26142 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1997 8-hour ozone standard for 

Cherokee County, South Carolina. This 

maintenance plan was submitted for 

EPA action on December 13, 2007, by 

the State of South Carolina, and ensures 

the continued attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standard through the year 2014. EPA is 

proposing to approve the SIP revision 

pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act. The maintenance plan meets all the 

statutory and regulatory requirements, 

and is consistent with EPA’s guidance. 

On March 12, 2008, EPA issued a 

revised ozone standard. Today’s action, 

however, is being taken to address 

requirements under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. Requirements for the 

Cherokee County Area under the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard will be addressed 

in the future. 

In the Final Rules Section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this document. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this 

document should do so at this time. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 1, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2008–1186 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2008– 

0797,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri 

Farngalo, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Farngalo may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9152 or by electronic mail 

address farngalo.zuri@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: May 15, 2009. 

Beverly H. Banister, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E9–12548 Filed 5–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0053; FRL–8910–9] 

RIN 2060–AN47 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source 

Standards for Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national 

emission standards for control of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for the 

Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing area source category. The 

proposed emissions standards for new 

and existing sources are based on EPA’s 

proposed determination as to what 

constitutes the generally available 

control technology or management 

practices (GACT) for the area source 

category. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 1, 2009, unless a public 

hearing is requested by June 11, 2009. 

If a hearing is requested on this 

proposed rule, written comments must 

be received by July 16, 2009. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

must be received by the Office of 

Management and Budget on or before 

July 1, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA will accept comment 

on the proposal for 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0053, by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments on the EPA Air and Radiation 

Docket Web site. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–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 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–HQ–OAR–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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26143 

1Paint thinners and paint remover are covered 

under the Industrial Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, and 

electroplated and electroless metal films are 

covered under the Plating and Polishing Operations 

Area Source NESHAP. Resins manufacturing is 

covered under the Plastic Materials and Resins 

Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP and pigments 

manufacturing is covered under the Inorganic 

Pigment Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment 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 or any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Area Source NESHAP for Paints and 

Allied Products Manufacturing Docket, 

at the EPA Docket and Information 

Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone 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, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number: (919) 541– 

3609; fax number: (919) 541–0242; email address: payne.melissa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

supplementary information in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments to EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

II. Background Information for Proposed Area 

Source Standards 

A. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory approach for the proposed 

standards? 

B. What source category is affected by the 

proposed standards? 

C. What are the production processes, 

emissions sources, baseline emissions, 

and available controls? 

III. Summary of Proposed Standards 

A. Do the proposed standards apply to my 

source? 

B. When must I comply with the proposed 

standards? 

C. What are the proposed standards? 

D. What are the compliance requirements? 

E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements? 

IV. Rationale for this Proposed Rule 

A. How did we select the source category? 

B. How did we select the affected source? 

C. How are the Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing metal and volatile HAP 

addressed by this rule? 

D. How did we determine GACT? 

E. How did we select the compliance 

requirements? 

F. How did we decide to propose to 

exempt this area source category from 

title V permit requirements? 

V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed 

Standards 

A. What are the air impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

D. What are the non-air health, 

environmental, and energy impacts? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations. 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by this proposed 

action 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. If the proposed 

standards are applicable to a paints and 

allied product manufacturing area 

source, the standards apply to all 

organic HAP emissions and all metal 

HAP emissions from all paints and 

allied products manufacturing 

operations at the area source. 

The paints and allied products 

manufacturing area source rule 

(CCCCCCC) would cover 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 

would be required to comply with both 

rules. Paints and allied products are 

defined in Sec. 63.11606 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, 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. 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; and (3) the manufacture of raw 

materials, such as resins, pigments, and 

solvents used in the production of 

paints and allied products. 1

26144 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2North American Industry Classification System. 

Category NAICS code 2 Examples of regulated entities 

Paint & Coating Manufacturing 325510 Area source facilities engaged in 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 Manufacturing ........... 325520 Area source facilities primarily engaged in manufacturing adhesives, glues, and caulking 

compounds. 

Printing Ink Manufacturing ........ 325910 Area source facilities primarily engaged in manufacturing printing inkjet inks and inkjet cartridges. 

All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation 

Manufacturing.

325998 Area source facilities primarily engaged in manufacturing indelible ink, India ink writing ink, 

and stamp pad ink. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility would be 

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). 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments to EPA? 

Do not submit information containing 

CBI to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

Attention Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0053. Clearly mark the part or all 

of the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This 

Document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposed action will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). A copy of this proposed action 

will be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 

The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

D. When Would a Public Hearing 

Occur? 

If anyone contacts EPA requesting to 

speak at a public hearing concerning 

this proposed rule by June 11, 2009, we 

will hold a public hearing on June 16, 

2009. Persons interested in presenting 

oral testimony at the hearing, or 

inquiring as to whether a hearing will be 

held, should contact Ms. Christine 

Adams at (919) 541–5590 at least two 

days in advance of the hearing. If a 

public hearing is held, it will be held at 

10 a.m. at the EPA’s campus located at 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research 

Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site 

nearby. 

II. Background Information for 

Proposed Area Source Standards 

A. What Is the Statutory Authority and 

Regulatory Approach for the Proposed 

Standards? 

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) 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. EPA implemented this 

provision 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.’’ 

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. We implemented these 

requirements through the Integrated 

Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, 

July 19, 1999). 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 

include 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26145 

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 proposing 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 August 17, 2009 (Sierra Club v. 

Johnson, no. 01–1537, D.D.C., March 

2006). Other rulemakings will include 

standards for the remaining source 

categories that are due in June 2009. 

B. What Source Category Is Affected by 

the Proposed Standards? 

These proposed standards would 

affect any facility that manufactures 

paints, inks, adhesives, stains, 

varnishes, shellacs, putties, sealers, 

caulks, and other coatings, the intended 

use of which is to leave a dried film of 

solid material on a substrate. The paints 

and allied products manufacturing 

process may include, but is not limited 

to, any one or combination of the 

following steps: weighing, mixing, 

grinding, tinting, thinning, heating, 

cooking, flushing, and packaging. The 

paints and allied products may be 

manufactured in liquid or solid form. 

We listed the Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing area source 

category under CAA section 112(c)(3) in 

one of a series of amendments 

(November 22, 2002, 67 FR 70427) to 

the original source category list 

included in the 1999 Integrated Urban 

Air Toxics Strategy. EPA listed this area 

source category for regulation pursuant 

to section 112(c)(3), based on emissions 

of the following six urban HAP: 

benzene, methylene chloride, and 

compounds of cadmium, chromium, 

lead, and nickel. 

The definition of containing HAP is 

identical to the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) 

definitions specified in 29 CFR 

1910.1200(d)(4), i.e. a concentration of 

0.1 percent by mass or more for 

carcinogens, as shown in formulation 

data provided by the manufacturer or 

supplier, such as the Material Safety 

Data Sheet for the material. The six 

Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing HAP are classified as 

carcinogens. 

Throughout this proposed rule, we 

refer to compounds of cadmium, 

chromium, lead, and nickel as the 

‘‘Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing metal HAP.’’ We refer to 

benzene and methylene chloride as the 

‘‘Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing volatile HAP.’’ 

Based on 2002 U.S. Census data, we 

estimate that 2,510 paints and allied 

products manufacturing facilities are 

currently operating in the U.S. 

Independent estimates by the industry 

trade association confirm our 

calculations. Nearly all (97 percent) of 

the paints and allied products 

manufacturing facilities are in urban 

areas. Our analyses also indicate that 

the 2,190 facilities that comprise the 

Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing area source category are 

small businesses, which the Small 

Business Administration generally 

defines as facilities with less than 500 

employees. The 2002 Census data also 

show that nearly 50 percent of the 

facilities in this source category have 

less than 10 employees. 

C. What Are the Production Processes, 

Emission Sources, Baseline Emissions, 

and Available Controls? 

1. Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing Processes 

Paints and allied products 

manufacturing can be classified as a 

batch process and generally involves the 

blending and mixing of resins, 

pigments, solvents, and additives. 

Traditional coatings manufacturing 

consists of four major steps: 

• Preassembly and premix; 

• Pigment grinding, milling, and 

dispersing; 

• Product finishing and blending; and 

• Product filling and packaging. 

The Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing volatile HAP emissions 

are a result of solvents that evaporate 

during the manufacturing process, and 

include benzene and methylene 

chloride. The Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing metal HAP 

emissions occur from the handling of 

solid materials such as pigments and 

resins during the manufacturing 

process. The metal HAP for this listing 

are cadmium, chromium, lead, and 

nickel compounds. 

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. 

