Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0093-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
Posted Date: 2002-12-24T05:00Z

Tuesday,

December
24,
2002
Part
III
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Parts
63,
264,
and
265
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants:
Surface
Coating
of
Automobiles
and
Light­
Duty
Trucks;
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78612
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
63,
264,
and
265
[
FRL
 
7418
 
4]

RIN
2060
 
AG99
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants:
Surface
Coating
of
Automobiles
and
Light­
Duty
Trucks
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule;
amendments.

SUMMARY:
This
action
proposes
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operations
located
at
major
sources
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP).
The
proposed
NESHAP
would
implement
section
112(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
by
requiring
these
operations
to
meet
HAP
emission
standards
reflecting
the
application
of
the
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT).
The
primary
HAP
emitted
by
these
operations
are
toluene,
xylene,
glycol
ethers,
methyl
ethyl
ketone
(
MEK),
methyl
isobutyl
ketone
(
MIBK),
ethylbenzene,
and
methanol.
The
proposed
rule
would
reduce
nationwide
HAP
emissions
from
these
major
sources
by
about
60
percent.
This
action
also
proposes
to
amend
the
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Equipment
Leaks
for
owners
and
operators
of
hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
to
exempt
certain
activities
covered
by
the
proposed
NESHAP
from
these
standards.

DATES:
Comments.
Submit
comments
on
or
before
February
7,
2003.
Public
Hearing.
If
anyone
contacts
EPA
requesting
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing,
they
should
do
so
by
January
3,
2003.
If
requested,
a
public
hearing
will
be
held
approximately
15
days
after
the
date
of
publication
of
this
document
in
the
Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES:
Comments.
By
U.
S.
Postal
Service,
written
comments
should
be
submitted
(
in
duplicate
if
possible)
to:
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
(
6102T),
Attention
Docket
Number
A
 
2001
 
22,
U.
S.
EPA,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460.
In
person
or
by
courier,
deliver
comments
(
in
duplicate
if
possible)
to:
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
(
6102T),
Attention
Docket
Number
A
 
2001
 
22,
U.
S.
EPA,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Room
B102,
Washington,
DC
20460.
The
EPA
requests
a
separate
copy
also
be
sent
to
the
contact
person
listed
in
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Public
Hearing.
If
a
public
hearing
is
held,
it
will
be
held
at
our
Office
of
Administration
auditorium
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina.
You
should
contact
Ms.
Janet
Eck,
Coatings
and
Consumer
Products
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C539
 
03),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
7946
to
request
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing
or
to
find
out
if
a
hearing
will
be
held.
Docket.
Docket
No.
A
 
2001
 
22
contains
supporting
information
used
in
developing
the
proposed
standards.
The
docket
is
located
at
the
U.
S.
EPA,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460
in
Room
B108,
and
may
be
inspected
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
5:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr.
David
Salman,
Coatings
and
Consumer
Products
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C539
 
03),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711;
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
0859;
facsimile
number
(
919)
541
 
5689;
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
address:
salman.
dave@
epa.
gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Comments.
Comments
and
data
may
be
submitted
by
e­
mail
to:
a­
and­
rdocket
epa.
gov.
Electronic
comments
must
be
submitted
as
an
ASCII
file
to
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
encryption
problems
and
will
also
be
accepted
on
disks
in
WordPerfect
 
file
format.
All
comments
and
data
submitted
in
electronic
form
must
note
the
docket
number:
A
 
2001
 
22.
No
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
should
be
submitted
by
e­
mail.
Electronic
comments
may
be
filed
online
at
many
Federal
Depository
Libraries.
Commenters
wishing
to
submit
proprietary
information
for
consideration
must
clearly
distinguish
such
information
from
other
comments
and
clearly
label
it
as
CBI.
Send
submissions
containing
such
proprietary
information
directly
to
the
following
address,
and
not
to
the
public
docket,
to
ensure
that
proprietary
information
is
not
inadvertently
placed
in
the
docket:
Mr.
David
Salman,
c/
o
OAQPS
Document
Control
Officer
(
C404
 
02),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711.
The
EPA
will
disclose
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
extent
allowed
by
the
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
If
no
claim
of
confidentiality
accompanies
a
submission
when
it
is
received
by
the
EPA,
the
information
may
be
made
available
to
the
public
without
further
notice
to
the
commenter.
Public
Hearing.
Persons
interested
in
presenting
oral
testimony
or
inquiring
as
to
whether
a
hearing
is
to
be
held
should
contact
Ms.
Janet
Eck,
Coatings
and
Consumer
Products
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C539
 
03),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711;
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
7946.
Persons
interested
in
attending
the
public
hearing
should
also
contact
Ms.
Eck
to
verify
the
time,
date,
and
location
of
the
hearing.
The
public
hearing
will
provide
interested
parties
the
opportunity
to
present
data,
views,
or
arguments
concerning
these
proposed
emission
standards.
Docket.
The
docket
is
an
organized
and
complete
file
of
all
the
information
considered
by
the
EPA
in
the
development
of
this
rulemaking.
The
docket
is
a
dynamic
file
because
material
is
added
throughout
the
rulemaking
process.
The
docketing
system
is
intended
to
allow
members
of
the
public
and
industries
involved
to
readily
identify
and
locate
documents
so
that
they
can
effectively
participate
in
the
rulemaking
process.
Along
with
the
proposed
and
promulgated
standards
and
their
preambles,
the
contents
of
the
docket
will
serve
as
the
record
in
the
case
of
judicial
review.
(
See
section
307(
d)(
7)(
A)
of
the
CAA.)
The
regulatory
text
and
other
materials
related
to
this
rulemaking
are
available
for
review
in
the
docket
or
copies
may
be
mailed
on
request
from
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
by
calling
(
202)
566
 
1742.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying
docket
materials.
Worldwide
Web
(
WWW).
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
this
proposed
rule
will
also
be
available
on
the
WWW
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
signature
by
the
EPA
Administrator,
a
copy
of
the
proposed
rule
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
or
promulgated
rules
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg.
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.
If
more
information
regarding
the
TTN
is
needed,
call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(
919)
541
 
5384.
Regulated
Entities.
Categories
and
entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
are
listed
in
Table
1.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78613
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
1.
 
CATEGORIES
AND
ENTITIES
POTENTIALLY
REGULATED
BY
THE
PROPOSED
STANDARDS
Category
NAICS
Examples
of
potentially
regulated
entities
Industry
......................................
336111
336112
336211
Automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
assembly
plants,
producers
of
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
bodies.

This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
To
determine
whether
your
coating
operation
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
section
§
63.3081
of
the
proposed
rule.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.
Outline.
The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
Background
A.
What
is
the
source
of
authority
for
development
of
NESHAP?
B.
What
criteria
are
used
in
the
development
of
NESHAP?
C.
What
are
the
health
effects
associated
with
HAP
emissions
from
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating?
II.
Summary
of
the
Proposed
Rule
A.
What
source
categories
are
affected
by
this
proposed
rule?
B.
What
is
the
relationship
to
other
rules?
C.
What
are
the
primary
sources
of
emissions
and
what
are
the
emissions?
D.
What
is
the
affected
source?
E.
What
are
the
emission
limits,
operating
limits,
and
other
standards?
F.
What
are
the
testing
and
initial
compliance
requirements?
G.
What
are
the
continuous
compliance
provisions?
H.
What
are
the
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements?
III.
Rationale
for
Selecting
the
Proposed
Standards
A.
How
did
we
select
the
source
category?
B.
How
did
we
select
the
regulated
pollutants?
C.
How
did
we
select
the
affected
source?
D.
How
did
we
determine
the
basis
and
level
of
the
proposed
standards
for
existing
and
new
sources?
E.
How
did
we
select
the
format
of
the
proposed
standards?
F.
How
did
we
select
the
testing
and
initial
compliance
requirements?
G.
How
did
we
select
the
continuous
compliance
requirements?
H.
How
did
we
select
the
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements?
I.
How
did
we
select
the
compliance
date?
IV.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy,
and
Economic
Impacts
A.
What
are
the
air
quality
impacts?
B.
What
are
the
cost
impacts?
C.
What
are
the
economic
impacts?
D.
What
are
the
non­
air
health,
environmental,
and
energy
impacts?
E.
Can
we
achieve
the
goals
of
the
proposed
rule
in
a
less
costly
manner?
V.
How
will
the
proposed
amendments
to
40
CFR
parts
264
and
265,
subparts
BB
of
the
hazardous
waste
regulations
be
implemented
in
the
States?
A.
Applicability
of
Federal
Rules
in
Authorized
States
B.
Authorization
of
States
for
Today's
Proposed
Amendments
VI.
Solicitation
of
Comments
and
Public
Participation
VII.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
E.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
F.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
G.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601,
et
seq.
H.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
I.
Background
A.
What
is
the
Source
of
Authority
For
Development
of
NESHAP?
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
list
categories
and
subcategories
of
major
sources
and
area
sources
of
HAP
and
to
establish
NESHAP
for
the
listed
source
categories
and
subcategories.
The
Surface
Coating
of
Automobiles
and
Light­
duty
Trucks
category
of
major
sources
was
listed
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576).
Major
sources
of
HAP
are
those
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
equal
to,
or
greater
than,
9.1
megagrams
per
year
(
Mg/
yr)
(
10
tons
per
year
(
tpy))
of
any
one
HAP
or
22.7
Mg/
yr
(
25
tpy)
of
any
combination
of
HAP.

