposed a 5 

percent opacity standard for the particulate control 

device. 

We selected an opacity standard because opacity 

provides an indication of the concentration of particulates 

leaving an exhaust stack. The more particulate matter that 

is passed through the exhaust, the more light will be 

blocked, and, as a result, a higher opacity percentage is 

observed. The documents that we reviewed determined that 

in many cases a properly maintained particulate control 

device could achieve zero or near zero opacity. However, 

many of these measurements were determined using a 

continuous opacity monitor system (COMS). For this rule, 

we believe all of the facilities will measure opacity using 

a trained observer, who assigns opacity readings in 5 

percent increments. The trained observer is certified to 

determine the opacity with a positive error of less than 

7.5 percent opacity, and to observe 95 percent of the 

readings with a positive error of less than 5 percent 
opacity. To take into account this observer error, we have 

revised the final opacity limit to be less than 10 percent 

opacity when averaged over a six minute period. 

3. Volatile HAP Standards 

Comment: Three commenters state that operators need 

to open nearly every process or storage tank at some time 

for quality control testing, adding of materials or removal 

of product. Therefore, consistent with the Miscellaneous 

Coatings Manufacturing MACT (MCM), one commenter requests 

that EPA revise the regulation such that operators are 

allowed to open any vessel, be it mixing, process, or 

storage, for quality control testing and sampling of the 

product, addition of materials, or removal of product from 

the vessel. One commenter notes that the proposed rule 

requires that process and storage vessels must be kept 

covered when not in use. The commenter notes that EPA 

provided an exception during the manufacturing process to 

allow for quality control or during the addition of 

pigments. The commenter recommends that a similar 

exception be provided to gain access to process and storage 

vessels for emptying, cleaning, and maintenance. One 

commenter states that some of their vessels are cleaned 

manually, and therefore covers cannot be maintained over 
the vessel at all times. The commenters subsequently 

believe that an exemption needs to be added to the final 

rule for inspection and/or cleaning of the process vessels. 

Response: In the proposed rule, we recognized certain 

situations during which process and storage vessels need to 

be opened. In establishing the GACT for this area source, 

we did not include other necessary actions. As such, we 

have amended the final rule so that operators may open any 

vessel necessary for quality control testing and product 

sampling, addition of materials, or product removal. We 

did not include maintenance, because we believe that 

maintenance of the process vessel should be performed when 

the process vessel is empty. We have also revised the 

regulations to only require lids or covers on process or 

storage vessels that contain benzene or methylene chloride. 

Process or storage vessels that do not contain benzene or 

methylene chloride, and process or storage vessels that are 

empty, are not required to have covers or lids. 

Comment: Numerous commenters believe the proposed 

vessel cover requirements are nearly impossible to 

institute both from a compliance and enforcement 

standpoint. Many of the commenters believe that it is 

nearly impossible to confirm that a lid or cover touches at 

least 90 percent of the vessel rim at any given time. 
Further, states a commenter, if a cover is constructed from 

a flexible material, it will most likely move around during 

the manufacturing process. The commenter continues that 

solid lids may “move around,” and/or warp over time. The 

commenter notes that only one of the State permits in the 

docket had this requirement and that this should not be 

considered GACT. Another commenter believes that the 

plywood covers/lids that EPA used to estimate costs for 

this rule would probably not meet this standard, as plywood 

may warp over time. Therefore, the commenters suggest that 

this requirement be deleted. 

Response: The 90 percent cover requirement is 

intended to ensure that the lid or cover properly fits on 

the process vessel that contains the target HAP. The 90 

percent cover requirement can be calculated by subtracting 

the length of any visible gaps from the circumference of 

the process vessel, and dividing this number by the 

circumference of the process vessel. We believe this 

requirement also addresses the issue of warping of the 

cover over time, because if the cover warps or moves around 

so that the vessel is not meeting the 90 percent coverage 

requirement, then the cover should be replaced in order to 

effectively control the HAP emissions. We understand that 

the cover may move around during the manufacturing process; 
however we believe the 90 percent cover requirement 

provides the best guidance for covering a process vessel 

that contains HAP. It ensures that HAP emissions are 

controlled, but provides some flexibility (i.e., as much as 

ten percent of the circumference of the lid need not be in 

contact with the cover) to accommodate movement of the 

covers that may occur during the manufacturing process. 

Further, the 90 percent cover requirement is 

consistent with the standard procedures EPA has observed at 

existing paints and allied product manufacturing 

facilities. Some facilities are subject to similar 90 

percent cover requirements under state or local regulations 

(for example, San Diego County). Based on our data, nearly 

all paints and allied product manufacturing facilities use 

lids on process vessels to prevent loss of product; this 

makes good business sense. Lid options include tightfitting stainless steel lids, elasticized plastic "shower 

caps," and plywood covers. The 90 percent cover 

requirement is designed to remove any uncertainty about 

whether a vessel is adequately covered, for both the 

facility manager and the enforcement personnel. Therefore, 

the 90 percent cover requirement is included in the final 

rule. 

E. Testing, Monitoring, and Inspection Requirements 
1. Visual Emissions Requirement

Comment: Several commenters state that EPA Method 9 

is burdensome. One commenter suggests that EPA allow for 

an alternative or modification to Method 9 that has been 

widely implemented across the country. Two commenters 

state that the area source NESHAP requirements for the Nine 

Metal Fabrication and Finishing Sources allow facilities to 

utilize EPA Method 22 in lieu of EPA Method 9 if no visible 

emissions are observed. One commenter believes that it is 

highly unlikely there would be visible emissions from a 

facility that uses a particulate control device, and 

requiring EPA Method 22 for periodic monitoring should be 

more than adequate for this source category. One commenter 

states that other methods use observation and reporting 

techniques very similar to Method 9, except that an 

uncertified observer would be permitted to make an initial 

determination of any visible emission. The commenter 

continues, stating that if a visible emission is 

identified, then corrective measures must be taken. The 

commenter notes that if more than a trace of visible 

emissions persists after maintenance has been completed, 

the facility must either determine whether the emission 

limit is being exceeded using a certified observer, or shut 

down the process. The commenter says that this approach is 
currently being used by their facility and suggests that 

EPA include this method in the final rulemaking. One 

commenter believes that a simple evaluation of visible 

emissions coupled with the pressure drop monitoring is 

adequate to monitor the ongoing proper operation of the 

add-on dry PM control device. Another commenter suggests 

that EPA provide an alternative to the formal Method 9 

observation by allowing the owner/operator to conduct a 

general visible emission observation once per calendar 

quarter. The commenter says that if the owner/operator 

does observe any visible emissions during the quarterly 

observations, then the owner/operator should be allowed to 

address the situation causing the visible emissions. The 

commenter requests that if the problem persists for more 

than 24 hours, then the owner/operator should treat the 

observation as a deviation, or they can have the option to 

conduct a formal opacity test using a trained Method 9 

observer. 

Response: We appreciate the basic concerns of the 

commenters with regard to Method 9, although we have not 

elected to incorporate the specific suggestions made. In 

the final rule, we have changed the requirement, which now 

reads that an initial Method 203C test must be conducted to 
demonstrate compliance with a 10 percent opacity limit. 

Upon re-evaluation of the data and actual facility 

conditions, we determined that Method 203C better 

characterizes the emissions from the paints and allied 

product manufacturing operations. The time in which the 

emissions are present are significantly shorter than the 

thirty-minute visual inspection of Method 9. Method 203C 

is similar to Method 9 in training; however, Method 203C 

specifically allows for these short time limits with a oneminute average. 

We have also removed the requirement to conduct 

additional Method 9 tests every six months. In place of 

these semi-annual Method 9 tests, the final rule requires 

that a Method 22 visible emissions observation be conducted 

once per quarter. If this observation detects visible 

emissions for six minutes of the required 15 minute 

observation period, then a Method 203C test is required 

within one week. If the Method 203C test then detects an 

opacity greater than 10 percent, the corrective action and 

retesting within 15 days requirement that was in the 

proposed rule would apply. This information must also be 

included in the annual report. We believe that Method 22 

provides a comparable approach to ensure that any emission 
control equipment is operating properly and HAP emissions 

are reduced. Method 22 is used to ensure the process and 

any emission control equipment is operating properly and is 

not generating excess emissions. Method 22 is comparable 

to Method 203C because both methods use the human eye to 

determine if visible emissions are observed from an 

industrial activity. Therefore, we believe that this 

approach reduces the burden of the semi-annual Method 9 

testing that the commenters were concerned about, while 

also ensuring that the control devices are operating 

properly. 

Comment: Three commenters have suggestions related to 

the proposed inspection requirements. One of the 

commenters agrees that wet and dry PM control systems 

require initial and ongoing system integrity inspections as 

well as integrity inspections after each incidence of 

maintenance or repair. The commenter believes that these 

inspections are necessary to assure the successful ongoing 

capture and control of the PM emissions from paint 

manufacturing. However, the commenter states that the 

exact frequency, extent, and nature of these inspections 

should be defined by the coatings manufacturer in a written 

plan with which they should comply; the elements of the 

plan should be clearly established in the rule. The 
commenter recommends that the hood and flexible ductwork 

portion of the system be subject to informal inspections 

each week of use while the rigid portion of the ductwork be 

subject to annual inspections, or to inspection after any 

maintenance or repair work is performed on the duct system. 