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. 

A wide array of milling equipment is 

used, depending on the types of 

pigments being handled. Commonlyused equipment includes the following: 

Roller mills, ball and pebble mills, 

attritors, sand mills, bead and shot 

mills, high-speed stone and colloid 

mills, high-speed dispersers, high-speed 

impingement mills, and horizontal 

media mills. Roller and ball mills are 

considered somewhat outdated methods 

and are usually associated with elevated 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions due to their more open 

design. Lids are commonly used on 

milling and mixing vessels to reduce 

product loss; the types of lids used 

range from plywood boards to plastic 

elasticized covers and, less often, steel 

lids. 

High-speed dispersers, using disktype impellers, are the most common 

method of mixing, or dispersion, in the 

industry. Because no grinding media are 

present in the mixing vat, pigment 

disperses on itself and against the 

surfaces of the rotor. While high-speed 

disk dispersion may work well for 

products such as undercoats and 

primers, it may not be appropriate for 

high-quality paints and inks, which 

instead use the other types of milling 

equipment as described above. 

The finishing step involves adding 

small amounts of pigments, solids, or 

liquids to achieve the required color or 

consistency of the final product. The 

filling step involves packaging the final 

product for shipment to the buyer. 

The process operations that generate 

HAP emissions include: emissions from 

loading of materials into the mixing 

tanks; heat-up losses during operation of 

the mixers; surface evaporation during 

mixing and blending; and filling losses 

26146 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

that occur during transfer into the 

receiving container. In addition, 

miscellaneous operations generating 

HAP emissions can include: solvent 

reclamation during the purification of 

dirty or spent solvent; cleaning of the 

process equipment; wastewater 

conveyance and treatment used to 

handle and treat contaminated water 

generated during the manufacturing 

process; material storage of solvents, 

pigments, and resins; leaks from the 

transport of stored materials to the 

process; and emissions from accidental 

spills during manufacturing and 

cleaning activities. 

2. Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing Area Source HAP 

Emission Sources 

The National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) database was used to determine 

the sources of HAP emissions and to 

estimate the amount of HAP emissions 

produced from these sources. A 

summary of the data is presented in the 

following table. Total HAP emissions 

presented in the NEI database for the 

source category are 1,500 Tons per year 

(tons/yr), or 1,400 Megagrams per year 

(Mg/yr). The table shows that over 90 

percent of the HAP emissions occur 

during the paints and allied products 

manufacturing process. Product 

manufacturing generally includes the 

addition of raw materials to the process 

vessels, grinding of solids, mixing, and 

packaging of the final product. 

Category HAP Tons/year 

(Mg/year) 

Percentage of 

total 

Product Manufacturing ................................................................................................................................... 1,406 (1,275) 90 .7 

Combustion Processes .................................................................................................................................. 1.60 (1.45) 0 .103 

Raw Material Storage .................................................................................................................................... 14.9 (13.5) 0 .961 

Equipment Cleaning and Fugitive Emissions ................................................................................................ 40.5 (36.7) 2 .61 

Other Miscellaneous Processes .................................................................................................................... 63.8 (57.9) 4 .12 

Coating Application Testing ........................................................................................................................... 22.0 (20.0) 1 .42 

Source: 2002 NEI Database. 

3. Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing Baseline HAP Emissions 

Baseline HAP emissions were 

calculated using the HAP emissions 

from the 2002 NEI database and 

extrapolating the emissions data to 

estimate the emissions for all paints and 

allied products manufacturing area 

sources. Using this approach, we 

estimated the 2002 nationwide baseline 

HAP emissions (including total metal 

HAP and volatile HAP) to be 4,800 tons/ 

yr (4,300 Mg/yr). 

The total nationwide baseline 

emissions of the six listed urban HAP 

was estimated to be 221 tons/yr. This 

total includes 213 tons/yr of the listed 

urban volatile HAP (benzene, methylene 

chloride), and 8 tons/yr of the listed 

urban metal HAP (cadmium, chromium, 

lead, nickel). 

4. Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing HAP Emission Controls 

Emissions reduction approaches were 

reviewed for the Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing volatile and 

metal HAP. The data indicate that addon controls to reduce volatile HAP are 

not commonly used on process vessels 

in the paints and allied products 

manufacturing industry. An absence of 

prior Federal regulation or specific State 

or local rules, along with the generally 

high capital investment needed for addon control devices, may contribute to 

these findings. Management practices 

currently used by the paints and allied 

products manufacturing industry to 

control volatile HAP emissions include 

coating substitution or reformulation 

from conventional solvent-based 

coatings, solvent substitution, use of 

process vessel covers, and other 

measures (e.g., covered storage of 

cleaning rags). Water-based and higher 

solids content coatings have been 

developed to reduce volatile HAP 

emissions. 

For the Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing metal HAP, our analysis 

showed that add-on controls for such 

emissions from process vessels are 

widespread throughout the industry. 

Particulate controls are used to capture 

metal HAP, which are included in 

particulate emissions. Typical 

particulate collection devices used by 

the industry include: baghouses, 

cyclones, and venturi scrubbers. Each of 

these mechanical collectors can achieve 

98 percent reduction in particulate 

emissions. According to our data, 79 

percent of facilities use particulate 

matter control technology. Along with 

dust collectors and other fabric filters, 

they are used to control airborne dust 

and particulate matter, primarily in the 

pigment loading area and during the 

mixing process. Generally, fabric filters 

and vent systems are used at facilities 

that use powdered or dry pigments in 

their coatings formulations to protect 

workers from exposure to hazardous 

materials in the pigments. Management 

practices used to abate particulate 

emissions of the Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing metal HAP 

include lower HAP content coatings, 

better materials management, use of 

sandmills instead of ballmills, and 

equipment modifications. 

III. Summary of Proposed Standards 

A. Do the Proposed Standards Apply to 

My Source? 

The proposed subpart CCCCCCC 

standards would apply to new and 

existing affected sources of paints and 

allied products manufacturing. The 

affected source is the new or existing 

paints and allied products 

manufacturing operation that processes, 

uses, or generates any of the following 

urban HAP: benzene, methylene 

chloride, and compounds of cadmium, 

chromium, lead, and nickel. An existing 

source is a paints and allied products 

manufacturing operation that processes, 

uses, or generates any of the following 

urban HAP: compounds of cadmium, 

chromium, lead, and nickel and 

benzene and methylene chloride. A new 

source is a paints and allied products 

manufacturing operation that processes, 

uses, or generates any of the following 

urban HAP: compounds of cadmium, 

chromium, lead, and nickel and 

benzene and methylene chloride, and 

that commences construction or 

reconstruction of the affected source on 

or after the date that this proposed rule 

is published in the Federal Register. 

We recognize that standards limited 

to the emission points of the listed 

urban HAP in this area source category 

would be sufficient to satisfy the 

requirement in section 112(c)(3) and 

(k)(3)(B) that EPA regulate sufficient 

source categories to account for 90 

percent of the urban HAP emissions. 

However, section 112 of the CAA does 

not prohibit EPA from regulating other 

HAP emitted from area sources listed 

pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Section 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26147 

112(d)(5) states that for area sources 

listed pursuant to section 112(c), the 

Administrator may, in lieu of section 

112(d)(2) ‘‘MACT’’ standards, 

promulgate standards or requirements 

‘‘applicable to sources’’ which provide 

for the use of GACT or management 

practices ‘‘to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants.’’ This 

provision does not limit EPA’s authority 

to regulate only those urban HAP 

emissions for which the category is 

needed to achieve the 90 percent 

requirement in section 112(c)(3). 

Finally, we do not expect this 

requirement to cause significant 

additional cost to the regulated 

facilities, while it will have added 

environmental benefit. 

B. When Must I Comply With the 

Proposed Standards? 

All existing area source facilities 

subject to this proposed rule would be 

required to comply with the rule 

requirements no later than two years 

after the date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. New 

sources would be required to comply 

with the rule requirements upon date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register or upon startup of the 

facility, whichever is later. 

C. What Are the Proposed Standards? 

We are proposing use of a particulate 

control device as GACT for metal HAP 

and management practices as GACT for 

volatile HAP emissions. The standards 

apply when any operation is being 

performed that processes, uses, or 

generates any HAP. 

For metal HAP, this proposed rule 

would require owners or operators of all 

existing and new affected facilities to 

operate a particulate control device at 

all times during the manufacturing 

process that metal HAP emissions could 

be present, based on the Material Safety 

Data Sheet, and visible emissions from 

the particulate control device shall not 

exceed 5 percent opacity when averaged 

over a six-minute period. The Paints 

and Allied Products Manufacturing 

metal HAP emissions can be present 

during the preassembly/premix and 

pigment grinding and milling 

manufacturing processes. 