B.
What
Criteria
Are
Used
in
the
Development
of
NESHAP?
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
that
we
establish
NESHAP
for
the
control
of
HAP
from
both
new
and
existing
major
sources.
The
CAA
requires
the
NESHAP
to
reflect
the
maximum
degree
of
reduction
in
emissions
of
HAP
that
is
achievable.
This
level
of
control
is
commonly
referred
to
as
the
MACT.
The
MACT
floor
is
the
minimum
control
level
allowed
for
NESHAP
and
is
defined
under
section
112(
d)(
3)
of
the
CAA.
In
essence,
the
MACT
floor
ensures
that
the
standard
is
set
at
a
level
that
assures
that
all
major
sources
achieve
the
level
of
control
at
least
as
stringent
as
that
already
achieved
by
the
better­
controlled
and
lower­
emitting
sources
in
each
source
category
or
subcategory.
For
new
sources,
the
MACT
floor
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
emission
control
that
is
achieved
in
practice
by
the
bestcontrolled
similar
source.
The
MACT
standards
for
existing
sources
can
be
less
stringent
than
standards
for
new
sources,
but
they
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
average
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
bestperforming
12
percent
of
existing
sources
in
the
category
or
subcategory
(
or
the
best­
performing
five
sources
for
categories
or
subcategories
with
fewer
than
30
sources).
In
developing
MACT,
we
also
consider
control
options
that
are
more
stringent
than
the
floor.
We
may
establish
standards
more
stringent
than
the
floor
based
on
the
consideration
of
cost
of
achieving
the
emissions
reductions,
any
non­
air
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts,
and
energy
requirements.

C.
What
Are
the
Health
Effects
Associated
With
HAP
Emissions
From
Automobile
and
Light­
Duty
Truck
Surface
Coating?
The
major
HAP
emitted
from
the
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
source
category
are
toluene,
xylene,
glycol
ethers,
MEK,
MIBK,
ethylbenzene,
and
methanol.
These
compounds
account
for
over
95
percent
of
the
nationwide
HAP
emissions
from
this
source
category.
These
pollutants
can
cause
toxic
effects
following
sufficient
exposure.
Some
of
the
potential
toxic
effects
include
effects
to
the
central
nervous
system,
such
as
fatigue,
nausea,
tremors,
and
lack
of
coordination;
adverse
effects
on
the
liver,
kidneys,
and
blood;
respiratory
effects;
and
developmental
effects.
The
degree
of
adverse
effects
to
human
health
from
exposure
to
HAP
can
range
from
mild
to
severe.
The
extent
and
degree
to
which
the
human
health
effects
may
be
experienced
are
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78614
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
dependent
upon
(
1)
the
ambient
concentration
observed
in
the
area
(
as
influenced
by
emission
rates,
meteorological
conditions,
and
terrain);
(
2)
the
frequency
and
duration
of
exposures;
(
3)
characteristics
of
exposed
individuals
(
genetics,
age,
preexisting
health
conditions,
and
lifestyle),
which
vary
significantly
with
the
population;
and
(
4)
pollutant­
specific
characteristics
(
toxicity,
half­
life
in
the
environment,
bioaccumulation,
and
persistence).

II.
Summary
of
the
Proposed
Rule
A.
What
Source
Categories
Are
Affected
by
This
Proposed
Rule?

The
proposed
rule
would
apply
to
you
if
you
own
or
operate
an
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operation
that
is
a
major
source,
or
is
located
at
a
major
source,
or
is
part
of
a
major
source
of
HAP
emissions.
We
have
defined
an
automobile
and
lightduty
truck
surface
coating
operation
as
any
facility
engaged
in
the
surface
coating
of
new
automobile
or
new
lightduty
truck
bodies
or
collections
of
body
parts
for
new
automobiles
or
new
lightduty
trucks.
Coating
operations
included
in
this
source
category
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
application
of
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat
(
including
basecoat
and
clear
coat),
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
glass
bonding
adhesive,
sealer,
adhesive,
and
deadener.
The
application
of
blackout
and
anti­
chip
materials
is
included
in
these
coating
operations,
as
is
the
cleaning
and
purging
of
equipment
associated
with
the
coating
operations.
Automobile
customizers,
body
shops,
and
refinishers
are
excluded
from
this
source
category.
Coating
of
separate,
non­
body
miscellaneous
metal
parts
and
separate,
non­
body
plastic
parts
that
are
not
attached
to
the
vehicle
body
at
the
time
that
the
coatings
are
applied
to
these
parts
is
excluded
from
this
source
category.
You
would
not
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
if
your
coating
operation
is
located
at
an
area
source.
An
area
source
is
any
stationary
source
of
HAP
that
is
not
a
major
source.
You
may
establish
area
source
status
prior
to
the
compliance
date
of
the
final
rule
by
limiting
the
source's
potential
to
emit
HAP
through
appropriate
mechanisms
available
through
the
permitting
authority.
The
source
category
does
not
include
research
or
laboratory
facilities
or
janitorial,
building,
and
facility
maintenance
operations.
We
are
also
proposing
to
amend
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
Air
Emissions
Standards
for
Equipment
Leaks
at
40
CFR
parts
264
and
265,
subparts
BB.
The
amendments
would
exempt
facilities
which
would
otherwise
be
subject
to
requirements
of
subparts
BB
if
they
are
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
proposed
NESHAP.
Generally,
subparts
BB
of
40
CFR
parts
264
and
265
apply
to
equipment
that
contains
or
contacts
RCRA
hazardous
wastes
with
organic
concentrations
of
at
least
10
percent
by
weight.
The
regulations
apply
to
large
quantity
generators
as
well
as
to
RCRA
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities.
The
regulations
were
designed
to
minimize
the
potential
for
leaks
from
pumps,
valves,
flanges,
and
connections.
The
work
practice
standards
that
must
be
met
in
this
proposed
NESHAP
in
§
63.3094
address
coating
line
purging
emissions
that
would
result
from
solvent
purging
of
coating
applicators,
and
the
subsequent
collection
and
transmission
of
the
paint/
solvent
mixture
to
reclamation
or
recovery
system.
The
collection
and
transmission
systems
would
potentially
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
subparts
BB.
To
avoid
duplication,
and
because
any
potential
for
air
releases
from
these
sources
are
relatively
small,
we
are
proposing
that
if
such
a
collection,
transmission,
and
reclamation
or
recovery
system
is
located
at
a
facility
subject
to
this
proposed
NESHAP,
then
it
is
exempt
from
the
requirements
of
subparts
BB
of
40
CFR
parts
264
and
265.
As
stated
elsewhere
in
this
preamble,
the
HAP
emissions
from
these
sources
are
relatively
small
in
comparison
with
the
coating
application,
drying,
and
curing.
Measurements
made
by
industry
indicate
that
emissions
of
VOC
would
be
at
least
two
orders
of
magnitude
less
than
concentrations
that
would
meet
the
definition
of
a
leak
under
subparts
BB
of
40
CFR
parts
264
and
265.
Additionally,
because
the
mixture
is
usually
sold
to
a
solvent
recycler,
the
industry
has
an
incentive
to
capture
as
much
of
the
solvent
as
possible,
and
would
therefore
want
to
repair
any
leaks
as
quickly
as
possible.
In
addition
to
the
coating
operations
covered
under
the
proposed
NESHAP,
some
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
facilities
also
have
separate,
non­
body
plastic
parts
coating
operations
or
separate,
non­
body
metal
parts
coating
operations.
Purges
from
these
separate,
non­
body
plastic
parts
coating
operations
and
separate,
non­
body
metal
parts
coatings
operations
are
analogous
to
those
for
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
body
coatings
and
would
also
be
exempt
from
the
requirements
of
subparts
BB
of
40
CFR
parts
264
and
265,
if
the
operations
occur
in
the
same
facility
as
the
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
body
coating.
Many
of
the
coatings
applied
to
separate,
non­
body
plastic
and
separate,
non­
body
metal
parts
are
similar
in
composition
to
those
applied
to
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
bodies.
The
purged
materials
are
conveyed
to
waste
tanks
in
the
same
fashion
as
the
purged
materials
from
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
body
coating
operations.

B.
What
Is
the
Relationship
to
Other
Rules?
Affected
sources
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
may
also
be
subject
to
other
rules.
Automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operations
that
began
construction,
reconstruction,
or
modification
after
October
5,
1979
are
subject
to
new
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS)
under
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
MM.
That
rule
limits
emissions
of
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC).
The
EPA
has
also
published
control
techniques
guidelines
which
establish
reasonably
available
control
technologies
for
limiting
VOC
emissions
from
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operations.
Additional
VOC
emission
limitations
may
also
apply
to
these
facilities
through
conditions
incorporated
in
State
operating
permits
and
permits
issued
under
authority
of
title
V
of
the
CAA.
Facilities
in
this
subcategory
may
also
be
subject
to
various
emission
limitations
pursuant
to
State
air
toxics
rules.
An
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
facility
may
be
subject
to
other
NESHAP.
Rules
are
presently
under
development
which
will
limit
emissions
from
coating
operations
conducted
on
separate,
non­
body
miscellaneous
metal
parts
and
separate,
non­
body
plastic
parts
and
products.
Coating
of
parts
(
such
as
automobile
bumpers,
fascias,
brackets,
etc.)
for
subsequent
attachment
to
vehicle
bodies
would
be
subject
to
one
or
more
of
these
rules,
as
would
collocated
aftermarket
replacement
part
coating
operations.
Facilities
may
also
be
subject
to
other
rules
relating
to
collocated
equipment
such
as
foundries
and
boilers.
The
capture,
transmission,
and
storage
of
purge
materials
from
coating
equipment
may
also
be
subject
to
the
RCRA
Air
Emission
Standards
for
Equipment
Leaks
under
subparts
BB
of
40
CFR
parts
264
and
265.
Those
regulations
apply
to
equipment
that
contains
or
contacts
RCRA
hazardous
waste
with
organic
concentrations
of
at
least
10
percent
by
weight.
To
avoid
such
possible
duplication,
we
are
proposing
to
exempt
such
equipment
from
subparts
BB
if
it
is
located
at
a
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78615
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
facility
subject
to
this
proposed
NESHAP.