The commenter recommends that initial corrective action 

should be immediately undertaken to mitigate any problems 

when system integrity is compromised and the identified 

problem fully corrected and documented within 15 days of 

first discovery. Two commenters believe that a weekly 

inspection of the particulate control device is not 

practical. A commenter states that because ductwork leaks 

under a vacuum cannot be visually detected, weekly visual 

leak inspections of dry particulate control device ductwork 

should not be required. In addition, the commenter notes 

that EPA has historically exempted the inspection of 

ductwork as excessive. The commenter states that several 

MACT rules require only annual inspection of ductwork. One 

commenter believes that the requirement should be replaced 

with a standard condition for proper operation and 

maintenance in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. 

For dry PM control devices, one commenter recommends 

that the pressure drop across the system be monitored 
continuously using some type of manometer or pressure drop 

gauge to verify that the pressure drop is maintained within 

the range recommended by the manufacturer of the control 

device, which includes considerations based on the filter 

media employed, the method of filter media cleaning 

employed (if any), and the loading of the effluent stream 

being controlled. The commenter believes that wet PM 

control systems should be inspected on a frequency 

recommended by the control system manufacturer, and the 

frequency as well as the parameters to be monitored should 

be clearly defined in a written management plan developed 

and implemented by the coatings manufacturer employing the 

system. The commenter says that this graduated type of 

approach to inspection frequency and the management plan 

requirement to define the details of the inspection 

parameters as proposed in the preceding paragraphs has been 

used in the area source NESHAP for Nine Metal Fabrication 

and Finishing Sources. The commenter states that this 

approach would provide a viable means to both assure 

ongoing compliance while minimizing the burden of 

compliance on the source. 

Response: We believe that it is important that 

regular inspections be conducted to ensure that the 

integrity of both the capture system and the control device 
is maintained, and we agree with the commenters in regard 

to the inspections of the rigid ductwork. Therefore, we 

have clarified in the final rule that the rigid, stationary 

portions of the ductwork only need to be inspected 

annually. Because the particulate control system operates 

infrequently, we believe annual inspections of the rigid, 

stationary ductwork is sufficient to ensure the integrity 

of the particulate control system. However, we do believe 

that inspection of flexible ductwork needs to be conducted 

more frequently. Therefore, we retained the weekly 

inspection requirement for hoods and flexible ductwork in 

the final rule. We do not agree with the one commenter who 

states that the best approach is to establish the 

inspection frequency in site-specific plans. Site-specific 

plans create additional reporting burdens for small 

businesses. In addition, site-specific plans may not 

provide the periodic inspections that are needed to ensure 

that the particulate control device is operating properly. 

Therefore, we believe that the revised inspections will 

provide the insurance that the particulate control device 

is operating properly, while reducing the burden on the 

facility. 

We agree that continuous monitoring of pressure drop 

can be used to ensure that the control system is operating 
properly; however, we also believe that the combination of 

the system integrity inspections and the visual emissions 

monitoring (discussed below) are sufficient for the source 

category and at a lower cost than installing, calibrating, 

and operating a continuous monitoring system (CMS). 

Inspections and visible emissions monitoring of the 

particulate control device system provide data indicative 

of a well-operated and maintained control device. The 

inspections will ensure there are no leaks in the duct 

work, while the visible emissions monitoring will ensure 

that the particulate control device is operating as 

intended, and that no excess emissions are emitted. Many 

of the paints and allied products manufacturing facilities 

are small businesses, and incorporating a continuous 

monitoring system would create an economic hardship on many 

of these businesses. Therefore, we have not incorporated 

the commenter’s suggestion to require continuous monitoring 

of pressure drop. We also reviewed the graduated type of 

inspections and monitoring outlined in the NESHAP for Nine 

Metal Fabrication and Finishing Sources and believe that 

this type of inspection and monitoring program is not 

appropriate for the paints and allied products industry. 

Many of the nine metal fabrication and finishing facilities 

require continuous operation of the particulate control 
device. In contrast, the majority of paint and allied 

products are produced in batches and the operation of the 

particulate control device is expected to be intermittent. 

Therefore, we believe that the proposed inspection and 

monitoring requirements for the paints and allied products 

manufacturing industry are appropriate. 

While the proposed rule included inspection 

requirements, it did not contain any provisions regarding 

required actions if problems were found during an 

inspection. We agree that such a requirement is needed to 

ensure that corrective action will be taken promptly. 

Therefore, we have incorporated the commenter’s suggestion 

to require that corrective action be initiated as soon as 

practicable to mitigate any problems when system integrity 

is compromised and that the identified problem be fully 

corrected and documented within 15 days of first discovery. 

F. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 

1. Compliance Certification 

Comment: The commenters note that there seems to be 

conflict between Section 63.11603(b), which requires the 

development and retention of compliance certifications and 

the development, retention, and submission of deviation 

reports when deviations from the requirements of the rule 

exist or have existed. Section III.E of the preamble 
requires that a responsible official sign off that all the 

requirements were met in the preceding month within 15 days 

of the end of each month. Two commenters recommend that 

the required records suffice in demonstrating compliance. 

Another commenter believes that the submission of a 

deviation report and annual certification when deviations 

have occurred during a calendar year will assist regulated 

entities in maintaining compliance and will assist the 

regulatory agencies in compliance oversight. 

Response: We do not believe that a conflict exists 

between the compliance certification requirements and the 

deviation reports. The compliance certifications of 

section 63.11603(b) are the baseline requirement to 

demonstrate on going compliance with the standard. However, 

if a deviation occurs during the previous twelve month 

period, the facility must prepare and submit a deviation 

report, which details the specific area(s) of noncompliance 

with the standard and efforts undertaken to return the 

source to compliance. These are two separate requirements, 

and the latter applies in the event of a deviation. 

Submission of the deviation report is necessary so that the 

regulatory agency remains apprised of the ongoing 

compliance status of the facility and can focus their 

compliance assistance and enforcement response efforts. 
However, we believe that section §63.11603(b)(2)(ii), 

which requires that a statement in accordance with §63.9(h) 

of the General Provisions to be signed by a responsible 

official, is sufficient to ensure compliance with the 

regulations, and that no additional requirement that a 

responsible official must certify that all requirements 

were met in a particular month by the 15th day of the 

following month is necessary. Therefore, the final rule 

does not include the latter certification requirement. 

These revisions mean that responsible official must 

annually certify that all requirements have been met. We 

believe that the annual certification by the responsible 

official is sufficient to ensure that the facility has 

complied with all of the requirements throughout the year, 

and that the additional burden of monthly certification is 

not warranted. In addition, we agree with the commenter 

that the submission of an Annual Compliance Certification 

and Deviation Report from facilities where deviations have 

occurred during the calendar year will assist regulated 

entities in maintaining compliance and will assist the 

regulatory agencies in compliance oversight. 

Comment: The commenter notes that some facilities have 

older particulate control devices, which while still 

effective, may not have manufacturer information available. 
The commenter states that sources should not be prohibited 

from using these control devices if they meet the emission 

standards of this subpart, even though they no longer have 

the original paperwork for the device. The commenter 

recommends that if the original records are not available, 

the source should follow best operating practices for the 

devices. 

Response: We recognize that some facilities may not 

have, and may not be able to obtain, the manufacturer's 

instructions, despite their best efforts. Therefore, we 

agree with the commenter and will remove the reference to 

the manufacturer's instructions in §63.11602(a)(2)(iii) and 

also remove §63.11603(c)(3). 

G. Baseline Emissions and Emission Reductions 

1. Emissions Factors 

Comment: Two commenters say that EPA used old AP-42 

emission factors which they believe doubles the calculated 

emissions in comparison to the actual emissions. For 

example, one of the commenters states that EPA used an 

outdated AP-42 emission factor of 1.5 lbs VOC/100 lbs of 

product that was developed based on solvent based coatings 

from the 1950s. The commenter states that these coatings 

are not representative of today’s high solids and 

waterborne coatings. The commenters point out that Chapter 
8 of EPA’s Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP)

states that the use of source-specific emission 

models/equations is the preferred technique for estimating 

emissions from coatings manufacturing mixing operations 

since emission factors (AP-42) are not as accurate as 

specific emission models or equations. They said that since 

EPA is unclear whether the facilities tested in preparing 

this factor actually represent a random sample of the 

industry, the AP-42 factor for paint and varnish 

manufacturing is assigned an emission factor rating of C. 

One commenter asks that EPA revise its estimates using 

accurate models and data. 

Response: The EIIP provides four methods for 

estimating emissions from paint, ink, and other coating 

manufacturing operations: emission factors; source-specific 

models; mass-balance calculations; and test data. In order 

of preference, the commenter is correct that sourcespecific emissions models are preferred to using emission 

factors. However, when the data necessary to run the 

emissions models are not available, the use of emission 

factors is a reasonable way to estimate emissions. 

The commenters imply that all emission levels for this 

rulemaking were estimated using AP-42 emission factors. 

This is not the case. In fact, for purposes of assessing 
impacts, including cost-effectiveness, as presented in the 

background memoranda (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053-0070), the HAP 

emissions from the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing 

category were calculated using the 2002 National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI) data. The NEI is a national emissions 

inventory that is built from the “ground up.” That is, 

emission estimates generated by individual plants and 

companies are submitted to state and local agencies, who 

then submit the data to EPA for inclusion in the NEI. 

While the basis for all the emission estimates in the NEI 

is not provided, the facilities that submit emissions data 

to their state and local agencies generally use test data, 

emission models, and mass-balance calculations to create 

their estimates, where such information is available. The 

baseline HAP emissions from the 2002 NEI were 4,761 tons 

per year. 