New and existing affected sources 

will be required to comply with the 

following management practices for the 

control of all volatile HAP emissions 

during the preassembly/premix and 

grinding/milling manufacturing steps: 

(1) Process and storage vessels, except 

for process vessels which are mixing 

vessels, must be equipped with covers 

or lids meeting the requirements of 

paragraphs (1)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. These vessels must be kept 

covered when not in use. 

(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. 

(iii) The covers or lids must be 

maintained in good condition. 

(2) Mixing vessels must be equipped 

with covers that completely cover the 

vessel, except for safe clearance of the 

mixer shaft. The vessels must be kept 

covered during the manufacturing 

process, except for operator access for 

quality control testing of the product, 

and during the addition of pigments or 

other materials used to meet the final 

product specifications. 

(3) Leaks and spills of materials 

containing volatile HAP must be 

immediately minimized and cleaned up. 

(4) Waste solvent rags or other 

materials used for cleaning must be kept 

in closed storage vessels. 

If the proposed standards are 

applicable to your paints and allied 

products manufacturing area source, 

then the proposed standards would 

apply to all organic HAP emissions from 

the manufacturing operation and all 

metal HAP emissions from the 

preassembly/premix and grinding/ 

milling manufacturing steps at the area 

source, not just the Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing volatile and 

metal HAP. We are proposing that the 

standards for each type of emission 

point apply to all of the emission points 

of that type in an affected source, 

including those that do not emit Paints 

and Allied Products Manufacturing 

volatile or metal HAP. For example, an 

area source may have two process 

vessels, one containing 

tetrachloroethylene and the other 

containing methylene chloride, and, 

under the proposed rule, both would be 

part of the affected source and subject 

to the process vessel standards. 

D. What Are the Compliance 

Requirements? 

To demonstrate initial compliance, 

this proposed rule would require a new 

or existing source to certify that the 

required control technologies and 

management practices have been 

implemented and that all equipment 

associated with the processes will be 

properly operated and maintained. In 

addition, a visual emission test using 

EPA Method 9 will be required to be 

performed on the particulate control 

device on or before the compliance date 

and every six months thereafter. 

To demonstrate on-going compliance, 

the proposed rule requires owners and 

operators of affected facilities to inspect 

the particulate control device monthly 

to ensure that the unit is operating as 

specified in the manufacturer’s 

operating instructions, and to perform a 

visual emission test using EPA Method 

9 on the particulate control device every 

6 months. 

E. What Are the Notification, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

Requirements? 

We are proposing notification, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements to ensure compliance with 

this proposed rule. The owner or 

operator of a new or existing affected 

source would be required to comply 

with certain requirements of the General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), 

which are identified in Table 1 of this 

proposed rule. Each facility would be 

required to submit an Initial 

Notification and a Notification of 

Compliance Status according to the 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.9, General 

Provisions to part 63. These 

notifications are needed for EPA to 

determine applicability and initial 

compliance with specific rule 

requirements. 

The Initial Notification would be 

required within 120 days of the effective 

date of the NESHAP. That report serves 

to alert appropriate agencies (State 

agencies and EPA Regional Offices) of 

the existence of each affected source 

and puts them on notice for future 

compliance actions. The notification of 

compliance status (NOCS) report, which 

is due 150 days after the compliance 

date of the NESHAP, is a more 

comprehensive report that describes the 

affected source, the associated 

emissions points, and the strategy being 

used to comply. 

Under this proposed rule, each 

facility would prepare an annual 

compliance certification for the 

previous calendar year. The annual 

compliance certification must be 

completed no later than January 31 of 

each year and kept for five years. 

Facilities would be required to submit 

this annual compliance report if there is 

any deviation from the requirements or 

visual emissions testing during the year, 

and would include these deviation 

reports with their compliance report. 

We recognize that most of these 

facilities are small businesses; therefore 

we are requiring the submission of this 

annual compliance certification only if 

deviations occur during the year, so that 

there is not an undue economic burden 

on small businesses. 

26148 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

The facility must generate a monthly 

record for the implemented 

management practices and the 

particulate control device inspections 

(daily, weekly, monthly and Method 9, 

as applicable), listed in Sections C and 

D above, respectively. For 

demonstrating ongoing compliance, the 

proposed requirements include daily, 

weekly, and annual inspections, semiannual visible emission testing, monthly 

checklists and annual certifications that 

the management practices are being 

followed and the particulate control 

device is being properly operated 

according to manufacturer instructions. 

A responsible official at the facility 

must sign off by the 15th day of the 

following month that all requirements 

were met in the previous month. In 

implementing the requirements of this 

rule, sources can consider including 

procedures from their existing Standard 

Operating Procedures provided the 

procedures are relevant to implementing 

the required management practices. 

Owners and operators would be 

required to maintain all records and 

annual certifications that demonstrate 

initial and ongoing compliance with 

this proposed rule, including records of 

all required notifications and reports, 

with supporting documentation; and 

records showing compliance with the 

control technology and management 

practices. The records must be kept 

readily accessible on site for two years, 

and may be kept at an offsite location 

for the remaining three years. 

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule 

A. How Did We Select the Source 

Category? 

As described in section II.B, we listed 

the Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing source category under 

CAA section 112(c)(3) on November 22, 

2002 (67 FR 70427). The inclusion of 

this source category on the area source 

category list was based on its 

contributions to the urban HAP 

emissions in the 1990 CAA section 

112(k) inventory (benzene, methylene 

chloride, and compounds of cadmium, 

chromium, lead, and nickel). 

For this source category, we collected 

information on the production 

operations, emission sources, and 

available controls for both area and 

major sources using reviews of 

published literature, information 

gathered during the major source 

NESHAP, and reviews of operating 

permits. We also held discussions with 

industry representatives and EPA 

experts. This research confirmed that 

the Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing source category 

continues to emit the Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing volatile and 

metal HAP. We found that current 

emissions of such HAP have been 

significantly reduced from the amounts 

estimated in the section 112(k) 1990 

base year inventory due to product 

reformulation, OSHA controls, and a 

shift in end-use and consumer 

preferences. 

Consistent with the record supporting 

the listing of the Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing source 

category, we are proposing that the 

category include those area source 

paints and allied product manufacturing 

facilities that process, use, or generate 

paints and allied product manufacturing 

HAP or materials containing these HAP. 

We are defining materials containing 

HAP in a manner consistent with the 

definitions used in other area source 

categories, e.g., plating and polishing 

(73 FR 14126) and metal fabrication (73 

FR 42977). Therefore, materials 

containing the Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing volatile and 

metal HAP, for the purposes of this 

category, means a material containing 

methylene chloride, benzene and 

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 

in the Material Safety Data Sheet. 

B. How Did We Select the Affected 

Source? 

Affected source, as defined in 40 CFR 

63.2, means the collection of equipment, 

activities, or both within a single 

contiguous area and under common 

control that is included in a section 

112(c) source category or subcategory 

for which a section 112(d) standard is 

established. In selecting the affected 

source for regulation for the paints and 

allied products manufacturing area 

source category, we identified the 

sources of HAP emissions, which 

include HAP-emitting colorants and 

cleaning products. We also identified 

the quantity of HAP emissions from the 

individual or groups of emissions 

points. We are proposing to designate 

all of the blending and mixing processes 

in the manufacturing operation, within 

a single contiguous area and under 

common control, as the affected source. 

This proposed designation is consistent 

with the approach EPA employed for 

other paints and allied product 

manufacturing regulations, i.e., the 

major source NESHAP and the New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS). 

This proposed rule includes 

requirements for the control of primary 

and fugitive emissions from paints and 

allied products manufacturing 

operations. 

C. How Are the Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing Metal and 

Volatile HAP Addressed by This Rule? 

For this proposed rule, we have 

selected particulate matter (PM) as a 

surrogate for paints and allied products 

manufacturing metal HAP. When 

emitted, each of the metal HAP 

compounds behaves as PM. The control 

technologies used for the control of PM 

emissions achieve comparable levels of 

performance for these metal HAP 

emissions, i.e. when PM is captured, 

HAP metals are captured nonpreferentially as part of the PM. We also 

determined that it was not practical to 

establish individual standards for each 

specific type of metal HAP that could be 

present in the emissions, e.g., separate 

standards for compounds of cadmium, 

chromium, lead, and nickel, because the 

types and quantities of metal HAP can 

vary widely in the raw materials. 

Therefore, emission standards requiring 

control of PM would also achieve 

comparable control of metal HAP 

emissions. 