C.
What
Are
the
Primary
Sources
of
Emissions
and
What
Are
the
Emissions?
HAP
emission
sources.
Emissions
from
coating
application,
drying,
and
curing
account
for
most
of
the
HAP
emissions
from
automobile
and
lightduty
truck
surface
coating
operations.
The
remaining
emissions
are
primarily
from
cleaning
of
booths
and
application
equipment
and
purging
of
spray
equipment.
In
most
cases,
HAP
emissions
from
surface
preparation,
storage,
handling,
and
waste/
wastewater
operations
are
relatively
small.
Organic
HAP.
Available
emission
data
collected
during
the
development
of
the
proposed
NESHAP
show
that
the
primary
organic
HAP
emitted
from
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operations
are
toluene,
xylene,
glycol
ethers,
MEK,
MIBK,
ethylbenzene,
and
methanol.
These
compounds
account
for
over
95
percent
of
the
nationwide
HAP
emissions
from
this
source
category.
Inorganic
HAP.
Based
on
information
reported
during
the
development
of
the
proposed
NESHAP,
lead,
manganese,
and
chromium
are
contained
in
some
of
the
coatings
used
by
this
source
category
but
are
not
likely
to
be
emitted
due
to
the
coating
application
techniques
used.
No
inorganic
HAP
were
reported
in
thinners
or
cleaning
materials.
Most
of
the
inorganic
HAP
components
remain
as
solids
in
the
dry
coating
film
on
the
parts
being
coated,
are
collected
by
the
circulating
water
under
the
spray
booth
floor
grates,
or
are
deposited
on
the
walls,
floor,
and
grates
of
the
spray
booths
and
other
equipment
in
which
they
are
applied.
Therefore,
inorganic
HAP
emission
levels
are
expected
to
be
very
low
and
have
not
been
quantified.

D.
What
Is
the
Affected
Source?

We
define
an
affected
source
as
a
stationary
source,
group
of
stationary
sources,
or
part
of
a
stationary
source
to
which
a
specific
emission
standard
applies.
The
proposed
rule
for
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
defines
the
affected
source
as
all
of
the
equipment
used
to
apply
coating
to
new
automobile
or
new
light­
duty
truck
bodies
or
collections
of
body
parts
for
new
automobiles
or
new
light­
duty
trucks
and
to
dry
or
cure
the
coating
after
application;
all
storage
containers
and
mixing
vessels
in
which
vehicle
body
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials
are
stored
or
mixed;
all
manual
and
automated
equipment
and
containers
used
for
conveying
vehicle
body
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials;
and
all
storage
containers
and
all
manual
and
automated
equipment
and
containers
used
for
conveying
waste
materials
generated
by
an
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operation.
The
affected
source
does
not
include
research
or
laboratory
equipment
or
janitorial,
building,
and
facility
maintenance
operations.

E.
What
Are
the
Emission
Limits,
Operating
Limits,
and
Other
Standards?

Emission
limits.
We
are
proposing
to
limit
organic
HAP
emissions
from
each
new
or
reconstructed
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
facility
using
the
emission
limits
in
Table
2
of
this
preamble.

TABLE
2.
 
EMISSION
LIMITS
FOR
NEW
OR
RECONSTRUCTED
AFFECTED
SOURCES
(
MONTHLY
AVERAGE)

Operation
Limit
Combined
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operation.
0.036
kilogram
(
kg)
(
0.30
pound
(
lb))
organic
HAP/
liter
(
HAP/
gallon
(
gal))
of
coating
solids
deposited).
Combined
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operation
(
for
sources
meeting
the
operating
limits
of
§
63.3092(
a)
and
(
b)).
0.060
kg
(
0.50
lb
organic
HAP/
1iter
(
HAP/
gal)
of
coating
solids
deposited

Adhesives
and
sealers,
other
than
glass
bonding
adhesive
...................
0.010
kg/
kg
(
lb/
lb)
of
material
used.
Deadener
..................................................................................................
0.010
kg/
kg
(
lb/
lb)
of
material
used.

We
are
proposing
to
limit
organic
HAP
emissions
from
each
existing
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
facility
using
the
emission
limits
in
Table
3
of
this
preamble.

TABLE
3.
 
EMISSION
LIMITS
FOR
EXISTING
AFFECTED
SOURCES
(
MONTHLY
AVERAGE)

Operation
Limit
Combined
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operation.
0.072
kg
(
0.60
lb)
organic
HAP/
liter
(
HAP/
gal)
of
coating
deposited.

Combined
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operation
(
for
sources
meeting
the
operating
limits
of
§
63.3092(
a)
and
(
b)).
0.132
kg
(
1.10
lb)
organic
HAP/
liter
(
HAP/
gal)
of
coating
solids
deposited

Adhesives
and
sealers
other
than
glass
bonding
adhesive
....................
0.010
kg/
kg
(
lb/
lb)
of
material
used.
Deadener.
.................................................................................................
0.010
lb/
lb
(
kg/
kg)
of
material
used.

You
would
calculate
emissions
from
combined
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations,
or
from
combined
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations
using
the
procedures
in
the
proposed
rule,
which
account
for
variable
organic
HAP
contents
of
the
materials
applied
in
each
month,
as
well
as
transfer
efficiency
and
overall
efficiencies
of
any
capture
systems
and
control
devices
in
use.
You
would
average
organic
HAP
contents
of
other
materials
used
on
a
monthly
basis
to
determine
separately
those
emissions
from
sealers
and
adhesives
(
other
than
glass
bonding
adhesive),
and
deadeners.
Operating
limits.
If
you
use
an
emission
capture
and
control
system
to
reduce
emissions,
the
proposed
operating
limits
would
apply
to
you.
These
proposed
operating
limits
are
site­
specific
parameter
limits
you
determine
during
the
initial
performance
test
of
the
system.
For
capture
systems,
you
would
identify
the
parameter(
s)
to
monitor
and
establish
the
limits
and
monitoring
procedures.
For
thermal
and
catalytic
oxidizers,
you
would
establish
temperature
limits.
For
solvent
recovery
systems,
you
would
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78616
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
monitor
the
outlet
concentration
or
carbon
bed
temperature
and
the
amount
of
steam
or
nitrogen
used
to
desorb
the
bed.
All
operating
limits
must
reflect
operation
of
the
capture
and
control
system
during
a
performance
test
that
demonstrates
achievement
of
the
emission
limit
during
representative
operating
conditions.
Work
practice
standards.
You
would
have
to
develop
and
implement
a
work
practice
plan
to
minimize
organic
HAP
emissions
from
the
storage,
mixing,
and
conveying
of
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials
used
in
and
waste
materials
generated
by
all
coating
operations
for
which
emission
limits
are
proposed.
The
plan
would
have
to
specify
practices
and
procedures
to
ensure
that,
at
a
minimum,
the
following
elements
are
implemented:
 
All
organic­
HAP­
containing
coatings,
thinners,
cleaning
materials,
and
waste
materials
must
be
stored
in
closed
containers.
 
The
risk
of
spills
of
organic­
HAPcontaining
coatings,
thinners,
cleaning
materials,
and
waste
materials
must
be
minimized.
 
Organic­
HAP­
containing
coatings,
thinners,
cleaning
materials,
and
waste
materials
must
be
conveyed
from
one
location
to
another
in
closed
containers
or
pipes.
 
Mixing
vessels,
other
than
day
tanks
equipped
with
continuous
agitation
systems,
which
contain
organic­
HAP­
containing
coatings
and
other
materials
must
be
closed
except
when
adding
to,
removing,
or
mixing
the
contents.
 
Emissions
of
organic
HAP
must
be
minimized
during
cleaning
of
storage,
mixing,
and
conveying
equipment.
You
would
also
have
to
develop
and
implement
a
work
practice
plan
to
minimize
organic
HAP
emissions
from
cleaning
and
from
purging
of
equipment
associated
with
all
coating
operations
for
which
emission
limits
are
proposed.
The
plan
would
have
to
specify
practices
and
procedures
to
ensure
that
emissions
of
HAP
from
the
following
operations
are
minimized:
 
Vehicle
body
wiping;
 
Coating
line
purging;
 
Flushing
of
coating
systems;
 
Cleaning
of
spray
booth
grates;
 
Cleaning
of
spray
booth
walls;
 
Cleaning
of
spray
booth
equipment;
 
Cleaning
external
spray
booth
areas;
and
 
Other
housekeeping
measures
(
e.
g.,
keeping
solvent­
laden
rags
in
closed
containers.)
General
Provisions.
The
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A)
also
would
apply
to
you
as
outlined
in
table
2
of
the
proposed
rule.
The
General
Provisions
codify
certain
procedures
and
criteria
for
all
40
CFR
part
63
NESHAP.
The
General
Provisions
contain
administrative
procedures,
preconstruction
review
procedures
for
new
sources,
and
procedures
for
conducting
compliancerelated
activities
such
as
notifications,
recordkeeping
and
reporting,
performance
testing,
and
monitoring.
The
proposed
rule
refers
to
individual
sections
of
the
General
Provisions
to
emphasize
key
sections
that
you
should
be
aware
of.
However,
unless
specifically
overridden
in
table
2
of
the
proposed
rule,
all
of
the
applicable
General
Provisions
requirements
would
apply
to
you.