Emission factor data from AP-42 were used to estimate 

VOC and PM emissions from model plants to estimate the 

capital and annual costs of control equipment for each of 

the model plants. The fraction of the AP-42 VOC and PM 

emissions that are HAP were calculated using the HAP/VOC 

mass fraction obtained from the facilities that reported 

both HAP and VOC emissions in the 2002 NEI database. Using 

the assumptions from the Regulatory Alternative Impacts 
memorandum (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053-0073) regarding the number 

of facilities that are currently controlled, the emission 

factors from AP-42, and the HAP/VOC mass fractions from the 

2002 NEI, the HAP emissions were estimated to be 4,591 tons 

per year. A comparison between the HAP emissions in the 

industry-reported NEI (4,761 tons/yr) and those estimated 

from AP-42 factors and HAP speciation profiles (4,591) 

supports EPA’s use of the AP-42 factors for estimating 

emissions from the model plants, because the AP-42 factors 

result in a similar estimate of emissions as the NEI 

database. 

Comment: One commenter states that most of the 

methylene chloride emissions documented by EPA are from 

facilities that package paint stripper/paint remover 

products, which are specifically excluded from this 

rulemaking. Therefore, according to the commenter, EPA 

should discount any emissions that result from the 

packaging of methylene-based paint strippers and paint 

removers. In addition, the commenter indicates that one 

company that produces nickel-based coatings accounted for 

most nickel emissions from the industry. Again, they claim 

that EPA should discount the nickel emissions from this one 

company. Finally, the commenter says that it appears that 

EPA inadvertently included several pigment manufacturing 
operations in the NEI database, resulting in increased 

metal emissions for the industry. The commenter believes 

that EPA should remove the emissions associated with paint 

stripper/paint remover packaging; the company that produces 

unique nickel based coatings; and the emissions from 

pigment manufacturing operations from the emissions of the 

coatings manufacturing industry, since these overstated 

emissions have an impact on EPA’s cost effectiveness 

calculations. 

Response: For purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule, we used the 2002 NEI data. The source 

classification codes (SCC) in the 2002 NEI database show 

that the main sources of methylene chloride emissions are 

from general mixing and handling, cleaning, and degreasing. 

None of these SCCs indicate that methylene chloride 

emissions occur during packaging of paint stripper or paint 

remover products. Therefore, we have no reason to believe 

that the estimated methylene chloride emissions used in the 

baseline emissions (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053-0070) are 

incorrect. 

We reviewed the SCCs and process descriptions in the 

2002 NEI database and did not find any pigment 

manufacturing facilities. Therefore, no adjustments to the 

2002 NEI data are needed. 
We reviewed the 2002 NEI emissions data used to 

develop the baseline emissions for the paints and allied 

products source category and found that 60 of the 63 of the 

emission data points used to estimate nickel emissions were 

from combustion sources and should not have been included 

in the baseline emissions. By removing these emission 

points, the total nickel emissions would be reduced by 

0.028 tons per year, and the total estimated nickel 

emissions from the paints and allied products industry 

would be reduced by 0.070 tons per year. This decrease in 

nickel emissions would not significantly affect the total 

HAP emissions, which was estimated to be 4,761 tons per 

year, or the total listed HAP emissions which was estimated 

to be 221.3 tons per year. Therefore, we believe that 

revising the estimated baseline HAP emissions would have 

little or no impact on the cost effectiveness calculations. 

We recognize that the paints and allied products 

manufacturing industry has reduced its urban HAP emissions 

over the past decades. The regulations being finalized 

today will ensure that future emissions from paints and 

allied products manufacturing operations will be limited to 

the same level that is being generally achieved today and 

was determined to be GACT. Without such regulations, there 
is nothing that would limit future target HAP emissions 

from a new paint or allied product manufacturing product. 

H. Title V Requirements 

Comment: The commenter supports EPA’s proposed rule 

in the exemption of the Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing area source category from Title V permitting 

requirements. The commenter believes that the proposed 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements are sufficient to 

determine compliance with the rule, and EPA should balance 

these requirements against the level of resources typically 

present at such smaller sites and the expected amount of 

emission reductions associated with these requirements. 

Another commenter states that to demonstrate that 

compliance with title V would be “unnecessarily 

burdensome,” EPA must show, inter alia, that the “burden” 

of compliance is unnecessary. According to the commenter, 

by promulgating title V, Congress plainly indicated that it 

viewed the burden imposed by its requirements as necessary 

as a general rule. The commenter says that these 

requirements provide many benefits that Congress clearly 

viewed as necessary. Thus, continues the commenter, EPA 

must show why for any given category, special circumstances 

make compliance unnecessary. The commenter maintains that 
EPA has not made that showing for any of the categories it 

proposes to exempt. 

Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter’s 

characterization of the demonstration required for 

determining that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for an 

area source category. As stated above, the CAA provides the 

Administrator discretion to exempt an area source category 

from title V if she determines that compliance with title V 

requirements is ‘‘impracticable, infeasible, or 

unnecessarily burdensome’’ on an area source category. See 

CAA section 502(a). In December 2005, in a national 

rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ in CAA section 502 and developed a four-factor 

balancing test for determining whether title V is 

unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source 

category, such that an exemption from title V is 

appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005 

(‘‘Exemption Rule’’). In addition to interpreting the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ and developing the four-factor 

balancing test in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the test 

to certain area source categories. 

The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption 

Rule for determining whether title V is unnecessarily 

burdensome on a particular area source category include: 
(1) whether title V would result in significant 

improvements to the compliance requirements, including 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed 

for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether 

title V permitting would impose significant burdens on the 

area source category and whether the burdens would be 

aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in 

obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 

75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the 

area source category would be justified, taking into 

consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to 

occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4) whether there 

are sufficient implementation and enforcement programs in 

place to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area 

source category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 

75326)6. 

In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, 

we explained that we considered on ‘‘a case-by-case basis 

the extent to which one or more of the four factors 

supported title V exemptions for a given source category, 

and then we assessed whether considered together those 

 

6

 In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily 

burdensome on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance provided by the legislative history of section 

502(a), whether exempting the area source category would adversely affect public health, welfare or the environment. See 72 FR 

15254–15255, March 25, 2005. As shown above, after conducting the four-factor balancing test and determining that title V 

requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome on the area source categories at issue here, we examined whether the exemption 

from title V would adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment, and found that it would not. 
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V 

requirements would be ‘unnecessarily burdensome’ on the 

category, consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.’’ See 

70 FR 75323. Thus, we concluded that not all of the four 

factors must weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to 

determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a 

particular area source category. Instead, the factors are 

to be considered in combination, and EPA determines whether 

the factors, taken together, support an exemption from 

title V for a particular source category. 

The commenter asserts that ‘‘EPA must show...that the 

‘burden’ of compliance is unnecessary.’’ This is not, 

however, one of the four factors that we developed in the 

Exemption Rule in interpreting the term ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ in CAA section 502, but rather a new test that 

the commenter maintains EPA ‘‘must’’ meet in determining 

what is ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ under CAA section 502. 

EPA did not re-open its interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA section 502 in the June 

1, 2009 proposed rule for the category at issue in this 

rule. Rather, we applied the four-factor balancing test 

articulated in the Exemption Rule to the source category. 

Had we sought to re-open our interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA section 502 and modify 
it from what was articulated in the Exemption Rule, we 

would have stated so in the June 1, 2009 proposed rule and 

solicited comments on a revised interpretation, which we 

did not do. Accordingly, we reject the commenter’s attempt 

to create a new test for determining what constitutes 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ under CAA section 502, as that 

issue falls outside the purview of this rulemaking7. 

Furthermore, we believe that the commenter’s position 

that “EPA must show . . . that the “burden” of compliance 

is unnecessary” is unreasonable and contrary to 

Congressional intent concerning the applicability of title 

V to area sources. Congress intended to treat area sources 

differently under title V, as it expressly authorized the 

EPA Administrator to exempt such sources from the 

requirements of title V at her discretion. There are 

several instances throughout the CAA where Congress chose 

to treat major sources differently than non-major sources, 

as it did in CAA section 502. Moreover, although the 

commenter espouses a new interpretation of the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA section 502 and 

attempts to create a new test for determining whether the 

requirements of title V are ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ 

 

7 If the commenter objected to our interpretation of the term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in the Exemption Rule, (s)he should have 

commented on and challenged that rule. However, any challenge to the Exemption Rule is now time-barred by CAA section 307(b). 

Although we received comments on the title V Exemption Rule during the rulemaking process, no one sought judicial review of that 

rule.
for an area source category, the commenter does not explain 

why EPA’s interpretation of the term ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ is arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in 

accordance with law. We maintain that our interpretation of 

the term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in section 502, as 

set forth in the Exemption Rule, is reasonable. 