D. How Did We Determine GACT? 

As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), 

we are proposing standards representing 

GACT for the Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing area source 

HAP emissions. As noted in section II 

of this preamble, the statute requires the 

Agency to establish standards for area 

sources listed pursuant to section 

112(c). The statute does not set any 

condition precedent for issuing 

standards under section 112(d)(5), other 

than that the area source category or 

subcategory at issue must be one that 

EPA listed pursuant to section 112(c), 

which is the case here. 

Most of the facilities in this source 

category have good operational controls 

in place for particulate matter. 

Furthermore, we believe that almost all 

of the area source paints and allied 

products manufacturing facilities are 

small businesses. Below, we explain in 

detail our proposed GACT 

determinations. 

1. GACT for New and Existing Sources 

We gathered background information 

on paints and allied products 

manufacturing facilities from a review 

of operating permits, the NEI database, 

and discussions with industry 

representatives to identify the emission 

controls and management practices that 

are currently used to control volatile 

and metal HAP emissions. We identified 

the control technologies and 

management practices that minimize 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26149 

3Study of Benefits of Opacity Monitors Applied 

to Portland Cement Kilns. Prepared by Ronald 

Meyers, U.S. EPA, May 15, 1991, pp. 3–1–3–6. 

emissions from paints and allied 

products during the manufacturing 

process and that are commonly used in 

the industry. 

a. Management Practices for Volatile 

HAP 

The data indicate that add-on controls 

to reduce volatile HAP are used only 

sparingly on process vessels, as reported 

in both the State permits and the NEI 

database. This is probably due to the 

absence of Federal regulation of this 

industry and a lack of specific State or 

local rules. We believe that in the time 

since the data were collected for the 

2002 NEI, most facilities have begun to 

produce low-VOC and low volatile HAP 

paints. This is a result of a shift in 

market demand due to the recent 

Federal paint and coating rules for other 

sources, such as the Boat 

Manufacturing, Fabric Surface Coating, 

Large Appliance Surface Coating, Metal 

Can Surface Coating, Metal Furniture 

Surface Coating, Plastic Parts, 

Aerospace, and Wood Furniture 

NESHAPs. Consumer demand for lowVOC paints may also be a factor. 

A common management practice that 

is used to reduce volatile HAP 

emissions is through the use of process 

vessel covers. The Miscellaneous 

Organic NESHAP estimated that 95 

percent of the major source facilities in 

the paints and allied products 

manufacturing NAICS code use process 

vessel covers. We believe that the same 

percentage of the area source facilities 

in the paints and allied products 

manufacturing category are currently 

using process vessel covers; this 

information agrees with estimates 

provided by industry. Therefore, we 

propose the use of process vessel covers 

as GACT for volatile HAP in the paints 

and allied products manufacturing 

industry according to the following 

requirements: 

(1) During the preassembly/premix 

and grinding/milling manufacturing 

steps, process and storage vessels, 

except for process vessels which are 

mixing vessels, must be equipped with 

covers or lids meeting the requirements 

of paragraphs (A)(1)(i) through (iii) of 

this section. These vessels must be kept 

covered when not in use. 

(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. 

(iii) The covers or lids must be 

maintained in good condition. 

(2) During the preassembly/premix 

and grinding/milling manufacturing 

steps, mixing vessels must be equipped 

with covers that completely cover the 

vessel, except for safe clearance of the 

mixer shaft. The vessels must be kept 

covered during the manufacturing 

process, except for operator access for 

quality control testing of the product, 

and during the addition of pigments or 

other materials used to meet the final 

product specifications. 

(3) Leaks and spills of materials 

containing volatile HAP must be 

immediately minimized and cleaned up. 

(4) Waste solvent rags or other 

materials used for cleaning must be kept 

in closed storage vessels. 

The facility must use a monthly 

checklist as a record for the 

implemented work practices as listed 

above. A responsible official at the 

facility must sign off that all work 

practice requirements have been met. 

Existing written standard operating 

procedures may be used as the work 

practices plan if those procedures 

include the activities required by the 

final rule for a work practices plan. 

b. Technology Control for Metal HAP 

Paints and allied products 

manufacturing operating permits were 

obtained from State agency Web sites to 

determine the prevalence of add-on 

controls for metal HAP. The permit 

information, as well as discussions with 

the industry, show that add-on controls 

for metal HAP emissions from process 

vessels are commonly used throughout 

the industry. We believe that particulate 

control devices are primarily used 

because of concerns with workplace 

safety and, in some cases, to satisfy 

OSHA regulations. Information from the 

operating permits indicates that 23 of 29 

(79 percent) area source facilities use 

add-on controls for particulate 

emissions. Based on this permit 

information, we determined that the use 

of controls to reduce particulate 

emissions during the preassembly/ 

premix and grinding/milling steps of the 

paints and allied products 

manufacturing process commonplace. 

To determine an applicable 

particulate matter standard, we 

reviewed the State operating permits for 

facilities in this source category. Most of 

the permits listed a concentration or 

mass emission particulate limit that 

requires testing using an appropriate 

particulate test method, in most cases 

EPA Method 5. We have concerns about 

the economic impact of particulate 

matter emissions testing for smaller 

facilities. The typical EPA Method 5 

particulate matter emissions test on a 

stack costs between $3,000 and $10,000, 

which would be a significant economic 

burden for these area sources. Other 

area source rules and the States have 

used opacity as an effective surrogate for 

assessing mass emissions and to assure 

effective particulate emissions control. 

The use of visual emissions or opacity 

testing, as opposed to emission testing, 

is a lower cost method to determine 

compliance, and accommodates the 

different levels of activity that can occur 

from facility to facility, from product to 

product, and day to day within the same 

facility. This also reduces the cost 

impact on small businesses. There is a 

correlation between particulate matter 

concentration and opacity in the 

particulate matter control device outlet 

stream, and studies have shown that 

particulate concentrations are 

approximately zero at an opacity of 

zero.3 For example, a test at a wet 

cement kiln with a fabric filter showed 

that when outlet concentrations were 

less than 0.009 grains/dry standard 

cubic feet (gr/dscf), opacity was less 

than 2 percent. This opacity is low 

enough that it would probably be 

observed as zero under most conditions. 

This in turn would result in a very low 

incidence of visible emissions during 

any observation period. A review of area 

source NESHAP opacity limits found 

several examples of particulate control 

devices being subject to zero or very low 

visible emission tests. Therefore, we 

believe that establishing a 5 percent 

opacity limit averaged over a six-minute 

period is an appropriate standard to 

effectively measure the effectiveness of 

a source’s particulate emission control. 

Section 112(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

gives the Administrator discretion to 

distinguish among classes, types, and 

sizes of sources in a category when 

establishing emissions standards under 

section 112(d). EPA is not proposing to 

subcategorize the paints and allied 

products manufacturing source category 

for purposes of the standards proposed 

in today’s action based on our 

conclusion that there are no 

distinguishable differences in the 

grinding and mixing processes, which 

produce most of the HAP at paints and 

allied products manufacturing facilities. 

EPA solicits comments on its proposal 

to establish GACT standards for this 

source category without distinguishing 

among the sources based on class, type, 

or size. Commenters who believe EPA 

should establish subcategories for this 

source category should provide data to 

support their position. 

Another consideration of GACT is the 

cost of compliance. To estimate the cost 

impacts, we used the permit 

26150 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

information to estimate the percentage 

of the industry that already uses an addon particulate control device. The most 

prevalent particulate control device 

used was a fabric or cartridge-type filter. 

Therefore, we used these technologies to 

estimate the annual cost of adding a 

particulate control device to a paints 

and allied products manufacturing 

facility, which was calculated to be 

$6,700. The total cost of requiring fabric 

filters on the estimated number of 

facilities that currently do not operate a 

particulate control device would be $3 

million and would reduce metal HAP 

emission by 4.2 tons/yr (3.8 Mg/yr). In 

addition, this regulation as proposed 

would reduce particulate matter 

emissions by 6,300 tons/yr (5,700 Mg/ 

yr), and fine particulate emissions 

(PM2.5) by 3,000 tons per year (2,700 

Mg/yr). 

For metal HAP, this rule proposes that 

all owners or operators of existing 

facilities route emissions from their 

pigment and solids addition processes 

to a particulate control device and that 

visible emissions from the particulate 

control device shall not exceed 5 

percent opacity when averaged over a 

six-minute period. The manufacturing 

processes include the addition of 

pigments and other solids to the process 

vessels, and grinding and milling of 

pigments and solids. After the addition 

processes, the pigment and associated 

metal HAP are in solution, and metal 

HAP emissions are minimal. 