F.
What
Are
the
Testing
and
Initial
Compliance
Requirements?
Compliance
dates.
Existing
affected
sources
would
have
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
final
standards
no
later
than
3
years
after
the
effective
date.
The
effective
date
is
the
date
on
which
the
final
rule
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
New
and
reconstructed
sources
would
have
to
be
in
compliance
upon
startup
of
the
affected
source
or
by
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule,
whichever
is
later.
Compliance
with
the
emission
limits
is
based
on
a
monthly
organic
HAP
emission
rate.
The
initial
compliance
period,
therefore,
is
the
1­
month
period
beginning
on
the
compliance
date.
If
the
compliance
date
occurs
on
any
day
other
than
the
first
day
of
a
month,
then
the
initial
compliance
period
begins
on
the
compliance
date
and
extends
through
the
end
of
that
month
plus
the
following
month.
We
have
defined
``
month''
as
a
calendar
month
or
a
prespecified
period
of
28
to
35
days
to
allow
for
flexibility
at
sources
where
data
are
based
on
a
business
accounting
period.
Being
``
in
compliance''
means
that
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
affected
source
meets
all
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule
to
achieve
the
emission
limit(
s)
and
operating
limits
by
the
end
of
the
initial
compliance
period,
and
that
the
facility
is
operated
in
accordance
with
the
approved
work
practice
plans.
At
the
end
of
the
initial
compliance
period,
the
owner
or
operator
would
use
the
data
and
records
generated
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
affected
source
is
in
compliance
for
that
period.
If
it
does
not
meet
the
applicable
limit(
s),
then
it
is
out
of
compliance
for
the
entire
initial
compliance
period.
Emission
limits.
Compliance
with
the
emission
limit
for
combined
electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive,
or
the
emission
limit
for
combined
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
would
be
based
on
mass
organic
HAP
emissions
per
volume
of
applied
coating
solids
as
calculated
monthly
using
the
procedures
in
the
proposed
rule.
Compliance
with
the
emission
limits
for
adhesives
and
sealers
(
other
than
glass
bonding
adhesive)
and
deadener
would
be
based
on
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
of
materials
used
each
month.
Electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive.
Compliance
with
this
emission
limit,
or
if
eligible,
with
the
emission
limit
for
combined
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive,
is
based
on
the
calculations
in
the
proposed
rule.
You
may
also
use
the
guidelines
presented
in
``
Protocol
for
Determining
Daily
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emission
Rate
of
Automobile
and
Light­
Duty
Truck
Topcoat
Operations,''
EPA
 
450/
3
 
88
 
018
(
docket
A
 
2001
 
22).
To
determine
the
organic
HAP
content,
the
volume
solids,
and
the
density
of
the
coatings
and
thinners,
you
could
rely
on
manufacturer's
data,
results
from
the
test
methods
listed
below,
or
alternative
test
methods
for
which
you
get
EPA
approval
on
a
caseby
case
basis
according
to
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
in
40
CFR
63.7(
f).
However,
if
there
is
any
inconsistency
between
the
test
results
and
manufacturer's
data,
the
test
results
would
prevail
for
compliance
and
enforcement
purposes.
 
For
organic
HAP
content,
use
Method
311
of
40
CFR
part
63,
appendix
A.
 
The
proposed
rule
allows
you
to
use
nonaqueous
volatile
matter
as
a
surrogate
for
organic
HAP.
If
you
choose
this
option,
then
use
Method
24
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
 
For
volume
fraction
of
coating
solids,
use
either
ASTM
Method
D2697
 
86
(
1968)
or
ASTM
Method
D6093
 
97.
 
For
density,
use
ASTM
Method
D1475
 
98
or
information
from
the
supplier
or
manufacturer
of
the
material.
For
each
emission
capture
and
control
system
that
you
use,
you
would:
 
Conduct
an
initial
performance
test
to
determine
the
overall
control
efficiency
of
the
equipment
(
described
below)
and
to
establish
operating
limits
to
be
achieved
on
a
continuous
basis
(
also
described
below).
The
performance
test
would
have
to
be
completed
no
later
than
the
compliance
date.
You
would
also
need
to
schedule
it
in
time
to
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78617
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
obtain
the
results
for
use
in
completing
your
initial
compliance
determination
for
the
initial
compliance
period.
The
overall
control
efficiency
for
a
capture
and
control
system
would
be
demonstrated
based
on
emission
capture
and
reduction
efficiency.
To
determine
the
capture
efficiency,
you
would
either
verify
the
presence
of
a
permanent
total
enclosure
using
EPA
Method
204
of
40
CFR
part
51;
measure
the
capture
efficiency
using
either
EPA
Method
204A
through
F
of
40
CFR
part
51
or
appendix
A
of
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
KK;
or
use
the
panel
test
procedures
in
ASTM
Method
D5087
 
91
(
1994),
ASTM
Method
D6266
 
00a,
or
the
guidelines
presented
in
``
Protocol
for
Determining
Daily
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emission
Rate
of
Automobile
and
Light­
Duty
Truck
Topcoat
Operations,''
EPA
 
450/
3
 
88
 
018
(
docket
A
 
2001
 
22).
If
you
have
a
permanent
total
enclosure
and
you
route
all
exhaust
gases
from
the
enclosure
to
a
control
device,
then
you
would
assume
100
percent
capture.
For
panel
testing,
the
coatings
used
may
be
grouped
based
on
similar
appearance
characteristics
(
e.
g.,
solid
color
or
metallic),
processing
sequences,
and
dry
film
thicknesses.
One
coating
from
each
group
can
be
tested
to
represent
all
of
the
coatings
in
that
group.
To
determine
the
emission
reduction
efficiency
of
the
control
device,
you
would
conduct
measurements
of
the
inlet
and
outlet
gas
streams.
The
test
would
consist
of
three
runs,
each
run
lasting
1
hour,
using
the
following
EPA
Methods
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A:
 
Method
1
or
1A
for
selection
of
the
sampling
sites.
 
Method
2,
2A,
2C,
2D,
2F,
or
2G
to
determine
the
gas
volumetric
flow
rate.
 
Method
3,
3A,
or
3B
for
gas
analysis
to
determine
dry
molecular
weight.
 
Method
4
to
determine
stack
moisture.
 
Method
25
or
25A
to
determine
organic
volatile
matter
concentration.
Alternatively,
any
other
test
method
or
data
that
have
been
validated
according
to
the
applicable
procedures
in
Method
301
of
40
CFR
part
63,
appendix
A,
and
approved
by
the
Administrator,
could
be
used.
You
would
be
required
to
determine
the
transfer
efficiency
for
primersurfacer
and
topcoat
materials
using
ASTM
Method
D5066
 
91
(
2001)
or
the
guidelines
presented
in
``
Protocol
for
Determining
Daily
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emission
Rate
of
Automobile
and
Light­
Duty
Truck
Topcoat
Operations,''
EPA
 
450/
3
 
88
 
018
(
docket
A
 
2001
 
22).
These
guidelines
include
provisions
for
testing
representative
coatings
instead
of
testing
every
coating.
You
may
assume
100
percent
transfer
efficiency
for
electrodeposition
primer
coatings,
glass
bonding
primers,
and
glass
bonding
adhesives.
For
final
repair
coatings,
you
may
assume
40
percent
transfer
efficiency
for
air
atomized
spray
and
55
percent
transfer
efficiency
for
electrostatic
spray
and
high
volume,
low
pressure
spray.
The
monthly
emission
rate,
in
terms
of
mass
of
organic
HAP
emitted
per
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited,
is
determined
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
in
the
proposed
rule.
These
procedures
incorporate
the
volume,
organic
HAP
content,
and
volume
solids
content
of
each
coating
applied,
as
well
as
the
transfer
efficiency
for
the
coatings
and
spray
equipment
used,
and
the
overall
control
efficiency
for
controlled
booths
or
bake
ovens
and
other
controlled
emission
points.
Adhesives
and
sealers,
and
deadener.
Compliance
with
emissions
limits
for
adhesives
and
sealers
(
other
than
windshield
materials)
would
be
based
on
the
monthly
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
of
all
materials
of
this
type
used
during
the
compliance
period.
Compliance
with
emission
limits
for
deadener
would
be
based
on
the
monthly
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
of
all
materials
of
this
type
used
during
the
compliance
period.
Operating
limits.
As
mentioned
above,
you
would
establish
operating
limits
during
the
initial
performance
test
of
an
emission
capture
and
control
system.
The
operating
limit
is
defined
as
the
minimum
or
maximum
(
as
applicable)
value
achieved
for
a
control
device
or
process
parameter
during
the
most
recent
performance
test
that
demonstrated
compliance
with
the
emission
limit.
The
proposed
rule
specifies
the
parameters
to
monitor
for
the
types
of
control
systems
commonly
used
in
the
industry.
You
would
be
required
to
install,
calibrate,
maintain,
and
continuously
operate
all
monitoring
equipment
according
to
manufacturer's
specifications
and
ensure
that
the
continuous
parameter
monitoring
systems
(
CPMS)
meet
the
requirements
in
§
63.3168
of
the
proposed
rule.
If
you
use
control
devices
other
than
those
identified
in
the
proposed
rule,
you
would
submit
the
operating
parameters
to
be
monitored
to
the
Administrator
for
approval.
The
authority
to
approve
the
parameters
to
be
monitored
is
retained
by
EPA
and
is
not
delegated
to
States.
If
you
use
a
thermal
or
catalytic
oxidizer,
you
would
continuously
monitor
temperature
and
record
it
at
least
every
15
minutes.
For
thermal
oxidizers,
the
temperature
monitor
is
placed
in
the
firebox
or
in
the
duct
immediately
downstream
of
the
firebox
before
any
substantial
heat
exchange
occurs.
The
operating
limit
would
be
the
average
temperature
measured
during
the
performance
test
and
for
each
3­
hour
period,
the
average
temperature
would
have
to
be
at
or
above
this
limit.
For
catalytic
oxidizers,
temperature
monitors
are
placed
immediately
before
and
after
the
catalyst
bed.
The
operating
limit
would
be
the
average
temperature
increase
across
the
catalyst
bed
during
the
performance
test
and
for
each
3­
hour
period,
the
average
temperature
increase
would
have
to
be
at
or
above
this
limit.
As
an
alternative
for
catalytic
oxidizers,
you
may
monitor
the
temperature
immediately
before
the
catalyst
bed
and
develop
and
implement
an
inspection
and
maintenance
plan.
If
you
use
a
solvent
recovery
system,
then
you
would
either:
(
1)
Continuously
monitor
the
outlet
concentration
of
organic
compounds,
and
the
operating
limit
would
be
the
average
organic
compound
outlet
concentration
during
the
performance
test
(
for
each
3­
hour
period,
the
average
concentration
would
have
to
be
below
this
limit);
or
(
2)
monitor
the
carbon
bed
temperature
after
each
regeneration
and
the
total
amount
of
steam
or
nitrogen
used
to
desorb
the
bed
for
each
regeneration,
in
which
case
the
operating
limits
would
be
the
carbon
bed
temperature
(
not
to
be
exceeded)
and
the
amount
of
steam
or
nitrogen
used
for
desorption
(
to
be
met
as
a
minimum).
If
you
use
a
capture
and
control
system
to
meet
the
proposed
standards,
you
would
have
to
meet
operating
limits
for
the
capture
system.
If
the
emission
capture
system
is
a
permanent
total
enclosure,
you
would
be
required
to
establish
that
the
direction
of
flow
was
into
the
enclosure
at
all
times.
In
addition,
you
would
have
to
meet
an
operating
limit
of
either
an
average
facial
velocity
of
at
least
61
meters
per
minute
(
200
feet
per
minute)
through
all
natural
draft
openings
in
the
enclosure,
or
a
minimum
pressure
drop
across
the
enclosure
of
at
least
0.018
millimeter
water
(
0.007
inch
water),
as
established
by
Method
204
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51.
If
the
emission
capture
system
was
not
a
permanent
total
enclosure,
you
would
have
to
establish
either
the
average
volumetric
flow
rate
or
the
duct
static
pressure
in
each
duct
between
the
capture
device
and
the
add­
on
control
device
inlet
during
the
performance
test.
Either
the
average
volumetric
flow
rate
would
have
to
be
maintained
above
the
operating
limit
for
each
3­
hour
period
or
the
average
duct
static
pressure
would
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78618
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
have
to
be
maintained
above
the
operating
limit
for
each
3­
hour
period.
Work
practice
standards.
You
would
have
to
develop
and
implement
two
site­
specific
work
practice
plans.
One
plan
would
address
practices
to
minimize
organic
HAP
emissions
from
storage,
mixing,
and
conveying
of
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials
used
in
operations
for
which
emission
limits
are
established,
as
well
as
the
waste
materials
generated
from
these
operations.
A
second
site­
specific
work
practice
plan
would
address
practices
to
minimize
emissions
from
cleaning
operations
and
purging
of
coating
equipment.
The
plans
would
have
to
address
specific
types
of
potential
organic
HAP
emission
points
and
are
subject
to
approval
of
the
Administrator.
Deviations
from
approved
work
practice
plans
would
be
reported
semiannually.