Comment: One commenter states that exempting a source 

category from title V permitting requirements deprives both 

the public generally and individual members of the public 

who would obtain and use permitting information for the 

benefit of citizen oversight and enforcement that Congress 

plainly viewed as necessary. According to the commenter, 

the text and legislative history of the CAA provide that 

Congress intended ordinary title V permits. The commenter 

also says that EPA does not claim, far less demonstrate 

with substantial evidence, that citizens have the same 

ability to obtain emissions and compliance information 

about air toxics sources and to be able to use that 

information in enforcement actions and in public policy 

decisions on a State and local level. The commenter states 

that Congress did not think that enforcement by States or 

other government entities was enough; if it had, Congress 

would not have enacted the citizen suit provisions, and the 

legislative history of the CAA would not show that Congress 
viewed citizens’ access to information and ability to 

enforce CAA requirements as highly important, both as an 

individual right and as a crucial means to ensuring 

compliance. According to the commenter, if a source does 

not have a title V permit, it is difficult or impossible — 

depending on the laws, regulations, and practices of the 

State in which the source operates — for a member of the 

public to obtain relevant information about its emissions 

and compliance status. The commenter states that, likewise, 

it is difficult or impossible for citizens to bring 

enforcement actions. The commenter continues that EPA does 

not claim — far less demonstrate with substantial evidence, 

as would be required — that citizens would have the same 

ability to obtain compliance and emissions information 

about sources in the categories it proposes to exempt 

without title V permits. The commenter also says that EPA 

does not claim, far less demonstrate with substantial 

evidence, that citizens would have the same enforcement 

ability. Thus, according to the commenter, the exemptions 

EPA proposes plainly eliminate benefits that Congress 

thought necessary. The commenter claims that, to justify 

its exemptions, EPA would have to show that the 

informational and enforcement benefits that Congress 

intended title V to confer — benefits which the commenter 
argues are eliminated by the exemptions — are for some 

reason unnecessary with respect to the categories it 

proposes to exempt. The commenter concludes that EPA does 

not even acknowledge these benefits to title V, far less 

explain why they are unnecessary, and that for this reason 

alone, EPA’s proposed exemptions are unlawful and 

arbitrary. 

Response: Once again, the commenter attempts to create 

a new test for determining whether the requirements of 

title V are “unnecessarily burdensome” on an area source 

category. Specifically, the commenter argues that EPA does 

not claim or demonstrate with substantial evidence that 

citizens would have the same access to information and the 

same ability to enforce under these NESHAP, absent title V. 

The commenter’s position represents a significant revision 

of the fourth factor that EPA developed in the Exemption 

Rule in interpreting the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in 

CAA section 502. For all of the reasons explained above, 

the commenter’s attempt to create a new test for EPA to 

meet in determining whether title V is “unnecessarily 

burdensome” on an area source category cannot be sustained. 

This rulemaking did not re-open EPA’s interpretation of the 

term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502. In any 

event, EPA’s interpretation is reasonable. Furthermore, the 
commenter’s statements do not demonstrate a flaw in EPA’s 

application of the four-factor balancing test to the 

specific facts of the sources we are exempting, nor do the 

comments provide a basis for the Agency to reconsider the 

exemption as we are finalizing it. 

EPA reasonably applied the four factors to the facts 

of the source category at issue in this rule, and the 

commenter has not identified any flaw in EPA’s application 

of the four-factor test to the area source category at 

issue here. Moreover, as explained in the proposal, we 

considered implementation and enforcement issues in the 

fourth factor of the four-factor balancing test. 

Specifically, the fourth factor of EPA’s unnecessarily 

burdensome analysis provides that EPA will consider whether 

there are implementation and enforcement programs in place 

that are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP 

without relying on title V permits. See 70 FR 75326. 

In applying the fourth factor here, EPA determined 

that there are adequate enforcement programs in place to 

assure compliance with the CAA. As stated in the proposal, 

we believe that state-delegated programs are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the NESHAP and that EPA retains 

authority to enforce this NESHAP under the CAA. 74 FR 

26152. We also indicated that States and EPA often conduct 
voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education 

programs to assist sources, and that these additional 

programs will supplement and enhance the success of 

compliance with this NESHAP. 74 FR 26152. The commenter 

does not challenge the conclusion that there are adequate 

State and Federal programs in place to ensure compliance 

with and enforcement of the NESHAP. Instead, the commenter 

provides an unsubstantiated assertion that information 

about compliance by the area sources with these NESHAP will 

not be as accessible to the public as information provided 

to a State pursuant to title V. In fact, the commenter does 

not provide any information that States will treat 

information submitted under this NESHAP differently than 

information submitted pursuant to a title V permit. 

Even accepting the commenter’s assertions that it is 

more difficult for citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent a 

title V permit, in evaluating the fourth factor in EPA’s 

balancing test EPA concluded that there are adequate 

implementation and enforcement programs in place to enforce 

the NESHAP. The commenter has provided no information to 

the contrary or explained how the absence of title V 

actually impairs the ability of citizens to enforce the 

provisions of the NESHAP. 
Comment: One commenter explains that title V provides 

important monitoring benefits, and, according to the 

commenter, EPA admits that title V monitoring, “may improve 

compliance...by requiring monitoring...to assure compliance 

with emission limitations and control technology 

requirements imposed in the standard.” (74 Fed. Reg. at 

26151) The commenter further states that “EPA argues that 

‘the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

in this proposed rule are sufficient to assure compliance 

with the requirements of the proposed rule.’” Id. The 

commenter maintains that EPA made conclusory assertions and 

that the Agency failed to provide any evidence to 

demonstrate that the proposed monitoring requirements will 

assure compliance with the NESHAP for the exempt sources. 

The commenter states that, for this reason also, its claim 

that title V requirements are “unnecessarily burdensome” is 

arbitrary and capricious, and its exemption is unlawful, 

arbitrary, and capricious. 

Response: As noted in the earlier comment, EPA used 

the four-factor test to determine if title V requirements 

were unnecessarily burdensome. In the first factor, EPA 

considers whether imposition of title V requirements would 

result in significant improvements to the compliance 

requirements that are proposed for the area source 
categories. See 70 FR 75323. It is in the context of this 

first factor that EPA evaluates the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the proposed 

NESHAP to determine the extent to which those requirements 

are consistent with the requirements of title V. See 70 FR 

75323. 

The commenter asserts that “EPA argues that ‘the 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 

this proposed rule are sufficient to assure compliance with 

the requirements of the proposed rule.’” We nowhere state 

or imply that the only monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting required for the rule is in the form of 

recordkeeping. As stated in the proposal, we required 

daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly testing of particulate 

control devices, as well as annual compliance reports and 

deviation reports in addition to the recordkeeping that 

serves as monitoring for the particulate control devices. 

The commenter does not provide any evidence that 

contradicts the conclusion that the proposed monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the standards in the rule. 

Based on the foregoing, we considered whether title V 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements would 

lead to significant improvements in the monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the proposed 

NESHAP and determined that they would not. We believe that 

the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

in this area source rule can assure compliance for those 

sources we are exempting. 

For the reasons described above and in the proposed 

rule, the first factor supports an exemption. Assuming, for 

the sake of argument, that the first factor alone cannot 

support the exemption, the four-factor balancing test 

requires EPA to examine the factors, in combination, and 

determine whether the factors, viewed together, weigh in 

favor of exemption. See 70 FR 75326. As explained above, we 

determined that the factors, weighed together, support 

title V exemption for this source category. 

Comment: One commenter believes EPA argued that its 

own belief that title V is a “significant burden” on area 

sources further justifies its exemption (74 FR 26151). 

According to the commenter, regardless of whether EPA 

regards the burden as “significant,” the Agency may not 

exempt a category from compliance with title V requirements 

unless compliance is 

“unnecessarily burdensome.” The commenter states that, 

regardless, EPA’s claims about the alleged significance of 

the burden of compliance are entirely conclusory and could 
be applied equally to any major or area source category. 

The commenter also states that the Agency does not show 

that the compliance burden is especially great for any of 

the sources it proposes to exempt, and, thus, does not 

demonstrate that the alleged burden necessitates treating 

them differently from other categories by exempting them 

from compliance with title V requirements. 

Response: The commenter appears to take issue with the 

formulation of the second factor of the four-factor 

balancing test. Specifically, the commenter states that EPA 

must determine that title V compliance is “unnecessarily 

burdensome” and not a “significant burden,” as expressed in 

the second factor of the four-factor balancing test. 

As we have stated before, at proposal we found the 

burden placed on these sources in complying with the title 

V requirements is significant when we applied the fourfactor balancing test. We note that the commenter, in other 

parts of comments on the title V exemptions, argues that 

EPA must demonstrate that every title V requirement is 

“unnecessary” for a particular source category before an 

exemption can be granted, but makes no mention of the 

“burden” of those requirements on area sources; here the 

commenter argues that “significant burden” is not 

appropriate for the second factor. Notwithstanding the 
commenter’s inconsistency, as explained above, the fourfactor balancing test was established in the Exemption Rule 

and we did not re-open EPA’s interpretation of the term 

“unnecessarily burdensome” in this rule. As explained 

above, we maintain that the Agency’s interpretation of the 

term “unnecessarily burdensome,” as set forth in the 

Exemption Rule and reiterated in the proposal to this rule, 

is reasonable. 

Contrary to the commenter’s assertions, we properly 

analyzed the second factor of the four-factor balancing 

test. See 70 FR 75320. Under that factor, EPA considers 

whether title V permitting would impose a significant 

burden on the area source categories, and whether that 

burden would be aggravated by any difficulty that the 

sources may have in obtaining assistance from the 

permitting agencies. See 70 FR 75324. The commenter appears 

to assert that the second factor must be satisfied for EPA 

to exempt an area source category from title V, but, as 

explained above, the four factors are considered in 

combination. We have concluded that the second factor, in 

combination with the other factors, supports an exemption 

for the paints and allied products manufacturing area 

sources that we are exempting from compliance with title V 

in this final rule. 
Therefore, we disagree with the commenter’s assertion 

that EPA’s finding (i.e., that the burden of obtaining a 

title V permit is significant, and does not equate to the 

required finding that the burden is unnecessary) is 

misplaced. While EPA could have found that the second 

factor alone could justify the exemption for the sources we 

are exempting in this rule, EPA found that the other three 

factors also support exempting these sources from the title 

V requirements because the permitting requirements are 

unnecessarily burdensome for the paints and allied products 

manufacturing area sources we are exempting. 