The manufacturer’s specifications for 

maintenance and all other functioning 

parameters must be followed. The 

particulate control device must be 

designed and operated so that visible 

emissions from the unit shall not exceed 

5 percent opacity when averaged over a 

six-minute period. 

c. Reduction of All HAP Emissions in 

the Paints Manufacturing Process 

The control technology and 

management practices proposed in this 

rule are equally effective at controlling 

emissions of HAP other than the Paints 

and Allied Products Manufacturing 

volatile and metal HAP. Applying the 

proposed standards to only the Paints 

and Allied Products Manufacturing 

HAP would require the facility to 

speciate HAP, as opposed to measuring 

total HAP when demonstrating 

compliance. This would require the 

facility to measure only the Paints and 

Allied Products Manufacturing metal 

HAP, which is mixed in with the other 

particulate matter emissions, and is a 

small percentage of the total. Applying 

the proposed standards to only the 

Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing urban HAP would 

require the facility to use different test 

methods to quantify these HAP 

emissions, which would increase 

compliance costs with no 

environmental benefits. 

We are proposing to apply the 

standard to all HAP, as many of the area 

sources emit a significant amount of 

HAP in addition to the paints and allied 

products manufacturing urban HAP (for 

example, the listed HAP are only four 

percent of total HAP emissions at paints 

and allied products manufacturing 

facilities). Facilities that process, use, or 

generate HAP, but do not process, use, 

or generate any of the Paints and Allied 

Products volatile and metal HAP are not 

subject to the requirements of this 

NESHAP. 

We have determined that sources 

would not have to install different 

controls or implement different 

management practices to implement the 

proposed standards for all HAP. Also, as 

part of the GACT analysis, we have 

found that the costs of applying the 

proposed standards to all HAP 

emissions from this source category are 

reasonable. For all of these reasons, we 

propose to apply these standards to all 

volatile HAP emissions in the 

manufacturing process and all metal 

HAP emissions from the preassembly/ 

premix and grinding/milling steps of the 

manufacturing operations at paints and 

allied products manufacturing area 

sources, once the applicability criteria 

set forth in CCCCCCC are met. We 

request comment on the environmental, 

cost, and economic impacts of this 

approach. 

E. How Did We Select the Compliance 

Requirements? 

We are proposing notification, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements to ensure compliance with 

this proposed rule. We are requiring an 

Initial Notification and Notification of 

Compliance Status because these 

requirements are consistent with § 63.9 

of the General Provisions of this part. 

For demonstrating ongoing 

compliance, the proposed requirements 

include daily, weekly, and annual 

inspections, semi-annual visible 

emission testing, monthly checklists 

and annual certifications that the 

management practices are being 

followed and the particulate control 

device is being properly operated 

according to manufacturer instructions. 

Based on our data, most facilities 

currently operate at the GACT level of 

control and almost all of the affected 

facilities are small businesses. 

Therefore, we are proposing a 

requirement that would ensure 

compliance without placing an undue 

burden on the affected facilities. We 

believe the proposed requirements for 

monthly checklists, particulate control 

device inspections, visible emissions 

testing, and annual certifications 

achieve that objective, and can be 

adequately done by facility employees. 

Under this proposed rule, each 

facility would prepare an annual 

compliance certification and keep it on 

site in a readily-accessible location. 

Facilities would be required to submit 

this annual compliance certification as 

a report only if there are any deviations 

from the work practice requirements 

during the year, and would include a 

description of the deviation with their 

compliance certification report. 

Deviations may include, but are not 

limited to, exceeding the opacity 

standard or failure to meet any 

requirements or management practices 

established in this proposed rule. We 

recognize that most of these facilities are 

small businesses; therefore we are 

requiring the submission of this annual 

compliance certification report only if 

deviations occur during the year so that 

there is not an undue economic burden. 

We are proposing that existing 

affected sources must achieve 

compliance two years after the final rule 

is published in the Federal Register. 

Because some facilities may be subject 

to EPA rules for the first time and 

because most of these facilities are small 

businesses, with 50 percent of them 

having less than 10 employees, we 

believe the 2-year period would provide 

ample time for facilities to identify any 

changes that are needed to comply with 

the control technology, management 

practices, and recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements and institute 

those changes. All new affected sources 

would be required to comply upon the 

date of publication of the final rule, or 

startup, whichever is later. 

F. How Did We Decide To Propose To 

Exempt This Area Source Category 

From Title V Permitting Requirements? 

We are proposing to exempt affected 

facilities in the Paint and Allied 

Products Manufacturing area source 

category from title V permitting 

requirements for the reasons described 

below. 

Section 502(a) of the CAA provides 

that the Administrator may exempt an 

area source category from title V if he 

determines that compliance with title V 

requirements is ‘‘impracticable, 

infeasible, or unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ on an area source 

category. See CAA section 502(a). In 

December 2005, in a national 

rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in CAA 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26151 

section 502 and developed a four-factor 

balancing test for determining whether 

title V is unnecessarily burdensome for 

a particular area source category, such 

that an exemption from title V is 

appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 

19, 2005 (‘‘Exemption Rule’’). 

The four factors that EPA identified in 

the Exemption Rule for determining 

whether title V is ‘‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’’ on a particular area source 

category include: (1) Whether title V 

would result in significant 

improvements to the compliance 

requirements, including monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting that are 

proposed for an area source category (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 

implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the proposed 

NESHAP for the area source category, 

without relying on title V permits (70 

FR 75326). 

In discussing these factors in the 

Exemption Rule, we further explained 

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

basis the extent to which one or more 

of the four factors supported title V 

exemptions for a given source category, 

and then we assessed whether 

considered together those factors 

demonstrated that compliance with title 

V requirements would be ‘unnecessarily 

burdensome’ on the category, consistent 

with section 502(a) of the Act.’’ See 70 

FR 75323. Thus, in the Exemption Rule, 

we explained that not all of the four 

factors must weigh in favor of 

exemption for EPA to determine that 

title V is unnecessarily burdensome for 

a particular area source category. 

Instead, the factors are to be considered 

in combination, and EPA determines 

whether the factors, taken together, 

support an exemption from title V for a 

particular source category. 

In the Exemption Rule, in addition to 

determining whether compliance with 

title V requirements would be 

unnecessarily burdensome on an area 

source category, we considered, 

consistent with the guidance provided 

by the legislative history of section 

502(a), whether exempting the area 

source category would adversely affect 

public health, welfare or the 

environment. See 70 FR 15254–15255, 

March 25, 2005. We propose that 

requiring compliance with title V for 

this area source category would be 

unnecessarily burdensome. We further 

propose that the exemption from title V 

would not adversely affect public 

health, welfare or the environment. Our 

rationale for this decision follows. 

In considering the proposed 

exemption from title V requirements for 

sources in the category affected by this 

proposed rule, we first compared the 

title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements (factor one) to 

the requirements in this proposed 

NESHAP for the Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing area source 

category. Title V requires periodic 

testing or monitoring to ensure 

compliance. One way that title V may 

improve compliance is by requiring 

monitoring (including recordkeeping 

designed to serve as monitoring) to 

assure compliance with the emissions 

limitations and control technology 

requirements imposed in the standard. 

This proposed standard would provide 

for monitoring in the form of visual 

emissions and opacity testing that 

would assure compliance with the 

requirements of this proposed rule. This 

proposed NESHAP would also require 

the preparation of an annual compliance 

certification report and submission of 

this report if there are any deviations 

during the year, which will identify for 

the agency implementing this rule those 

facilities with compliance issues, in the 

same way as a title V permit. Records 

would be required to ensure that the 

compliance requirements are followed 

and any needed corrective actions are 

taken, including such records as results 

of the visual emissions and opacity tests 

and the resulting corrective actions such 

as replacing a torn fabric filter bag. 

Therefore, this proposed rule contains 

monitoring sufficient to assure 

compliance with the requirements of 

this proposed rule. 

In addition, title V imposes a number 

of recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements that may be important for 

assuring compliance. These include 

requirements for a monitoring report at 

least every 6 months, prompt reports of 

deviations, and an annual compliance 

certification. See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 

40 CFR 71.6(a)(3), 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1) and 

40 CFR 71.6(c)(1), and 40 CFR 70.6(c)(5) 

and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(5). This proposed 

NESHAP would also require an annual 

compliance certification report and 

submission of this report if there are any 

deviations during the year, which 

should call attention to those facilities 

in need of supervision to the State 

agency in the same way as a title V 

permit. Records would be required to 

ensure that the control technology 

requirements and management practices 

are followed, including records about 

particulate matter control maintenance 

and Material Safety Data Sheets for all 

HAP and materials containing HAP as 

processed, used, or generated in the 

manufacturing process. 