G.
What
Are
the
Continuous
Compliance
Provisions?
Emission
limits.
Continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limit
for
combined
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive,
or
if
eligible,
the
emission
limit
for
combined
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive,
would
be
based
on
monthly
calculations
following
the
procedures
in
the
proposed
rule.
These
procedures
take
into
account
the
amount
of
each
coating
used,
the
organic
HAP
and
volume
solids
content
of
each
coating
used,
the
transfer
efficiency
of
each
coating
application
system,
and
the
organic
HAP
abatement
from
each
capture
and
control
system,
and
provide
for
calculating
monthly
mass
organic
HAP
emissions
per
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited.
Continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
for
adhesives
and
sealers
(
other
than
components
of
the
windshield
adhesive
system),
and
deadener
is
based
on
the
monthly
average
mass
organic
HAP
concentration
of
all
materials
applied
in
each
category.
Operating
limits.
If
you
use
an
emission
capture
and
control
system,
the
proposed
rule
would
require
you
to
achieve
on
a
continuous
basis
the
operating
limits
you
establish
during
the
performance
test.
If
the
continuous
monitoring
shows
that
the
system
is
operating
outside
the
range
of
values
established
during
the
performance
test,
then
you
have
deviated
from
the
established
operating
limits.
If
you
operate
a
capture
and
control
system
that
allows
emissions
to
bypass
the
control
device,
you
would
have
to
demonstrate
that
HAP
emissions
from
each
emission
point
within
the
affected
source
are
being
routed
to
the
control
device
by
monitoring
for
potential
bypass
of
the
control
device.
You
may
choose
from
the
following
four
monitoring
procedures:
(
1)
Flow
control
position
indicator
to
provide
a
record
of
whether
the
exhaust
stream
is
directed
to
the
control
device;
(
2)
Car­
seal
or
lock­
and­
key
valve
closures
to
secure
the
bypass
line
valve
in
the
closed
position
when
the
control
device
is
operating;
(
3)
Valve
closure
continuous
monitoring
to
ensure
any
bypass
line
valve
or
damper
is
closed
when
the
control
device
is
operating;
or
(
4)
Automatic
shutdown
system
to
stop
the
coating
operation
when
flow
is
diverted
from
the
control
device.
If
the
continuous
control
device
bypass
monitoring
shows
that
the
control
device
is
bypassed,
then
you
have
deviated
from
the
established
operating
limits.
Operations
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
When
using
an
emission
capture
and
control
system
for
compliance,
you
would
be
required
to
develop
and
operate
according
to
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
of
the
capture
and
control
system.
Work
practice
standards.
You
would
be
required
to
operate
your
facility
in
accordance
with
your
approved
sitespecific
work
practice
plans
at
all
times.

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

You
are
required
to
comply
with
the
applicable
requirements
in
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions,
subpart
A
of
40
CFR
part
63,
as
described
in
Table
2
of
the
proposed
rule.
The
General
Provisions
notification
requirements
include:
initial
notifications,
notification
of
performance
test
if
you
are
complying
by
using
a
capture
and
control
system,
notification
of
compliance
status,
and
additional
notifications
required
for
affected
sources
with
continuous
monitoring
systems.
The
General
Provisions
also
require
certain
records
and
periodic
reports.
Initial
notifications.
If
the
standards
apply
to
you,
you
must
send
a
notification
to
the
EPA
Regional
Office
in
the
region
where
your
facility
is
located
and
to
your
State
agency
at
least
1
year
before
the
compliance
date
for
existing
sources,
and
within
120
days
after
the
date
of
initial
startup
for
new
and
reconstructed
sources,
or
120
days
after
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register,
whichever
is
later.
That
report
notifies
us
and
your
State
agency
that
you
have
an
existing
facility
that
is
subject
to
the
proposed
standards
or
that
you
have
constructed
a
new
facility.
Thus,
it
allows
you
and
the
permitting
authority
to
plan
for
compliance
activities.
You
would
also
need
to
send
a
notification
of
planned
construction
or
reconstruction
of
a
source
that
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
and
apply
for
approval
to
construct
or
reconstruct.
Notification
of
performance
test.
If
you
demonstrate
compliance
by
using
a
capture
and
control
system
for
which
you
do
not
conduct
a
monthly
liquidliquid
material
balance,
you
would
conduct
a
performance
test
no
later
than
the
compliance
date
for
your
affected
source.
You
must
notify
us
(
or
the
delegated
State
or
local
agency)
at
least
60
calendar
days
before
the
performance
test
is
scheduled
to
begin
as
indicated
in
the
General
Provisions
for
the
NESHAP.
Notification
of
compliance
status.
You
would
send
us
a
notification
of
compliance
status
within
30
days
after
the
end
of
the
initial
compliance
demonstration.
In
the
notification,
you
would
certify
whether
the
affected
source
has
complied
with
the
proposed
standards;
summarize
the
data
and
calculations
supporting
the
compliance
demonstration;
describe
how
you
will
determine
continuous
compliance;
and
for
capture
and
control
systems
for
which
you
conduct
performance
tests,
provide
the
results
of
the
tests.
Your
notification
would
also
include
the
measured
range
of
each
monitored
parameter
and
the
operating
limits
established
during
the
performance
test,
and
information
showing
whether
the
source
has
achieved
its
operating
limits
during
the
initial
compliance
period.
Recordkeeping
requirements.
The
proposed
rule
would
require
you
to
collect
and
keep
records
according
to
certain
minimum
data
requirements
for
the
CPMS.
Failure
to
collect
and
keep
the
specified
minimum
data
would
be
a
deviation
that
is
separate
from
any
emission
limit,
operating
limit,
or
work
practice
requirement.
You
would
be
required
to
keep
records
of
reported
information
and
all
other
information
necessary
to
document
compliance
with
the
proposed
rule
for
5
years.
As
required
under
the
General
Provisions,
records
for
the
2
most
recent
years
must
be
kept
on­
site;
the
other
3
years'
records
may
be
kept
off­
site.
Records
pertaining
to
the
design
and
operation
of
the
control
and
monitoring
equipment
must
be
kept
for
the
life
of
the
equipment.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78619
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
You
would
have
to
keep
the
following
records:
 
A
current
copy
of
information
provided
by
materials
suppliers
such
as
manufacturer's
formulation
data
or
test
data
used
to
determine
organic
HAP
or
VOC
content,
solids
content,
and
quantity
of
the
coatings
and
thinners
applied.
 
All
documentation
supporting
initial
notifications
and
notifications
of
compliance
status.
 
The
occurrence
and
duration
of
each
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
of
the
emission
capture
and
control
system.
 
All
maintenance
performed
on
the
emission
capture
and
control
system.
 
Actions
taken
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
that
are
different
from
the
procedures
specified
in
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
 
All
information
necessary
to
demonstrate
conformance
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
when
the
plan
procedures
are
followed.
 
Each
period
during
which
a
CPMS
is
malfunctioning
or
inoperative
(
including
out­
of­
control
periods).
 
All
required
measurements
needed
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
standards.
 
All
results
of
performance
tests.
 
Data
and
documentation
used
to
determine
capture
system
efficiency
or
to
support
a
determination
that
the
system
is
a
permanent
total
enclosure.
 