Comment: According to one commenter, EPA argued that 

compliance with title V would not yield any gains in 

compliance with underlying requirements in the relevant 

NESHAP (74 FR 26152). The commenter stated that EPA’s 

conclusory claim could be made equally with respect to any 

major or area source category. According to the commenter, 

the Agency provides no specific reasons to believe, with 

respect to any of the categories it proposes to exempt, 

that the additional informational, monitoring, reporting, 

certification, and enforcement requirements that exist in 

title V, but not in this NESHAP, would not provide 

additional compliance benefits. The commenter also states 

that the only basis for EPA’s claim is, apparently, its 
beliefs that those additional requirements never confer 

additional compliance benefits. According to the commenter, 

by advancing such argument, EPA merely seeks to elevate its 

own policy judgment over Congress’ decisions reflected in 

the CAA’s text and legislative history. 

Response: The commenter mischaracterizes the first and 

third factors of the four-factor balancing test and takes 

out of context certain statements in the proposed rule 

concerning the factors used in the balancing test to 

determine if imposition of title V permit requirements is 

unnecessarily burdensome for the source categories. The 

commenter also mischaracterizes the first factor of the 

four-factor balancing test with regard to determining 

whether imposition of title V would result in significant 

improvements in compliance. In addition, the commenter 

mischaracterizes the analysis in the third factor of the 

balancing test, which instructs EPA to take into account 

any gains in compliance that would result from the 

imposition of the title V requirements. 

First, EPA nowhere states, nor does it believe, that 

title V never confers additional compliance benefits, as 

the commenter asserts. While EPA recognizes that requiring 

a title V permit offers additional compliance options, the 

statute provides EPA with the discretion to evaluate 
whether compliance with title V would be unnecessarily 

burdensome to specific area sources. For the sources we are 

exempting, we conclude that requiring title V permits would 

be unnecessarily burdensome. 

Second, the commenter mischaracterizes the first 

factor by asserting that EPA must demonstrate that title V 

will provide no additional compliance benefits. The first 

factor calls for a consideration of “whether title V would 

result in significant improvements to the compliance 

requirements, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting, that are proposed for an area source category.” 

Thus, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the inquiry 

under the first factor is not whether title V will provide 

any compliance benefit, but rather whether it will provide 

significant improvements in compliance requirements. 

The monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the rule are sufficient to assure 

compliance with the requirements of this rule for the 

sources we are exempting, consistent with the goal in title 

V permitting. For example, in the Notification of 

Compliance Status report, the source must certify that, if 

necessary, it has implemented management practices and 

installed controls. See 40 CFR 63.11603 in the final rule. 

The source must also submit annual deviation reports to the 
permitting agency if there has been a deviation in the 

requirements of the rule. See 40 CFR 63.11501 in the final 

rule. The requirements in the final rule provide sufficient 

basis to assure compliance, and EPA does not believe that 

the title V requirements, if applicable to the sources that 

we are exempting, would offer significant improvements in 

the compliance of the sources with the rule. 

Third, the commenter incorrectly characterizes our 

statements in the proposed rule concerning our application 

of the third factor. Under the third factor, EPA evaluates 

“whether the costs of title V permitting for the area 

source category would be justified, taking into 

consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to 

occur for such sources.” Contrary to what the commenter 

alleges, EPA did not state in the proposed rule that 

compliance with title V would not yield any gains in 

compliance with the underlying requirements in the relevant 

NESHAP, nor does factor three require such a determination. 

Instead, consistent with the third factor, we considered 

whether the costs of title V are justified in light of any 

potential gains in compliance. In other words, EPA 

considers the costs of title V permitting requirements, 

including consideration of any improvement in compliance 

above what the rule requires. In considering the third 
factor, we stated, in part, that, “[b]ecause the costs, 

both economic and non-economic, of compliance with title V 

are high, and the potential for gains in compliance is low, 

title V permitting is not justified for this source 

category. Accordingly, the third factor supports title V 

exemptions for these area source categories.” See 74 FR 

26152. 

Most importantly, EPA considered all four factors in 

the balancing test in determining whether title V was 

unnecessarily burdensome on the area source category we are 

exempting from title V in this final rule. The commenter’s 

statements do not demonstrate a flaw in EPA’s application 

of the four-factor balancing test to the specific facts of 

the sources we are exempting, nor do the comments provide 

sufficient basis for the Agency to reconsider its. 

Comment: According to one commenter, EPA argued that 

alternative State implementation and enforcement programs 

assure compliance with the underlying NESHAP without 

relying on title V permits (74 FR 26152). The commenter 

states that again, EPA’s claim is entirely conclusory and 

generic. The commenter also states that “the Agency does 

not identify any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP 

showing that with respect to these specific NESHAP — unlike 

all the other major and area source NESHAP it has issued 
without title V exemptions – title V compliance is 

unnecessary” (emphasis added). Instead, according to the 

commenter, EPA merely pointed to existing State 

requirements and the potential for actions by States and 

EPA that are generally applicable to all categories (along 

with some small business and voluntary programs). The 

commenter says that, absent a showing by EPA that 

distinguishes the sources it proposes to exempt from other 

sources, the Agency’s argument boils down to the generic 

and conclusory claim that it generally views title V 

requirements as unnecessary. The commenter states that, 

while this may be EPA’s view, it was not Congress’ view 

when Congress enacted title V, and a general view that 

title V is unnecessary, does not suffice to show that title 

V compliance is unnecessarily burdensome. 

Response: Contrary to the commenters’ assertions, EPA 

does believe that title V is appropriate under certain 

circumstances; we think that exemption from title V is 

appropriate for those sources. 

In this comment, the commenter again takes issue with 

the Agency’s test for determining whether title V is 

unnecessarily burdensome, as developed in the Exemption 

Rule. Our interpretation of the term “unnecessarily 

burdensome” is not the subject of this rulemaking. In any 
event, as explained above, we believe the Agency’s 

interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” is a 

reasonable one. To the extent the commenter asserts that 

our application of the fourth factor is flawed, we 

disagree. The fourth factor involves a determination as to 

whether there are implementation and enforcement programs 

in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the 

rule without relying on the title V permits. In discussing 

the fourth factor in the proposal, EPA states that, prior 

to delegating implementation and enforcement to a State, 

EPA must ensure that the State has programs in place to 

enforce the rule. EPA believes that these programs will be 

sufficient to assure compliance with the rule. EPA also 

retains authority to enforce this NESHAP anytime under CAA 

sections 112, 113, and 114. EPA also noted other factors in 

the proposal that together are sufficient to assure 

compliance with this area source NESHAP. The commenter 

argues that EPA cannot exempt any of the area sources in 

these categories from title V permitting requirements 

because “[t]he agency does not identify any aspect of any 

of the underlying NESHAP showing that with respect to these 

specific NESHAP — unlike all the other major and area 

source NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions — 

title V compliance is unnecessary” (emphasis added). As an 
initial matter, EPA cannot exempt major sources from title 

V permitting. 42 U.S.C. 502(a). As for area sources, the 

standard that the commenter proposes – that EPA must show 

that “title V compliance is unnecessary” - is not 

consistent with the standard the Agency established in the 

Exemption Rule and applied in the proposed rule in 

determining if title V requirements are unnecessarily 

burdensome. 

Furthermore, we disagree that the basis for excluding 

the paints and allied products manufacturing area sources 

we are exempting from title V requirements is generally 

applicable to sources in any source category. As explained 

in the proposal preamble and above, we balanced the four 

factors considering the facts and circumstances of the 

source category at issue in this rule. For example, in 

assessing whether the costs of requiring the sources to 

obtain a title V permit were burdensome, we concluded that 

the high relative costs would not be justified given that 

there is likely to be little or no potential gain in 

compliance based on the control device requirements and 

management practices of this rule. 

Comment: One commenter states that, as EPA concedes, 

the legislative history of the CAA shows that Congress did 

not intend EPA to exempt source categories from compliance 
with title V unless doing so would not adversely affect 

public health, welfare, or the environment. Furthermore, 

the commenter states that EPA conceded this point. See 74 

FR 26152. Nonetheless, according to the commenter, EPA does 

not make any showing that its exemptions would not have 

adverse impacts on health, welfare, and the environment. 

The commenter says that instead, EPA offered only the 

conclusory assertion that “the level of control would 

remain the same,” whether title V permits are required or 

not (74 FR 26512). The commenter continues by stating that 

EPA relied entirely on the conclusory arguments advanced 

elsewhere in the proposal that compliance with title V 

would not yield additional compliance with the underlying 

NESHAP. The commenter states that those arguments are wrong 

for the reasons given above, and, therefore, EPA’s claims 

about public health, welfare, and the environment are wrong 

too. The commenter states that Congress enacted title V for 

a reason: to assure compliance with all applicable 

requirements and to empower citizens to get information and 

enforce the CAA. The commenter said that those benefits — 

of which EPA’s proposed rule deprives the public — would 

improve compliance with the underlying standards and, thus, 

have benefits for public health, welfare, and the 

environment. According to the commenter, EPA has not 
demonstrated that these benefits are unnecessary with 

respect to any specific source category, but again, simply 

rests on its own apparent belief that they are never 

necessary. The commenter concludes that, for the reasons 

given above, that the attempt to substitute EPA’s judgment 

for Congress’ is unlawful and arbitrary. 