We also considered the extent to 

which title V could potentially enhance 

compliance for area sources covered by 

this NESHAP through recordkeeping or 

reporting requirements. For any affected 

paints and allied products 

manufacturing area source facility, the 

proposed NESHAP would require an 

initial notification and a compliance 

status report, which would include 

certifications by responsible officials 

that the facilities are in compliance and 

will continue to comply with the 

NESHAP. In addition, the affected 

facilities must maintain records 

showing compliance. The required 

records are similar to the information 

that must be provided in the deviation 

reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) 

and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). 

We believe the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements in this proposed rule are 

sufficient to assure compliance with the 

requirements of this proposed rule. 

Therefore, we conclude that title V 

would not result in significant 

improvements to the compliance 

requirements we are proposing for this 

area source category. 

Under the second factor, we 

determined whether title V permitting 

would impose a significant burden on 

the area sources in the category and 

whether that burden would be 

aggravated by any difficulty the source 

may have in obtaining assistance from 

the permitting agency. Subjecting any 

source to title V permitting imposes 

certain burdens and costs that do not 

exist outside of the title V program. EPA 

estimated that the average cost of 

obtaining and complying with a title V 

permit was $65,700 per source for a 5- 

year permit period, including fees. See 

Information Collection Request for Part 

70 Operating Permit Regulations, June 

2007, EPA ICR Number 1587.07. 

EPA does not have specific estimates 

for the burdens and costs of permitting 

Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing area sources; however, 

there are certain activities associated 

with the part 70 and 71 rules. These 

activities are mandatory and impose 

burdens on any facility subject to title 

V. They include reading and 

understanding permit program guidance 

and regulations; obtaining and 

understanding permit application forms; 

26152 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

answering follow-up questions from 

permitting authorities after the 

application is submitted; reviewing and 

understanding the permit; collecting 

records; preparing monitoring reports 

on a 6-month or more frequent basis; 

preparing and submitting prompt 

deviation reports, as defined by the 

State, which may include a combination 

of written, verbal, and other 

communications methods; collecting 

information, preparing, and submitting 

the annual compliance certification; 

preparing applications for permit 

revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, 

preparing and submitting applications 

for permit revisions. In addition, 

although not required by the permit 

rules, many sources obtain the 

contractual services of consultants to 

help them understand and meet the 

permitting program’s requirements. The 

ICR for part 70 provides additional 

information on the overall burdens and 

costs, as well as the relative burdens of 

each activity described here. Also, for a 

more comprehensive list of 

requirements imposed on part 70 

sources (hence, burden on sources), see 

the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 

70.6, and 70.7. 

We found that almost all of the 

approximately 2,190 paints and allied 

products manufacturing facilities that 

would be affected by this proposed rule 

are small entities; over half have nine or 

fewer employees. As discussed 

previously, title V permitting would 

impose significant costs on these area 

sources, and, accordingly, we conclude 

that title V is a significant burden for 

sources in this category. More than 90 

percent of the facilities that would be 

subject to this proposed rule are small 

entities with limited resources, and 

under title V they would be subject to 

numerous mandatory activities with 

which they would have difficulty 

complying, whether they were issued a 

standard or a general permit. 

Furthermore, given the number of 

sources in the category and the 

relatively small size of many of those 

sources, it would likely be difficult for 

them to obtain sufficient assistance from 

the permitting authority. Thus, we 

conclude that factor two supports title V 

exemption for paints and allied 

products manufacturing facilities. 

The third factor, which is closely 

related to the second factor, is whether 

the costs of title V permitting for these 

area sources would be justified, taking 

into consideration any potential gains in 

compliance likely to occur for such 

sources. We explained above under the 

second factor that the economic and 

non-economic costs of compliance with 

title V would impose a significant 

burden on many paint and allied 

products manufacturing facilities. We 

also conclude in considering the first 

factor that, while title V might impose 

additional requirements, the 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in the proposed 

NESHAP are adequate to assure 

compliance with the control technology 

and management practices proposed in 

the NESHAP. In addition, in our 

consideration of the fourth factor as 

discussed below, we find that there are 

adequate implementation and 

enforcement programs in place to assure 

compliance with the NESHAP. Because 

the costs, both economic and noneconomic, 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 paints and allied 

products manufacturing area sources. 

The fourth factor we considered in 

determining whether title V permitting 

for this area source category is 

unnecessarily burdensome is whether 

there are implementation and 

enforcement programs in place that are 

sufficient to assure compliance with this 

NESHAP without relying on title V 

permits. EPA has implemented 

regulations that provide States the 

opportunity to take delegation of area 

source NESHAP, and we believe that 

State-delegated programs are sufficient 

to assure compliance with this 

NESHAP. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

E; States must have adequate programs 

to enforce the section 112 regulations 

and provide assurances that they will 

enforce all NESHAP before EPA will 

delegate the program. Furthermore, EPA 

retains authority to enforce this 

NESHAP at any time under CAA 

sections 112, 113 and 114. In addition, 

small business assistance programs 

required by CAA section 507 may be 

used to assist area sources that have 

been exempted from title V permitting. 

Also, States and EPA often conduct 

voluntary compliance assistance, 

outreach, and education programs 

(compliance assistance programs), 

which are not required by statute. These 

additional programs would supplement 

and enhance the success of compliance 

with this area source NESHAP. We 

believe that the statutory requirements 

for implementation and enforcement of 

this NESHAP by the delegated States 

and EPA and the additional assistance 

programs described above together are 

sufficient to assure compliance with this 

area source NESHAP without relying on 

title V permitting. 

In applying the fourth factor in the 

Exemption Rule, where EPA had 

deferred action on the title V exemption 

for several years, we had enforcement 

data demonstrating that States were not 

only enforcing the provisions of the area 

source NESHAP that we exempted, but 

that the States were also providing 

compliance assistance to assure that the 

area sources were in the best position to 

comply with the NESHAP. See 70 FR 

75325–75326. Although we do not have 

similar data in this case because the 

paints and allied products 

manufacturing area source NESHAP has 

yet to be promulgated and enforced, we 

have no reason to think that States will 

be less diligent in enforcing this 

NESHAP. In fact, States must have 

adequate programs to enforce the 

section 112 regulations and provide 

assurances that they will enforce all 

NESHAP before EPA will delegate the 

program. See 40 CFR part 63, General 

Provisions, subpart E. 

In light of all of the information 

presented here, we conclude that there 

are implementation and enforcement 

programs in place that are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the paint and 

allied products manufacturing NESHAP 

without relying on title V permitting. 

Balancing the four factors for this area 

source category strongly supports the 

proposed finding that title V is 

unnecessarily burdensome. While title 

V might add additional compliance 

requirements if imposed, we believe 

that there would not be significant 

improvements to compliance with the 

NESHAP, because the requirements in 

this proposed rule are sufficient to 

assure compliance with the standards 

and management practices imposed on 

this area source category. Thus, we 

propose that title V permitting is 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ for the 

paints and allied products 

manufacturing area source category. 

In addition to evaluating whether 

compliance with title V requirements is 

‘‘unnecessarily burdensome,’’ EPA also 

considered, consistent with guidance 

provided by the legislative history of 

section 502(a), whether exempting this 

area source category from title V 

requirements would adversely affect 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Exemption of the paints 

and allied products manufacturing 

category from the title V requirements 

would not have an adverse affect on 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment because the level of 

control would remain the same if a 

permit were required. The title V permit 

program does not impose new 

substantive air quality control 

requirements on sources, but instead 

requires that certain procedural 

measures be followed, particularly with 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26153 

respect to determining compliance with 

applicable requirements. As stated in 

our consideration of factor one for this 

category, title V would not lead to 

significant improvements in the 

compliance requirements applicable to 

existing or new area sources. 

One of the primary purposes of the 

title V permitting program is to clarify, 

in a single document, the various and 

sometimes complex regulations that 

apply to sources in order to improve 

understanding of these requirements 

and to help sources to achieve 

compliance with the requirements. In 

this case, however, we do not believe 

that a title V permit is necessary to 

understand the requirements that would 

be applicable to these area sources 

because the requirements of the rule are 

not difficult to implement. The vast 

majority of NSPS and NESHAP 

standards apply only to major sources, 

with only a small number of such 

standards regulating any activities at 

area sources. Because there are so few 

standards that regulate areas sources, 

the likelihood that multiple NSPS or 

NESHAP would apply to these area 

sources is low. We also have no reason 

to think that new sources would be 

substantially different from the existing 

sources. In addition, we explained in 

the Exemption Rule that requiring 

permits could, at least in the first few 

years of implementation, potentially 

adversely affect public health, welfare, 

or the environment by shifting State 

agency resources away from ensuring 

compliance for major sources with 

existing permits to issuing new permits 

for these area sources, potentially 

reducing overall air program 

effectiveness. We therefore conclude 

that title V exemptions for the paints 

and allied products manufacturing area 

sources will not adversely affect public 

health, welfare, or the environment for 

all of the reasons explained above. 