Required
work
practice
plans
and
documentation
to
support
compliance
with
the
provisions
of
these
plans.
Deviations,
as
determined
from
these
records,
would
need
to
be
recorded
and
also
reported.
A
deviation
is
any
instance
when
any
requirement
or
obligation
established
by
the
proposed
rule,
including
but
not
limited
to
the
emission
limits,
operating
limits,
and
work
practice
standards,
is
not
met.
If
you
use
a
capture
and
control
system
to
reduce
organic
HAP
emissions,
you
would
have
to
make
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
available
for
inspection
if
the
Administrator
requests
to
see
it.
It
would
stay
in
your
records
for
the
life
of
the
affected
source
or
until
the
source
is
no
longer
subject
to
the
proposed
standards.
If
you
revise
the
plan,
you
would
need
to
keep
the
previous
superceded
versions
on
record
for
5
years
following
the
revision.
Periodic
reports.
Each
reporting
year
is
divided
into
two
semiannual
reporting
periods.
If
no
deviations
occur
during
a
semiannual
reporting
period,
you
would
submit
a
semiannual
report
stating
that
the
affected
source
has
been
in
continuous
compliance.
If
deviations
occur,
you
would
need
to
include
them
in
the
report
as
follows:
 
Report
each
deviation
from
each
applicable
monthly
emission
limit.
 
Report
each
deviation
from
the
work
practice
plan.
 
If
you
are
complying
by
using
a
thermal
oxidizer,
report
all
times
when
a
3­
hour
average
temperature
is
below
the
operating
limit.
 
If
you
are
complying
by
using
a
catalytic
oxidizer,
report
all
times
when
a
3­
hour
average
temperature
increase
across
the
catalyst
bed
is
below
the
operating
limit.
 
If
you
are
complying
by
using
oxidizers
or
solvent
recovery
systems,
report
all
times
when
the
value
of
the
site­
specific
operating
parameter
used
to
monitor
the
capture
system
performance
was
greater
than
or
less
than
(
as
appropriate)
the
operating
limit
established
for
the
capture
system.
 
Report
other
specific
information
on
the
periods
of
time
the
deviations
occurred.
You
would
also
have
to
send
us
explanations
in
each
semiannual
report
if
a
change
occurs
that
might
affect
your
compliance
status.
Other
reports.
You
would
be
required
to
submit
other
reports,
including
those
for
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
of
the
emission
capture
and
control
system.
If
the
procedures
you
follow
during
any
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
are
inconsistent
with
your
plan,
you
would
report
those
procedures
with
your
semiannual
reports
in
addition
to
immediate
reports
required
by
40
CFR
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii).

III.
Rationale
for
Selecting
the
Proposed
Standards
A.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Source
Category?

Automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
is
a
source
category
that
is
on
the
list
of
source
categories
to
be
regulated
because
it
contains
major
sources
which
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
at
least
9.7
Mg
(
10
tons)
of
any
one
HAP
or
at
least
22.7
Mg
(
25
tons)
of
any
combination
of
HAP
annually.
The
proposed
rule
would
control
HAP
emissions
from
both
new
and
existing
major
sources.
Area
sources
are
not
being
regulated
under
this
proposed
rule.
The
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
source
category
as
described
in
the
listing
includes
any
facility
engaged
in
the
surface
coating
of
new
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
bodies.
Excluded
from
this
source
category
are
automobile
customizers,
body
shops,
and
refinishers.
For
purposes
of
this
proposed
rule,
we
are
defining
the
source
category
to
include
the
application
of
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat
(
including
basecoat
and
clear
coat),
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
glass
bonding
adhesive,
sealer,
adhesive,
and
deadener;
all
storage
containers
and
mixing
vessels
in
which
the
above
listed
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials
associated
with
the
above
listed
coatings
are
stored
or
mixed;
all
manual
and
automated
equipment
and
containers
used
for
conveying
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials;
and
all
storage
containers
and
manual
and
automated
equipment
used
for
conveying
waste
materials
generated
by
a
coating
operation.
We
intend
the
source
category
to
include
facilities
for
which
the
surface
coating
of
automobiles
and
light­
duty
trucks
or
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
bodies
is
either
their
principal
activity
or
is
an
integral
part
of
an
automobile
or
light­
duty
truck
assembly
plant.
The
initial
listing
for
this
source
category
included
the
surface
coating
of
body
parts
for
inclusion
in
new
vehicles.
As
provided
in
the
initial
source
category
listing
notice
(
57
FR
31576,
July
16,
1992):

.
.
.
the
Agency
recognizes
that
these
descriptions
[
in
the
initial
list],
like
the
list
itself,
may
be
revised
from
time
to
time
as
better
information
becomes
available.
The
Agency
intends
to
revise
these
descriptions
as
part
of
the
process
of
establishing
standards
for
each
category.
Ultimately,
a
definition
of
each
listed
category,
or
subsequently
listed
subcategories,
will
be
incorporated
in
each
rule
establishing
a
NESHAP
for
a
category.

Some
automobile
assembly
plants
operate
separate
lines
which
apply
coatings
to
parts
such
as
bumpers,
fascias,
and
brackets
for
attachment
to
separately
coated
vehicle
bodies.
However,
since
most
plastic
and
metal
parts
that
are
attached
to
coated
vehicle
bodies
are
produced
in
separate
facilities,
we
have
decided
that
it
makes
more
sense
to
regulate
these
off­
line
plastic
and
metal
parts
coating
operations
under
separate
NESHAP
for
surface
coating
of
plastic
parts
and
products
and
miscellaneous
metal
parts
because
of
the
substantially
different
equipment
that
may
be
used
to
coat
these
parts
and
for
consistency
with
the
NSPS
and
other
air
pollution
control
regulations
affecting
these
coating
operations.
The
source
category
does
not
include
research
or
laboratory
facilities
or
janitorial,
building,
and
facility
maintenance
operations.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78620
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
B.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Regulated
Pollutants?
Organic
HAP.
Available
emission
data
collected
during
the
development
of
the
proposed
NESHAP
show
that
the
primary
organic
HAP
emitted
from
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operations
are
toluene,
xylene,
glycol
ethers,
MEK,
MIBK,
ethylbenzene
and
methanol.
These
compounds
account
for
over
95
percent
of
this
category's
nationwide
organic
HAP
emissions.
Because
coatings
used
in
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
contain
many
combinations
of
these
and
other
organic
HAP,
it
is
not
practical
to
regulate
them
individually.
Therefore,
the
proposed
standards
would
regulate
emissions
of
all
organic
HAP.
Inorganic
HAP.
Based
on
information
reported
during
the
development
of
the
proposed
NESHAP,
inorganic
HAP
contained
in
the
coatings
used
by
this
source
category
include
lead,
manganese,
and
chromium
compounds.
There
is
limited
opportunity
for
these
HAP
to
be
emitted
into
the
ambient
air.
The
lead
compounds
are
present
in
the
electrodeposition
primers.
This
technique
would
not
typically
generate
air
emissions
of
these
compounds
which
are
in
the
coating
solids.
Once
the
coating
solids
are
deposited
on
the
substrate,
they
remain
on
the
substrate
and
are
not
emitted
during
cure
of
the
coating.
Therefore,
we
conclude
that
there
are
limited
or
no
air
emissions
of
lead
compounds.
Based
on
information
reported
during
the
development
of
the
proposed
NESHAP,
a
small
amount
of
chromium
compounds
are
contained
in
a
few
of
the
coatings
used
by
this
source
category.
Because
these
inorganic
compounds
are
in
the
coating
solids,
they
are
retained
on
the
substrate
to
which
they
are
applied,
and
the
only
opportunity
for
them
to
enter
the
ambient
air
is
if
they
are
spray­
applied.
Because
of
the
atomization
of
the
coating
during
spray
application,
inorganic
compounds
become
airborne,
and
they
are
either
deposited
on
the
substrate,
collected
by
the
circulating
water
under
the
spray
booth
floor
grates,
adhere
to
the
surrounding
walls
and
other
surfaces
in
the
area,
or
enter
the
air
and
become
susceptible
to
transport
to
other
areas
in
the
building
or
outside
into
the
ambient
air.
The
data
available
to
EPA
indicate
that
the
facilities
in
this
source
category
that
use
spray
application
techniques
sometimes
apply
coatings
that
contain
inorganic
HAP
compounds,
including
small
quantities
of
chromium
oxide.
Overspray,
including
that
containing
inorganic
HAP,
is
controlled
to
an
extremely
high
level
by
down­
draft
impingement
in
circulating
sub­
grate
water
systems.