Response: Congress gave the Administrator the 

authority to exempt area sources from compliance with title 

V if, in his or her discretion, the Administrator “finds 

that compliance with [title V] is impracticable, 

infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome.” See CAA section 

502(a). EPA has interpreted one of the three justifications 

for exempting area sources “unnecessarily burdensome,” as 

requiring consideration of the four factors discussed 

above. At proposal, EPA applied these four factors to the 

paints and allied products manufacturing area source 

category subject to this rule, and concluded that requiring 

title V for this area source category would be 

unnecessarily burdensome. We maintain that this conclusion 

is accurate for the sources we are exempting in this rule. 

In addition to determining that title V would be 

unnecessarily burdensome on the area source category, as in 

the Exemption Rule, EPA also considered, consistent with 

our interpretation of the legislative history, whether 
exempting the area source categories would adversely affect 

public health, welfare, or the environment. As explained in 

the proposal preamble, we concluded that exempting the area 

source category at issue in this rule would not adversely 

affect public health, welfare, or the environment because 

the level of control would be the same even if title V 

applied. We further explained in the proposal preamble that 

the title V permit program does not generally impose new 

substantive air quality control requirements on sources, 

but instead requires that certain procedural measures be 

followed, particularly with respect to determining 

compliance with applicable requirements. The commenter has 

not provided any information to demonstrate that the 

exemption from title V that we are finalizing will 

adversely affect public health, welfare, or the 

environment.

Page 11: [3] Deleted ctsuser 5/17/2010 12:58:00 PM 

Impacts of the Final Standards 

 Existing paints and allied products manufacturing 

facilities have made significant emission reductions since 

1990 through product reformulation, process and cleaning 

changes, installation of control equipment, and as a result 

of OSHA regulations. Affected sources appear to be wellcontrolled, and our GACT determination reflects such 
controls. We estimate that the only impacts associated 

with this rule are the capital and annual costs of 

installing and operating a particulate control device, the 

capital cost of adding lids or covers to process vessels, 

and the compliance requirements (i.e., reporting, 

recordkeeping, and testing). 

 We estimate that 21 percent of the facilities, or 460 

area sources, will be required to install particulate 

control equipment. The total capital costs for installing 

particulate control devices is estimated to be $8.1 million 

and the annual cost is estimated to be $3.1 million per 

year. 

 We estimate that 110 facilities will be required to 

install lids or covers on their process, mixing, and 

storage vessels. We estimate that it will cost $38,000 in 

total capital costs and $5,500 annually. However, the rule 

will also provide a cost savings to these same facilities, 

because they will have more coatings product at the end of 

the manufacturing process. 

 The other affected facilities will incur costs only 

for submitting the notifications and for completing the 

annual compliance certification. The cost associated with 

recordkeeping and the one-time reporting requirements is 

estimated to be $147 per facility. 
 Through compliance with this rule, these facilities 

will reduce total PM emissions by 6,300 tons/yr (5,700 

Mg/yr), total metal HAP emissions by 4.2 tons/yr (3.8 

Mg/yr), and listed urban metal HAP (cadmium, chromium, 

lead, nickel) emissions by 1.6 tons/yr (1.5 Mg/yr). We 

estimate that requiring the use of covers on process 

vessels will reduce VOC emissions by 1,700 ton/yr (1,600 

Mg/yr), volatile HAP emissions by 169 tons/yr (153 Mg/yr), 

and listed urban volatile HAP (benzene, methylene chloride) 

emissions by 4.3 tons/yr (3.9 Mg/yr). 

VII. 

Page 11: [4] Deleted ctsuser 5/17/2010 12:58:00 PM 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq. The information collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this 

final rule are based on the requirements in EPA’s NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the General 

Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA 

(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions 

data submitted to EPA pursuant to 

Page 12: [5] Deleted ctsuser 5/17/2010 12:58:00 PM 
 This final NESHAP requires Paints and Allied Product 

Manufacturing area sources to submit an Initial 

Notification and a Notification of Compliance Status 

according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General 

Provisions (subpart A). Records are required to 

demonstrate compliance with the opacity and visual 

emissions (VE) requirements. The owner or operator of a 

paints and allied products manufacturing facility also is 

subject to notification and recordkeeping requirements in 

40 CFR 63.9 and 63.10 of the General Provisions (subpart 

A), although we have deemed that annual compliance reports 

are sufficient instead of semiannual reports. 

The annual burden for this information collection 

averaged over the first three years of this ICR is 

estimated to be a total of 2,887 labor hours per year at a 

cost of $322,009 or approximately $147 per facility. The 

average annual reporting burden is almost 3 hours per 

response, with approximately 2 responses per facility for 

730 respondents. There are no capital and operating and 

maintenance costs associated with the final rule 

requirements for existing sources. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

EPA displays OMB control numbers in various ways. For 

example, EPA lists OMB control numbers for EPA's 

regulations in 40 CFR part 9, which we amend periodically. 

Additionally, we may display the OMB control number in 

another part of the CFR, or in a valid Federal Register 

notice, or by other appropriate means. The OMB control 

number display will become effective the earliest of any of 

the methods authorized in 40 CFR part 9. 

When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will 

publish a Federal Register notice announcing this approval 

and displaying the OMB control number for the approved 

information collection requirements contained in this final 

rule. We will also publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR 

part 9 in the Federal Register to consolidate the display 

of the OMB control number with other approved information 

collection requirements. 

Page 19: [6] Deleted ctsuser 5/17/2010 12:58:00 PM 

63.11608 -- 63.11638 [RESERVED] 

Tables to Subpart CCCCCCC of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart CCCCCCC of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart CCCCCCC 
Subpart CCCCCCC -- National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Paints and 

Allied Products Manufacturing

Applicability and Compliance Dates 

§63.11599 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or 

operate a facility that performs paints and allied products 

manufacturing that is an area source of hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) emissions and processes, uses, or generates 

materials containing HAP, as defined in 63.11607. 

(b) The affected source consists of all paints and 

allied products manufacturing processes that process, use, 

or generate materials containing HAP at the facility. 

(1) An affected source is existing if you commenced 

construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or 

before June 1, 2009. 

(2) An affected source is new if you commenced 

construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or 

after June 1, 2009. 

(3) A facility becomes an affected source when you 

commence processing, using, or generating materials 

containing HAP, as defined in 63.11607. 
 (c) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a 

permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you 

are not otherwise required by law to obtain a permit under 

40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Whether you have a title 

V permit or not, you must continue to comply with the 

provisions of this subpart. 

(d) An affected source is no longer subject to this 

subpart if the facility no longer processes, uses, or 

generates materials containing HAP and does not plan to 

process, use or generate materials containing HAP in the 

future. 

(e) The standards of this subpart do not apply to 

research and development facilities, as defined in section 

112(c)(7) of the CAA. 

§ 63.11600 What are my compliance dates? 

(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, 

you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions 

in this subpart by [INSERT THREE YEARS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(b) If you own or operate a new affected source, you 

must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of 

this subpart by [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], or upon startup of your affected source, 

whichever is later. 
(c) If you own or operate a facility that becomes an 

affected source in accordance with §63.11599(b)(3) after 

the applicable compliance date in paragraphs (a) or (b) of 

this section, you must achieve compliance with the 

applicable provisions of this subpart by the date that you 

commence processing, using, or generating materials 

containing HAP, as defined in 63.11607. 

Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements 

§ 63.11601 What are the standards for new and existing 

paints and allied products manufacturing facilities? 

(a) For each new and existing affected source, you 

must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (6) of this section. These requirements apply at 

all times. 

(1) You must add the dry pigments and solids that 

contain compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel and 

operate a capture system that minimizes fugitive 

particulate emissions during the addition of dry pigments 

and solids that contain compounds of cadmium, chromium, 

lead, or nickel to a process vessel or to the grinding and 

milling process. 

(2) You must capture particulate emissions and route 

them to a particulate control device meeting the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(6) of this section during the 
addition of dry pigments and solids that contain compounds 

of cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel to a process vessel. 

This requirement does not apply to pigments and other 

solids that are in paste, slurry, or liquid form. 

(3) You must (i) capture particulate emissions and 

route them to a particulate control device meeting the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(6) of this section during the 

addition of dry pigments and solids that contain compounds 

of cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel to a process vessel 

or (ii) add pigments and other solids that contain 

compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel only in 

paste, slurry, or liquid form. 

 (4) You must (i) capture particulate emissions and 

route them to a particulate control device meeting the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(6) of this section during the 

addition of dry pigments and solids that contain compounds 

of cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel to the grinding and 

milling process or (ii) add pigments and other solids that 

contain compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel to 

the grinding and milling process only in paste, slurry, or 

liquid form. 

 (5) You must (i) capture particulate emissions and 

route them to a particulate control device meeting the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(6) of this section during the 
grinding and milling of materials containing compounds of 

cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel, (ii) fully enclosed 

the grinding and milling equipment during the grinding and 

milling of materials containing compounds of cadmium, 

chromium, lead, or nickel, or (iii) ensure that the 

pigments and solids are in solution during the grinding and 

milling of materials containing compounds of cadmium, 

chromium, lead, or nickel. 

 (6) The visible emissions from the particulate control 

device exhaust must not exceed 10 percent opacity for 

particulate control devices that vent to the atmosphere. 