For the reasons stated here, we are 

proposing to exempt the Paints and 

Allied Products Manufacturing area 

source category from title V permitting 

requirements. 

V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed 

Standards 

A. What Are the Air Impacts? 

Area sources in the paints and allied 

products manufacturing category 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 well-controlled, and our proposed 

GACT determination reflects such 

controls. For the sources that would be 

required to install emission controls to 

meet the emission limits specified in 

this proposed rule, we estimated the 

2002 nationwide emissions of all of the 

paints and allied products 

manufacturing HAP (including total 

metal HAP and volatile HAP) to be 

4,800 tons/yr (4,300 Mg/yr). 

Based on our data, we estimate that 21 

percent of the facilities, or 460 area 

sources, do not have particulate controls 

installed. Through compliance with this 

rule as proposed, these facilities would 

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 

0.13 tons/yr (0.11 Mg/yr). 

We estimate that requiring the use of 

covers on process vessels as proposed in 

this rule would reduce nationwide 

volatile HAP emissions of the paints 

and allied products manufacturing area 

source category by about 169 tons/yr 

(153 Mg/yr), and listed urban volatile 

HAP (benzene, methylene chloride) 

emissions by 5.1 tons/yr (4.6 Mg/yr). 

These emission reduction estimates are 

based on the assumption that 5 percent 

of the existing paints and allied 

products manufacturing facilities would 

add covers to their process vessels, and 

that the covers will achieve a 40 percent 

reduction in volatile HAP emissions. 

We do not anticipate any indirect or 

secondary air impacts of this rule as 

proposed. The use of process vessel 

covers does not require any energy to be 

employed at existing paints and allied 

products manufacturing facilities. 

B. What Are the Cost Impacts? 

In this analysis, two types of control 

options were investigated. The first type 

looked at potential control options for 

controlling volatile HAP. The second 

type looked at potential control options 

for controlling metal HAP. Costs for 

these options were developed for two 

model plants that are typical of the 

paints and allied products 

manufacturing industry. 

Based on the cost effectiveness 

calculations, process covers are the most 

cost effective option of reducing volatile 

HAP emissions from process vessels. 

The cost effectiveness of applying 

covers to the process vessels was 

calculated to be $34 per ton of volatile 

HAP reduced for a small model plant 

and $28 per ton of volatile HAP reduced 

for a large model plant. These costs 

were conservatively estimated assuming 

that 15 percent of the process vessels 

would be required to be covered. When 

all VOC emissions are taken into 

account, the total cost was considerably 

lower at $3 per ton of VOC removed for 

both small and large model plants. 

Per industry feedback, we know that 

2-percent of the product will evaporate 

during the manufacturing process if the 

vessels are not covered. We estimated 

that it would cost $38,000 in total 

capital costs and $5,500 annually for the 

110 facilities that will be required to 

install process vessel covers to meet the 

requirements of this rule. However the 

rule would also provide a cost savings 

to these same facilities, because they 

will have more coatings product at the 

end of the manufacturing process. 

We determined that a particulate 

control device is GACT for reducing 

metal HAP emissions. The cost 

effectiveness was calculated to be $1.6 

million per ton of metal HAP removed 

for a small model plant, and $330,000 

per ton of metal HAP removed for the 

large model plant. For particulate 

emissions, the cost effectiveness for a 

small model plant was calculated to be 

$1,200 per ton of PM removed, and $200 

per ton of PM removed for the large 

model plant. For fine particulate 

emissions, the cost effectiveness was 

determined to be $2,500 per ton of PM2.5

removed for small model plants, and 

$500 per ton of PM2.5 removed for large 

model plants. Even though the metal 

HAP cost effectiveness values are high, 

we believe that the PM and PM2.5 cost 

effectiveness values are reasonable. 

Additionally, the reduction of 

particulate matter would improve 

workplace safety and reduce the cross 

contamination of coating products. 

The estimated total capital costs of 

this proposed rule for existing sources 

are $8.1 million for installing particulate 

control devices. The estimated 

annualized cost of the proposed rule for 

existing sources would be $3.1 million 

per year. The annualized costs account 

for the annualized capital costs of 

purchasing disposable process vessel 

covers for the existing facilities that 

would be required to install new 

emission controls, and the annualized 

cost of installing a particulate control 

device to facilities that currently do not 

have particulate control. The other 

affected facilities would incur costs only 

for submitting the notifications and for 

annual control device inspections 

because those facilities already meet the 

control, monitoring, and recordkeeping 

requirements that would be required 

under the proposed rule. The cost 

associated with recordkeeping and the 

one-time reporting requirements is 

estimated to be $147 per facility. 

C. What Are the Economic Impacts? 

Both the magnitude of costs needed to 

comply with the rule and the 

26154 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

distribution of these costs among 

affected facilities can have a role in 

determining how the market will change 

in response to a rule. Total annualized 

costs for the rule are estimated to be 

$3.1 million. Four hundred and sixty 

facilities are projected to incur costs 

because of the proposed rule (79% of 

the 2,190 facilities are projected to incur 

no costs because they already meet the 

control requirements). 

The cost to sales ratio is estimated to 

assess the impact on the affected 

facilities. Two sizes were used for the 

facilities and high, average, and low 

prices were used for the product. Cost 

to sales ratios range from 0.19 percent 

for the small model plant with the 

lowest ($3.50 per gallon price) to 0.001 

percent for the large model plant with 

the highest price ($19.91 per gallon). 

Thus all of the 2,190 facilities are 

projected to have a cost to sales ratio 

below 1.0 percent. The average cost to 

sales ratio is expected to be around 0.13 

percent. Thus this regulation is not 

expected to have significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The costs are so small that the impact 

is not expected to be significant. These 

small costs are not expected to result in 

a significant market impact whether 

they are passed on to the purchaser or 

absorbed. 

In terms of economic impacts, this 

proposed standard is estimated to 

impact a total of 2,190 area source 

facilities, which are all small entities. 

Our analysis indicates that this 

proposed rule would not impose a 

significant adverse impact on any 

facilities, large or small. 

D. What are the non-air health, 

environmental, and energy impacts? 

To comply with the rule as proposed, 

we expect that affected facilities would 

control emissions by installing, 

operating, and maintaining a particulate 

control device, and using process vessel 

covers; none of these controls generate 

wastewater. Therefore, we project that 

this rule as proposed would have no 

impact on water emissions. 

There were few data available on the 

amount of solid and hazardous waste 

disposed of from the paints and allied 

products manufacturing industry. The 

main source of solid waste comes from 

the collected particulate from the 

particulate control device. Other sources 

of solid waste include rags used for 

cleaning and coatings that do not meet 

customer specifications. If facilities 

switch to producing low HAP coatings 

or use low HAP cleaning materials, the 

amount of hazardous waste would 

greatly decrease. The actual amount 

depends on several variables, including 

the type of manufactured coatings, the 

cleaners used, and number of facilities 

switching to low HAP or wetted 

pigments. It was assumed that there 

would be no significant waste disposal 

impacts because many of the facilities 

are producing low HAP coatings. The 

few facilities required to install and 

operate monitoring devices or systems 

would collect small amounts of metal 

HAP. Therefore, minimal additional 

solid waste would be generated as a 

result of the metal HAP emissions 

collected. If a facility switches from 

solvent-based coating to a water-based 

coating there should be a reduction in 

the amount of solid waste produced due 

to the use of nonvolatile materials. 

Energy impacts consist of the fuel 

(natural gas) needed to operate the 

combustion-based control device 

(thermal oxidizer) that is used to 

comply with the regulatory alternatives. 

It also includes the amount of electricity 

to operate the control devices. The 

estimated electricity and fuel impacts 

are already included in the annual cost 

of the control technologies. No 

additional energy is required for the 

process vessel covers or other 

management practices. 

No detrimental secondary impacts are 

expected to occur because 79 percent of 

all existing facilities are currently 

achieving the GACT level of control. 

There are no additional energy impacts 

associated with operation of the control 

devices or monitoring systems. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it may raise novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the OMB for review under Executive 

Order 12866 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 501 et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 2348.01. 

The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in this proposed 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 the information collection 

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. 