C.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Affected
Source?
In
selecting
the
affected
sources
for
MACT
standards,
our
primary
goal
is
to
ensure
that
MACT
is
applied
to
HAPemitting
operations
or
activities
within
the
source
category
or
subcategory
being
regulated.
The
affected
source
also
serves
to
distinguish
where
new
source
MACT
applies
under
a
particular
standard.
Specifically,
the
General
Provisions
in
subpart
A
of
40
CFR
part
63
define
the
terms
``
construction''
and
``
reconstruction''
with
reference
to
the
term
``
affected
source''
(
40
CFR
60.2)
and
provide
that
new
source
MACT
applies
when
construction
or
reconstruction
of
an
affected
source
occurs
(
40
CFR
60.5).
The
collection
of
equipment
and
activities
evaluated
in
determining
MACT
(
including
the
MACT
floor)
is
used
in
defining
the
affected
source.
Some
source
categories
are
comprised
of
HAP­
emitting
equipment
and
activities
that
are
independent,
have
no
functional
interactions
at
the
process
level,
and
are
not
related
to
each
other
in
terms
of
emission
control.
In
these
cases,
it
is
reasonable
from
a
MACT
implementation
perspective
to
have
separate,
narrowly
defined
affected
sources
for
purposes
of
focusing
MACT
applicability.
An
implication
of
a
narrow
definition
of
affected
source
is
that
new
source
MACT
requirements
could
be
triggered
more
frequently
as
equipment
is
replaced
(
potential
``
reconstruction'')
or
facilities
are
expanded
(
potential
``
construction'')
than
with
a
broader
definition
of
affected
source,
such
as
some
collection
of
equipment
or
even
the
entire
facility.
This
approach
is
sometimes
appropriate
based
on
consideration
of
emission
reductions,
cost
impacts,
and
implementation
factors.
When
a
MACT
standard
is
based
on
total
facility
emissions,
we
select
an
affected
source
based
on
the
entire
facility
as
well.
This
approach
for
defining
the
affected
source
broadly
is
particularly
appropriate
for
industries
where
a
plantwide
emission
standard
provides
the
opportunity
and
incentive
for
owners
and
operators
to
utilize
control
strategies
that
are
more
cost
effective
than
if
separate
standards
were
established
for
each
emission
point
within
a
facility.
The
affected
source
in
the
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
source
category
for
which
MACT
standards
are
being
proposed
is
the
equipment
used
for
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat
(
including
basecoat
and
clear
coat),
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
glass
bonding
adhesive,
sealer,
adhesive,
and
deadener;
as
well
as
storage
containers
and
mixing
vessels
in
which
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials
are
stored
and
mixed;
all
manual
and
automated
equipment
for
conveying
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials;
and
all
storage
containers
and
all
manual
and
automated
equipment
and
containers
used
for
conveying
waste
materials
generated
by
a
coating
operation
for
which
an
emission
limit
is
proposed.
Standards
for
new
sources
apply
to
newly
constructed
or
reconstructed
paintshops.
All
of
the
organic
HAP­
emitting
coating
operations
covered
by
this
source
category
occur
within
the
area
of
an
automobile
assembly
plant
referred
to
as
the
paint
shop,
except
for
the
operations
related
to
glass
installation
(
glass
bonding
primer,
glass
bonding
adhesive,
and
pre­
installation
cleaning)
and
certain
off­
line
final
repair
operations.
All
existing
affected
sources
are
located
at
automobile
assembly
plants.
Other
collocated
operations
at
automobile
assembly
plants
may
be
subject
to
other
NESHAP,
including
NESHAP
currently
under
development
for
source
categories
such
as
miscellaneous
metal
parts
coating
and
plastic
parts
and
products
coating.
Additional
information
on
the
operations
at
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
facilities
that
were
selected
for
regulation
and
other
operations
that
are
conducted
at
automobile
assembly
plants
are
included
in
the
docket
for
the
proposed
standards.

D.
How
Did
We
Determine
the
Basis
and
Level
of
the
Proposed
Standards
for
Existing
and
New
Sources?

After
we
identify
the
specific
source
categories
or
subcategories
of
sources
to
regulate
under
section
112
of
the
CAA,
we
must
develop
MACT
standards
for
each
category
or
subcategory.
Section
112
establishes
a
minimum
baseline
or
``
floor''
for
standards.
For
new
sources
in
a
category
or
subcategory,
the
standards
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
emission
control
that
is
achieved
in
practice
by
the
best­
controlled
similar
source
(
section
112(
d)(
3)).
The
standards
for
existing
sources
can
be
less
stringent
than
standards
for
new
sources,
but
they
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
average
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
bestperforming
12
percent
of
existing
sources
for
which
the
Administrator
has
emissions
information
(
or
the
bestperforming
five
sources
for
categories
or
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78621
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
subcategories
with
fewer
than
30
sources).
Electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive.
All
59
facilities
in
the
source
category
that
were
in
operation
in
1997
or
1998
responded
to
an
information
collection
request
(
ICR).
(
Several
facilities
did
not
have
operating
paint
shops
during
this
period,
but
submitted
information
pertaining
to
their
applications
of
sealers
and
adhesives
in
the
assembly
process.)
Two
facilities
that
presently
track
their
usage
and
emissions
on
a
line­
by­
line
basis
submitted
two
sets
of
data
each.
The
responses
contained
data
on
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
per
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited
for
each
month
of
a
calendar
year
for
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
and
topcoat
operations;
and
additional
information
on
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive.
Final
repair
and
glass
bonding
materials
are
functionally
tied
to
the
electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
and
topcoat
materials.
Final
repair
materials
must
be
compatible
with
these
other
coatings
and
must
provide
an
exact
color
and
appearance
match.
Glass
bonding
materials
also
must
be
compatible
with
these
other
coatings.
The
choice
of
glass
bonding
materials
is
highly
dependent
on
the
performance
characteristics
of
and
interaction
with
these
other
coatings.
Glass
bonds
must
meet
safety
requirements
issued
by
the
National
Highway
Transportation
Safety
Administration.
Therefore,
we
have
included
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
with
electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
and
topcoat.
In
most
cases,
facilities
calculated
their
monthly
emissions
from
primersurfacer
and
topcoat
operations
using
a
procedure
that
closely
matched
the
procedure
in
``
Protocol
for
Determining
Daily
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emission
Rate
of
Automobile
and
Light­
Duty
Truck
Topcoat
Operations,''
EPA
 