This requirement does not apply to particulate control 

devices that do not vent to the atmosphere. 

 (7) [RESERVED] 

 (b) For each new and existing affected source, you 

must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (5) of this section. 

(1) Process and storage vessels that store or process 

materials containing benzene or methylene chloride, except 

for process vessels which are mixing vessels, must be 

equipped with covers or lids meeting the requirements of 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. 
(i) The covers or lids can be of solid or flexible 

construction, provided they do not warp or move around 

during the manufacturing process. 

(ii) The covers or lids must maintain contact along 

at least 90 percent of the vessel rim. The 90 percent 

contact requirement is calculated by subtracting the length 

of any visible gaps from the circumference of the process 

vessel, and dividing this number by the circumference of 

the process vessel. The resulting ratio must not exceed 90 

percent. 

(iii) The covers or lids must be maintained in good 

condition. 

(2) Mixing vessels that store or process materials 

containing benzene or methylene chloride must be equipped 

with covers that completely cover the vessel, except as 

necessary to allow for safe clearance of the mixer shaft. 

(3) All vessels that store or process materials 

containing benzene or methylene chloride must be kept 

covered at all times, except for quality control testing 

and product sampling, addition of materials, material 

removal, or when the vessel is empty. The vessel is empty 

if: 

(i) All materials containing benzene or methylene 

chloride have been removed that can be removed using the 
practices commonly employed to remove materials from that 

type of vessel, e.g., pouring, pumping, and aspirating; and 

(ii) No more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) depth of 

residue remains on the bottom of the vessel, or no more 

than 3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the 

vessel remains in the vessel. 

(4) Leaks and spills of materials containing benzene 

or methylene chloride must be minimized and cleaned up as 

soon as practical, but no longer than 1 hour from the time 

of detection. 

(5) Rags or other materials that use a solvent 

containing benzene or methylene chloride for cleaning must 

be kept in closed container. The closed container may 

contain a device that allows pressure relief, but does not 

allow liquid solvent to drain from the container. 

§ 63.11602 What are the performance test and 

compliance requirements for new and existing sources?

(a) For each new and existing affected source, you 

must demonstrate initial compliance by conducting the 

inspection and monitoring activities in paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section and ongoing compliance by conducting the 

inspection and testing activities in paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section. 
(1) Initial particulate control device inspections and 

tests. You must conduct an initial inspection of each 

particulate control device according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and 

perform a visible emissions test according to the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section. You 

must record the results of each inspection and test 

according to paragraph (b) of this section and perform 

corrective action where necessary. 

You must conduct each inspection no later than 180 days 

after your applicable compliance date for each control 

device which has been operated within 60 days following the 

compliance date. For a control device which has not been 

installed or operated within 60 days following the 

compliance date, you must conduct an initial inspection 

prior to startup of the control device. 

(i) For each wet particulate control system, you must 

verify the presence of water flow to the control equipment. 

You must also visually inspect the system ductwork and 

control equipment for leaks and inspect the interior of the 

control equipment (if applicable) for structural integrity 

and the condition of the control system. 

(ii) For each dry particulate control system, you must 

visually inspect the system ductwork and dry particulate 
control unit for leaks. You must also inspect the inside of 

each dry particulate control unit for structural integrity 

and condition. 

(iii) An initial inspection of the internal components 

of a wet or dry particulate control system is not required 

if there is a record that an inspection meeting the 

requirements of this subsection has been performed within 

the past 12 months and any maintenance actions have been 

resolved. 

(iv) For each particulate control device, you must 

conduct a visible emission test consisting of three 1 

minute test runs using Method 203C (40 CFR part 51, 

appendix M). The visible emission test runs must be 

performed during the addition of dry pigments and solids 

containing compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel 

to a process vessel or to the grinding and milling 

equipment. If the average test results of the visible 

emissions test runs indicate an opacity greater than the 

applicable limitation in §63.11601(a), you must take 

corrective action and retest within 15 days. 

 (2) Ongoing particulate control device inspections 

and tests. Following the initial inspections, you must 

perform periodic inspections of each PM control device 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or 
(ii) of this section. You must record the results of each 

inspection according to paragraph (b) of this section and 

perform corrective action where necessary. You must also 

conduct tests according to the requirements in paragraph 

(a)(2)(iii) of this section and record the results 

according to paragraph (b) of this section. 

(i) You must inspect and maintain each wet particulate 

control system according to the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. 

(A) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the 

presence of water flow to the wet particulate control 

system. 

(B) You must conduct weekly visual inspections of any 

flexible ductwork for leaks. 

(C) You must conduct inspections of the rigid, 

stationary ductwork for leaks, and the interior of the wet 

control system (if applicable) to determine the structural 

integrity and condition of the control equipment every 12 

months. 

(ii) You must inspect and maintain each dry 

particulate control unit according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. 

(A) You must conduct weekly visual inspections of any 

flexible ductwork for leaks. 
(B) You must conduct inspections of the rigid, 

stationary ductwork for leaks, and the interior of the dry 

particulate control unit for structural integrity and to 

determine the condition of the fabric filter (if 

applicable) every 12 months. 

(iii) For each particulate control device, you must 

conduct a 5 minute visual determination of emissions from 

the particulate control device every 3 months using Method 

22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7). The visible emission 

test must be performed during the addition of dry pigments 

and solids containing compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, 

or nickel to a process vessel or to the grinding and 

milling equipment. If visible emissions are observed for 

two minutes of the required 5 minute observation period, 

you must conduct a Method 203C (40 CFR part 51, appendix M) 

test within 15 days of the time when visible emissions were 

observed. The Method 203C test will consist of three 1 

minute test runs and must be performed during the addition 

of dry pigments and solids containing compounds of cadmium, 

chromium, lead, or nickel HAP to a process vessel or to the 

grinding and milling equipment. If the Method 203C test 

runs indicates an opacity greater than the limitation in 

§63.11601(a)(4), you must comply with the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. 
(A) You must take corrective action and retest using 

Method 203C within 15 days. The Method 203C test will 

consist of three 1 minute test runs and must be performed 

during the addition of dry pigments and solids containing 

compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel to a 

process vessel or to the grinding and milling equipment. 

You must continue to take corrective action and retest each 

15 days until a Method 203C test indicates an opacity equal 

to or less than the limitation in §63.11601(a)(6). 

 (B) You must prepare a deviation report in accordance 

with § 63.11603(b)(3) for each instance in which the Method 

203C opacity results were greater than the limitation in 

§63.11601(a)(6). 

(C) You must resume the visible determinations of 

emissions from the particulate control device in accordance 

with paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section 3 months after 

the previous visible determination. 

(b) You must record the information specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section for each 

inspection and testing activity. 

(1) The date, place, and time; 

(2) Person conducting the activity; 

(3) Technique or method used; 

(4) Operating conditions during the activity; 
(5) Results; and 

(6) Description of correction actions taken. 

§ 63.11603 What are the notification, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements? 

 (a) Notifications. You must submit the notifications 

identified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Initial Notification of Applicability. If you own 

or operate an existing affected source, you must submit an 

initial notification of applicability required by § 

63.9(b)(2) no later than [INSERT 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. If you own or 

operate a new affected source, you must submit an initial 

notification of applicability required by § 63.9(b)(2) no 

later than 180 days after initial start-up of the 

operations or [INSERT 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later. The 

notification of applicability must include the information 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) The name and address of the owner or operator; 

(ii) The address (i.e., physical location) of the 

affected source; and 
(iii) An identification of the relevant standard, or 

other requirement, that is the basis of the notification 

and the source’s compliance date. 

 (2) Notification of Compliance Status. If you own or 

operate an existing affected source, you must submit a 

Notification of Compliance Status in accordance with 

§63.9(h) of the General Provisions by [INSERT 3 YEARS AND 

180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. If you own or operate a new affected source, 

you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status within 

180 days after initial start-up, or by [INSERT 180 DAYS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

whichever is later. If you own or operate an affected 

source that becomes an affected source in accordance with 

§63.11599(b)(3) after the applicable compliance date in 

§63.11600 (a) or (b), you must submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status within 180 days of the date that you 

commence processing, using, or generating materials 

containing HAP, as defined in 63.11607. This Notification 

of Compliance Status must include the information specified 

in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

 (i) Your company’s name and address; 

 (ii) A statement by a responsible official with that 

official’s name, title, phone number, e-mail address and 
signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 

of the notification, a description of the method of 

compliance (i.e., compliance with management practices, 

installation of a wet or dry scrubber) and a statement of 

whether the source has complied with all the relevant 

standards and other requirements of this subpart. 

 (b) Annual Compliance Certification Report. You must 

prepare an annual compliance certification report according 

to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of 

this section. This report does not need to be submitted 

unless a deviation from the requirements of this subpart 

has occurred. When a deviation from the requirements of 

this subpart has occurred, the annual compliance 

certification report must be submitted along with the 

deviation report. 

(1) Dates. You must prepare and, if applicable, 

submit each annual compliance certification report 

according to the dates specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(i) The first annual compliance certification report 

must cover the first annual reporting period which begins 

the day of the compliance date and ends on December 31. 
(ii) Each subsequent annual compliance certification 

report must cover the annual reporting period from January 

1 through December 31. 

 (iii) Each annual compliance certification report must 

be prepared no later than January 31 and kept in a readilyaccessible location for inspector review. If a deviation 

has occurred during the year, each annual compliance 

certification report must be submitted along with the 

deviation report, and postmarked no later than February 15. 