This proposed NESHAP would 

require 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). 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. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number [EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0053]. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after June 1, 2009, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by July 1, 2009. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26155 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

For the purposes of assessing the 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business that meets the Small 

Business Administration size standards 

for small businesses found at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed 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’ costto-sales ratio, are expected to be 

approximately 0.13 percent for the 

estimated 460 facilities that would not 

initially be in compliance. Although 

this proposed 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 proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 

reduce the impact of this rule on small 

entities. The standards represent 

practices and controls that are common 

throughout the paints and allied 

products 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. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed 

action on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or to the private sector 

in any one year. This proposed rule is 

not expected to impact State, local, or 

tribal governments. The nationwide 

annualized cost of this proposed rule for 

affected industrial sources is $3.1 

million/yr. Thus, this proposed rule 

would not be subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). 

This proposed rule would also not be 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The proposed rule would 

not apply to such governments and 

would impose no obligations upon 

them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This proposed 

rule does not impose any requirements 

on State and local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 6, 2000), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

Tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have Tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

This proposed rule imposes no 

requirements on Tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from Tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

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 regulation. This action is 

not subject to EO 13045 because it is 

based solely on technology 

performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed 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. 

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. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

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. 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the Agency 

conducted a search to identify 

potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. However, we 

26156 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

identified no such standards, and none 

were brought to our attention in 

comments. Therefore, EPA has decided 

to use EPA Method 9. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

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 

proposed rule would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This proposed rule would establish 

national standards for the Paints and 

Allied Products area source category. 

The nationwide standards would reduce 

HAP emissions and thus decrease the 

amount of emissions to which all 

affected populations are exposed. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 22, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—[AMENDED] 

2. Part 63 is amended by adding 

subpart CCCCCCC to read as follows: 

Subpart CCCCCCC—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Area Sources: Paints and Allied Products 

Manufacturing 

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? 

63.11607 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

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 one or more of the 

following HAP: benzene, methylene 

chloride, and compounds of cadmium, 

chromium, lead, and nickel. 

(b) The affected source consists of all 

paints and allied products 

manufacturing processes 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 

after June 1, 2009. 

(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). Notwithstanding the 

previous sentence, you must continue to 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart. 

§ 63.11600 What are my compliance 

dates? 

(a) If you own or operate an existing 

affected source, you must achieve 

compliance with applicable provisions 

in this subpart by 2 years after the date 

of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. 

(b) If you start up a new affected 

source on or before the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register, you must achieve 

compliance with the applicable 

provisions of this subpart by no later 

than the date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. 

(c) If you start up a new affected 

source after the date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register, 

you must achieve compliance with the 

applicable provisions of this subpart 

upon startup of your affected source. 

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 affected source, 

you must capture particulate emissions 

and route them to a particulate control 

device meeting the requirements of this 

section during the addition of pigments 

and other solids and during the grinding 

and milling of pigments and solids. 

(1) For new and existing affected 

sources, visible 5 percent opacity when 

averaged over a six-minute period. 

(2) [RESERVED] 

(b) For each new and existing affected 

source, you must comply with the 

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (4) of this section. 

(1) Process and storage vessels, 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. These vessels must be kept 

covered when not in use. 

(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. 

(iii) The covers or lids must be 

maintained in good condition. 

(2) Mixing vessels must be equipped 

with covers that completely cover the 

vessel, except for safe clearance of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26157 

mixer shaft. The vessels must be kept 

covered during the manufacturing 

process, except for operator access for 

quality control testing of the product, 

and during the addition of pigments or 

other materials used to meet the final 

product specifications. 

(3) Leaks and spills of materials 

containing volatile HAP must be 

immediately minimized and cleaned up. 

(4) Waste solvent rags or other 

materials used for cleaning must be kept 

in closed storage vessels. 

§ 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 60 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 has been performed within 

the past 12 months and any 

maintenance actions have been 

resolved. 

(iv) For each particulate control 

device, you must conduct an initial 30 

minute visible emission test using 

Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). If the results of the visible emissions 

test indicate an opacity greater than the 

applicable limitation in § 63.11601(a), 

you must take corrective action 

according to the equipment 

manufacturer’s specifications or 

instructions 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 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 the system ductwork and 

wet particulate control equipment for 

leaks. 

(C) You must conduct inspections of 

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 the system ductwork for 

leaks. 

(B) You must conduct inspections of 

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 30 minute 

visible emission test every 6 months 

using Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4). If the results of the 

visible emissions test indicate an 

opacity greater than the applicable 

limitation in § 63.11601(a), you must 

take corrective action according to the 

equipment manufacturer’s 

specifications or instructions and retest 

within 15 days. 

(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 120 days after the date of 

publication of the final rule 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 

120 days after initial start-up of the 

operations or 120 days after the 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 within 2 years and 120 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. If you are 

the owner of a new affected source, you 

must submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status within 120 days after 

initial start-up, or by 120 days after the 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register, whichever is later. 

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 

26158 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 report must cover the 

annual reporting period from January 1 

through December 31. 

(iii) Each annual compliance report 

must be prepared no later than January 

31 and kept in a readily-accessible 

location for inspector review. If a 

deviation has occurred during the year, 

each annual compliance 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 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 a copy of the 

particulate control device manufacturer 

specifications and recommendations on 

site at all times. 

(4) You must keep records of all 

inspections and tests as required by 

§ 63.11602(b). 

(5) Your records must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). 

(6) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you 

must keep each record for 5 years 

following the date of each recorded 

action. 

(7) 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. 

§ 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: 

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 during startup, shutdown, 

or malfunction, regardless of whether or 

not such failure is permitted by this 

subpart. 

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. 

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, as shown in 

formulation data provided by the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26159 

manufacturer or supplier, such as the 

Material Safety Data Sheet for the 

material. 

Paints and allied product means a 

material such as 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. 

Paints and allied product 

manufacturing means the production of 

paints, inks, adhesives, stains, 

varnishes, shellacs, putties, sealers, 

caulks, and other coatings, the intended 

use of which is to leave a dried film of 

solid material on a substrate. Paints and 

allied product manufacturing does not 

include the manufacture of: 

(1) 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) Electroplated and electroless metal 

films; and 

(3) Raw materials, such as resins, 

pigments, and solvents used in the 

production of paints and coatings. 

Paints and allied product 

manufacturing process means all the 

equipment which collectively function 

to produce a paints 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 are considered part 

of the manufacturing process. Quality 

assurance and quality control 

laboratories are not considered part of a 

paints and allied product manufacturing 

process. 

Particulate control device means the 

air pollution control equipment used to 

remove PM from the effluent gas stream 

generated by a reaction vessel. 

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. 

Storage vessel means a tank, container 

or other vessel that is used to store 

organic liquids that contain one or more 

of the listed HAP 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 organic liquids that 

contain HAP only as impurities; 

(4) Wastewater storage tanks; and 

(5) Process vessels. 

§ 63.11608–63.11638 [RESERVED] 

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 to be 

incorporated for Paints and Allied 

Products Manufacturing Area Sources: 

Citation Subject 

Applies to 

subpart 

CCCCCCC 

63.1 1 ........................................................... Applicability ...................................................................................................................... Yes. 

63.2 ............................................................. Definitions ........................................................................................................................ Yes. 

63.3 ............................................................. Units and abbreviations ................................................................................................... Yes. 

63.4 ............................................................. Prohibited activities .......................................................................................................... Yes. 

63.5 ............................................................. Preconstruction review and notification requirements ..................................................... No. 

63.6(a),(b)(1)–(b)(5),(c), (e)(1),(f)(2), 

(f)(3),(g),(i), (j).

Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements .......................................... Yes. 

63.7 ............................................................. Performance testing requirements .................................................................................. No. 

63.8 ............................................................. Monitoring requirements .................................................................................................. No. 

63.9(a)–(d),(i), and (j) .................................. Notification requirements ................................................................................................. Yes. 

63.10(a),(b)(1),(d)(1) ................................... Recordkeeping and reporting .......................................................................................... Yes. 

63.11 ........................................................... Control device and work practice requirements .............................................................. No. 

63.12 ........................................................... State authority and delegations ....................................................................................... Yes. 

63.13 ........................................................... Addresses of State air pollution control agencies and EPA regional offices .................. Yes. 

63.14 ........................................................... Incororation by reference ................................................................................................. Yes. 

63.15 ........................................................... Availability of information and confidentiality ................................................................... Yes. 

63.16 ........................................................... Performance track provisions .......................................................................................... Yes. 

1 § 63.11599(c), ‘‘Am I subject to this subpart?’’ exempts affected sources from the obligation to obtain title V operating permits. 

[FR Doc. E9–12563 Filed 5–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P