(2) General Requirements. The annual compliance 

certification report must contain the information specified 

in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Company name and address; 

(ii) A statement in accordance with §63.9(h) of the 

General Provisions that is signed by a responsible official 

with that official’s name, title, phone number, e-mail 

address and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and 

completeness of the notification and a statement of whether 

the source has complied with all the relevant standards and 

other requirements of this subpart; and 

(iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of 

the reporting period. The reporting period is the 12-month 

period beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31. 
 (3) Deviation Report. If a deviation has occurred 

during the reporting period, you must include a description 

of deviations from the applicable requirements, the time 

periods during which the deviations occurred, and the 

corrective actions taken. This deviation report must be 

submitted along with your annual compliance certification 

report, as required by paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this 

section. 

 (c) Records. You must maintain the records specified 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section in 

accordance with paragraphs (c)(5) through (7) of this 

section, for five years after the date of each recorded 

action. 

 (1) As required in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv), you must keep a 

copy of each notification that you submitted in accordance 

with paragraph (a) of this section, and all documentation 

supporting any Notification of Applicability and 

Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted. 

 (2) You must keep a copy of each Annual Compliance 

Certification Report prepared in accordance with paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

 (3) You must keep records of all inspections and 

tests as required by §63.11602(b). 
 (4) Your records must be in a form suitable and 

readily available for expeditious review, according to 

§63.10(b)(1). 

 (5) As specified in §63.10(b)(1), you must keep each 

record for 5 years following the date of each recorded 

action. 

 (6) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 

years after the date of each recorded action according to 

§63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the 

remaining 3 years. 

 (e) If you no longer process, use, or generate 

materials containing HAP after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit a Notification in 

accordance with §63.11599(d), which must include the 

information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this 

section. 

 (1) Your company’s name and address; 

 (2) A statement by a responsible official indicating 

that the facility no longer processes, uses, or generates 

materials containing HAP, as defined in 63.11607, and that 

there are no plans to process, use or generate such 

materials in the future. This statement should also 

include the date by which the company ceased using 

materials containing HAP, as defined in 63.11607, and the 
responsible official’s name, title, phone number, e-mail 

address and signature. 

§ 63.11604 [RESERVED] 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 63.11605 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? 

Table 1 of this subpart shows which parts of the 

General Provisions in §§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. 

§ 63.11606 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by 

the U.S. EPA or a delegated authority such as a state, 

local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has 

delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency 

pursuant to 40 CFR Part 63, subpart E, then that Agency has 

the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You 

should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if 

this subpart is delegated to your state, local, or tribal 

agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement 

authority of this subpart to a state, local, or tribal 

agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities 

contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section 

are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are 

not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency. 
 (1) Approval of an alternative nonopacity emissions 

standard under § 63.6(g). 

 (2) Approval of a major change to test methods under 

§ 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ‘‘major change to test method’’ 

is defined in §63.90 

 (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under 

§ 63.8(f). A ‘‘major change to monitoring’’ is defined in 

§ 63.90. 

(4) Approval of a major change to 

recordkeeping/reporting under § 63.10(f). A ‘‘major change 

to recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in § 63.90. As 

required in § 63.11432, you must comply with the 

requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 

63, subpart A) as shown in the following table. 

§ 63.11607 What definitions apply to this subpart? 

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean 

Air Act, § 63.2, and in this section as follows: 

Construction means the onsite fabrication, erection, 

or installation of an affected source. Addition of new 

equipment to an affected source does not constitute 

construction, but it may constitute reconstruction of the 

affected source if it satisfies the definition of 

reconstruction in §63.2. 
Deviation means any instance in which an affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 

such a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or management 

practices established by this subpart; 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement a requirement in this subpart and that 

is included in the operating permit for any affected source 

required to obtain such a permit; or 

(3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation or 

management practice in this subpart. 

Dry particulate control system means an air pollution 

control device that uses filtration, impaction, or 

electrical forces to remove particulate matter in the 

exhaust stream. 

Fabric filter means an air collection and control 

system that that utilizes a bag filter to reduce the 

emissions of metal HAP and other particulate matter. 

Page 19: [7] Deleted ctsuser 5/17/2010 12:58:00 PM 

Paints and allied products means materials such as 

paints, inks, adhesives, stains, varnishes, shellacs, 

putties, sealers, caulks, and other coatings from raw 

materials that are intended to be applied to a substrate 
and consists of a mixture of resins, pigments, solvents, 

and/or other additives. 

Paints and allied products manufacturing means the 

production of paints and allied products, the intended use 

of which is to leave a dried film of solid material on a 

substrate. Typically, the manufacturing processes that 

produce these materials are described by Standard Industry 

Classification (SIC) codes 285 or 289 and North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 3255 and 3259 

and are produced by physical means, such as blending and 

mixing, as opposed to chemical synthesis means, such as 

reactions and distillation. Paints and allied products 

manufacturing does not include: 

 (1) The manufacture of products that do not leave a 

dried film of solid material on the substrate, such as 

thinners, paint removers, brush cleaners, and mold release 

agents; 

(2) The manufacture of electroplated and electroless 

metal films; 

(3) The manufacture of raw materials, such as resins, 

pigments, and solvents used in the production of paints and 

coatings; and 

(4) Activities by end users of paints or allied 

products to ready those materials for application. 
Paints and allied products manufacturing process means 

all the equipment which collectively function to produce a 

paint or allied product. A process may consist of one or 

more unit operations. For the purposes of this subpart, 

the manufacturing process includes any, all, or a 

combination of, weighing, blending, mixing, grinding, 

tinting, dilution or other formulation. Cleaning 

operations, material storage and transfer, and piping are 

considered part of the manufacturing process. This 

definition does not cover activities by end users of paints 

or allied products to ready those materials for 

application. Quality assurance and quality control 

laboratories are not considered part of a paints and allied 

products manufacturing process. Research and development 

facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA are 

not considered part of a paints and allied products 

manufacturing process. 

Particulate matter control device means any equipment, 

device, or other article that is designed and/or installed 

for the purpose of reducing or preventing the discharge of 

metal HAP emissions to the atmosphere. 

Process vessel means any stationary or portable tank 

or other vessel of any capacity and in which mixing, 

blending, diluting, dissolving, temporary holding, and 
other processing steps occur in the manufacturing of a 

coating. 

Responsible official means one of the following: 

(1) For a corporation: A president, secretary, treasurer, 

or vice president of the corporation in charge of a 

principal business function, or any other person who 

performs similar policy or decision-making functions for 

the corporation, or a duly authorized representative of 

such person if the representative is responsible for the 

overall operation of one or more manufacturing, production, 

or operating facilities and either: 

(i) The facilities employ more than 250 persons or have 

gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million 

(in second quarter 1980 dollars); or 

(ii) The delegation of authority to such representative is 

approved in advance by the Administrator. 

(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: a general 

partner or the proprietor, respectively. 

(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public 

agency: either a principal executive officer or ranking 

elected official. For the purposes of this part, a 

principal executive officer of a Federal agency includes 
the chief executive officer having responsibility for the 

overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the 

agency (e.g., a Regional Administrator of the EPA). 

(4) For affected sources (as defined in this part) applying 

for or subject to a title V permit: “responsible official” 

shall have the same meaning as defined in part 70 or 

Federal title V regulations in this chapter (42 U.S.C. 

7661), whichever is applicable. 

Storage vessel means a tank, container or other vessel 

that is used to store volatile liquids that contain one or 

more of the listed volatile HAP, benzene or methylene 

chloride, as raw material feedstocks or products. It also 

includes objects, such as rags or other containers which 

are stored in the vessel. The following are not considered 

storage vessels for the purposes of this subpart: 

 (1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such 

as trucks, railcars, barges, or ships; 

 (2) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 

204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere; 

 (3) Vessels storing volatile liquids that contain HAP 

only as impurities; 

 (4) Wastewater storage tanks; and 

 (5) Process vessels. 
Wet particulate control device means an air pollution 

control device that uses water or other liquid to contact 

and remove particulate matter in the exhaust stream. 

§ 63.11608-63.11638 [RESERVED]

Tables to Subpart CCCCCCC of Part 63 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART CCCCCCC OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF 

GENERAL PROVISIONS TO PAINTS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS 

MANUFACTURING AREA SOURCES 

 As required in § 63.11599, you must meet each 

requirement in the following table that applies to you. 

 Part 63 General Provisions that apply for Paints and 

Allied Products Manufacturing Area Sources: 

Citation Subject 

Applies to 

subpart 

CCCCCCC 

63.1 

63.2 

63.3 

63.4 

63.5 

Applicability 

Definitions 

Units and abbreviations 

Prohibited activities 

Preconstruction review and 

notification requirements 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 
63.6(a),(b)(1)-

(b)(5),(c), 

(e)(1),(f)(2), 

(f)(3),(g),(i), 

(j) 

63.7(a), (e), 

and (f) 

63.8 

63.9(a)-(d),(i), 

and (j) 

63.10(a),(b)(1), 

63.10 (d)(1) 

63.11 

63.12 

63.13 

63.14 

63.15 

Compliance with standards and 

maintenance requirements 

Performance testing 

requirements 

Monitoring requirements 

Notification Requirements 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Control device and work 

practice requirements 

State authority and 

delegations 

Addresses of state air 

pollution control agencies and 

EPA regional offices 

Incorporation by reference 

Availability of information 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 
63.16 

and confidentiality 

Performance track provisions No