450/
3
 
88
 
018
(
docket
A
 
2001
 
22).
The
calculations
took
into
account
the
overall
efficiency
of
capture
systems
and
control
devices,
as
well
as
the
transfer
efficiency
of
spray
equipment
used
to
apply
coatings.
In
addition,
the
responses
included
the
mass
organic
HAP
content
and
the
volume
solids
content
of
all
materials
added
to
the
electrodeposition
system
on
a
monthly
basis.
Using
the
data,
we
ranked
the
facilities
on
the
basis
of
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
per
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited
on
an
annual
basis.
Several
of
the
lowest
emitting
facilities
did
not
apply
full
body
primer­
surfacer
during
the
ICR
reporting
year
(
although
these
facilities
as
well
as
all
other
presently
operating
facilities
do
so
currently).
Since
the
data
from
these
facilities
did
not
represent
the
current
and
anticipated
industry
practices,
we
eliminated
them
from
the
ranking.
We
then
identified
the
eight
facilities
with
the
lowest­
organic­
HAP
emissions
(
from
electrodeposition,
primer­
surfacer,
and
topcoat
combined)
per
volume
coating
solids
deposited.
As
four
of
the
eight
lowest
emitting
plants
used
a
powder
primer­
surfacer
application
system
which
results
in
a
much
thicker
film
than
a
liquid
application
system,
we
adjusted
the
solids
deposited
volumes
for
the
powder
systems
to
reflect
liquid
primer
surfacer
thicknesses.
We
then
identified
the
month
of
the
reporting
year
with
the
peak
organic
HAP
emission
rate
for
the
eight
facilities
with
the
lowest
annual
emission
rates.
Since
the
proposed
rule
requires
compliance
each
and
every
month,
an
emission
limit
based
on
the
annual
emissions
would
be
unachievable
by
even
the
lowest
emitting
plants
approximately
6
months
of
the
year.
Variations
in
colors
or
vehicles
produced
and
the
organic
HAP
contents
of
different
basecoats
and
color­
keyed
primer­
surfacers
leads
to
unavoidable
fluctuations
in
organic
HAP
emission
rates,
even
with
the
same
application
equipment
and
capture
and
control
devices
in
use.
The
average
organic
HAP
emission
rate
for
the
peak
month
for
the
eight
lowest
emitting
plants
(
as
determined
on
an
annual
basis)
was
determined
to
be
the
MACT
floor
for
a
monthly
compliance
standard
for
combined
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations
at
existing
plants.
We
have
also
proposed
a
compliance
demonstration
option
based
on
emissions
from
combined
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations
for
those
plants
with
well
controlled
electrodeposition
operations,
or
that
use
very
low­
organic­
HAP
materials
in
their
electrodeposition
primer
operation.
This
was
based
on
the
emission
rate
from
primer­
surfacer
and
topcoat
application
at
the
eight
lowest
emitting
plants.
(
The
same
plants
as
those
with
the
lowest
emission
rates
from
electrodeposition,
primer­
surfacer,
and
topcoat
combined.)
The
emission
rate
without
electrodeposition
is
comparable
to
the
proposed
emission
rate
with
electrodeposition
when
the
lower­
organic­
HAP
emissions
per
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited
which
result
from
including
electrodeposition
primer
are
considered.
The
floor
for
new
sources
was
based
on
the
performance
of
the
plant
with
the
lowest
annual
emission
rate.
The
peak
monthly
emission
rate
for
this
plant
for
the
reporting
year
would
represent
the
best
consistently
achievable
emission
rate
for
new
sources.
Both
the
existing
source
MACT
floor
and
the
new
source
MACT
floor
are
based
on
monthly
compliance.
All
or
nearly
all
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
facilities
are
subject
to
compliance
with
existing
rules
demonstrated
by
calculations
based
on
monthly
coating
use.
The
ICR
responses
upon
which
the
MACT
determination
was
made
provided
data
on
a
monthly
basis.
A
1­
month
time
period
is
the
shortest
compliance
period
for
which
data
are
available
to
reliably
determine
MACT.
Adhesives
and
sealers
(
other
than
glass
binding
adhesive),
and
deadeners.
All
facilities
in
the
source
category
submitted
responses
to
an
ICR.
The
responses
contained
data
on
the
mass
used,
and
the
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
in
each
of
the
materials
used
during
the
reporting
year.
The
average
mass
organic
HAP
content
of
the
materials
used
throughout
the
reporting
year
was
determined
for
each
facility.
The
eight
facilities
with
the
lowestaverage
organic­
HAP
content
in
each
group
(
i.
e.,
adhesives
and
sealers
were
considered
separately
from
deadeners)
were
determined.
These
facilities
used
materials
with
an
average
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
of
less
than
0.01
kilogram
(
kg)/
kg
(
pound
(
lb)/
lb.
Because
of
imprecision
in
analytical
methods
at
this
level,
and
because
the
organic
HAP
reported
as
zero
for
some
materials
at
some
facilities
may
have
contained
traces
of
organic
HAP
that
were
not
reported
to
the
facility
by
the
material
supplier,
the
MACT
floor
mass
organic
HAP
content
was
determined
to
be
0.01
kg/
kg
(
lb/
lb).
This
is
the
lowest
level
for
both
new
and
existing
facilities
for
which
compliance
could
be
reliably
demonstrated.
The
proposed
rule
would
require
compliance
to
be
demonstrated
monthly
on
the
basis
of
a
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
of
the
materials
used.
A
shorter
compliance
time
interval
would
result
in
excessive
recordkeeping
with
little
or
no
additional
reduction
in
organic
HAP
emissions.
If
each
and
every
material
used
within
a
particular
group
of
materials
meets
the
monthly
average
emission
limit
on
an
individual
basis,
then
no
calculations
are
required
to
demonstrate
compliance.
Storage,
mixing,
and
conveying
of
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78622
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
materials.
The
proposed
rule
would
regulate
these
operations
in
accordance
with
a
site­
specific
work
practice
plan
to
be
developed
subject
to
approval
by
the
Administrator
and
implemented
by
each
new
and
existing
source.
We
have
no
reliable
data
on
the
extent
of
emissions
from
these
operations
but
believe
them
to
be
low.
Cleaning
and
equipment
purging
emissions.
While
the
responses
to
the
ICR
contain
extensive
(
though
in
some
cases
inconsistent)
data
pertaining
to
the
volumetric
use
and
organic
HAP
content
of
cleaning
and
purging
materials,
a
substantial
but
unknown
fraction
of
the
organic
HAP
emissions
from
cleaning
and
purging
operations
are
captured
and
controlled.
We
have
no
reliable
data
that
would
enable
us
to
determine
an
emission
limit
for
these
operations
that
would
represent
MACT
level
control.
The
proposed
rule
would
regulate
these
operations
in
accordance
with
a
site­
specific
work
practice
plan
to
be
developed
subject
to
approval
by
the
Administrator
and
implemented
by
each
new
and
existing
source.
After
the
floors
have
been
determined
for
new
and
existing
sources
in
a
source
category
or
subcategory,
we
must
set
MACT
standards
that
are
technically
achievable
and
no
less
stringent
than
the
floors.
Such
standards
must
then
be
met
by
all
sources
within
the
category
or
subcategory.
We
identify
and
consider
any
reasonable
regulatory
alternatives
that
are
``
beyond­
the­
floor,''
taking
into
account
emission
reduction,
cost,
non­
air
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts,
and
energy
requirements.
These
alternatives
may
be
different
for
new
and
existing
sources
because
different
MACT
floors
and
separate
standards
may
be
established
for
new
and
existing
sources.
The
eight
facilities
with
the
lowestorganic
HAP
emission
rates
from
electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
and
topcoat
application
employed
a
combination
of
various
organic
HAP
emission
limitation
techniques,
including
the
use
of
lowerorganic
HAP
electrodeposition
primer
materials,
powder
primer­
surfacer,
waterborne
basecoats,
lower­
organic­
HAP
solvent
based
primer­
surfacers,
lower­
organic­
HAP
solvent
based
basecoats
and
clearcoats,
and
improved
capture
and
control
systems.
However,
no
single
technology
or
combination
of
technologies
representing
a
beyond­
thefloor
MACT
was
identified,
nor
did
we
identify
any
other
available
technologies
which
are
not
presently
in
use
with
the
potential
to
decrease
organic
HAP
emissions
beyond­
the­
floor
for
either
new
or
existing
sources.
We
expect
that
many
existing
plants
will
improve
capture
and
control
device
efficiency
as
a
means
of
compliance.
Control
options
beyond­
the­
floor
could
involve
even
higher
overall
efficiencies.
Because
of
the
dilute
nature
of
the
organic
HAP­
containing
streams
available
for
capture,
the
cost
of
such
a
beyond­
the­
floor
limit
would
exceed
$
40,000
per
ton
of
incremental
organic
HAP
controlled.
We
are
not
proposing
beyond­
the­
floor
limits
at
this
time.
Following
a
future
analysis
of
residual
risk,
EPA
may
propose
a
beyond­
thefloor
emission
limit,
if
it
is
found
to
be
justified.
The
facilities
which
presently
use
adhesives
and
sealers,
and
deadeners
with
the
lowest­
mass­
organic­
HAP
contents
would
not
be
able
to
reliably
demonstrate
compliance
with
a
standard
more
stringent
than
the
floor
level
emission
limit
for
these
materials
due
to
uncertainty
in
the
analytical
methods
available
and
the
expected
inability
or
unwillingness
of
the
suppliers
of
the
materials
to
certify
lower­
organic­
HAP
contents.
A
wide
variety
of
techniques
exist
for
reducing
organic
HAP
emissions
from
mixing,
storage,
and
conveying
of
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials,
and
from
cleaning
and
purging
of
equipment.
Because
we
have
no
data
upon
which
to
establish
a
numerical
organic
HAP
emission
limit
for
these
operations,
we
have
proposed
to
regulate
them
through
the
development
and
implementation
of
site­
specific
work
practice
plans.
The
proposed
rule
identifies
a
number
of
potential
emission
control
practices
which
must
be
considered,
as
applicable,
in
these
work
plans.
Alternative
practices
which
achieve
equivalent
or
improved
emission
limitations
are
also
permitted
under
the
proposed
rule.
Because
we
are
unable
to
reliably
estimate
the
emissions
reductions
that
will
be
achieved
beyond
the
present
baseline
emissions
from
these
operations,
the
work
practices
requirements
may
represent
beyond­
thefloor
standards.
We
believe
that
the
costs
of
implementing
these
work
practices
will
be
reasonable,
as
many
of
the
same
or
equivalent
practices
would
be
required
for
control
of
VOC
emissions
under
title
V
air
permits.
In
lieu
of
emission
standards,
section
112(
h)
of
the
CAA
allows
work
practice
standards
or
other
requirements
to
be
established
if:
(
1)
A
pollutant
cannot
be
emitted
through
a
conveyance
or
capture
system,
or
(
2)
measurement
is
not
practicable
due
to
technological
and
economic
limitations.
All
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
facilities
use
some
type
of
work
practice
measures
to
reduce
HAP
emissions
from
mixing,
storage,
conveying,
and
cleaning
and
purging
as
part
of
their
standard
operating
procedures.
They
use
these
measures
to
decrease
solvent
usage
and
minimize
exposure
to
workers.
However,
data
to
quantify
accurately
the
emissions
reductions
achievable
by
the
work
practice
measures
are
unavailable,
and
it
is
not
feasible
to
measure
emissions
or
enforce
a
numerical
standard
for
emissions
from
these
operations.
We
selected
MACT
floor
level
standards
for
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
glass
bonding
adhesive,
sealer,
and
adhesive
application,
and
deadener
because
we
were
unable
to
identify
any
specific
technologies
that
would
result
in
a
lower
level
of
emissions.
We
have
proposed
a
more
stringent
emission
limit
for
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
and
topcoat
application
for
new
sources.
This
more
stringent
limit
is
not
appropriate
for
existing
sources
because
of
the
difficulty,
uncertainty,
and
in
some
cases,
impossibility
of
retrofitting
the
best
combination
of
emission
limitation
techniques
to
existing
facilities,
as
well
as
the
high
cost
associated
with
what
would
be
a
beyond­
the­
floor
limit
for
existing
facilities.
We
believe
the
proposed
standards
for
existing
sources
are
achievable
because
they
are
presently
being
achieved
by
at
least
six
existing
sources.
We
believe
the
proposed
standards
for
new
sources
are
achievable
because
they
are
presently
being
achieved
by
the
best
performing
facility
in
the
source
category.
We
have
proposed
standards
for
which
compliance
would
be
demonstrated
on
a
monthly
basis.
The
data
used
to
determine
MACT
for
electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
and
topcoat
were
based
on
organic
HAP
emission
limits
that
were
achieved
by
the
best
performing
plants
each
month
(
during
which
production
occurred)
during
the
reporting
year
for
the
ICR
responses.
We
used
annual
data
to
determine
MACT
for
adhesives
and
sealers,
and
deadeners,
but
believe
that
monthly
compliance
is
achievable
because
the
standards
are
based
on
organic
HAP
per
mass
of
material,
or
organic
HAP
per
volume
of
material
and
we
have
no
reason
to
believe
that
different
materials
are
used
at
different
times
throughout
the
year.

E.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Format
of
the
Proposed
Standards?
Numerical
emission
standards
are
required
by
section
112
of
the
CAA
unless
we
can
justify
that
it
is
not
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78623
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
feasible
to
prescribe
or
enforce
an
emission
standard,
in
which
case
a
design,
equipment,
work
practice,
or
operational
standard
can
be
set
(
section
112(
h)
of
the
CAA).
Formats
considered.
We
considered
the
following
formats
for
allowable
organic
HAP
emissions
from
the
affected
source:
(
1)
Mass
of
organic
HAP
per
unit
weight
or
volume
of
coating,
coating
solids,
or
coating
solids
deposited;
(
2)
mass
of
organic
HAP
per
unit
of
production;
(
3)
organic
HAP
concentration
exiting
a
control
device;
(
4)
organic
HAP
emissions
per
unit
surface
area
coated;
and
(
5)
percent
reduction
achieved
by
a
capture
system
and
control
device.
Each
format
is
defined,
and
the
major
advantages
and
disadvantages
are
discussed
below.
The
first
type
of
format
considered
would
express
the
emission
limitation
as
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
per
volume
of
coating,
mass
of
coating
solids,
volume
of
coating
solids,
or
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited.
An
advantage
of
this
type
of
format
is
that
it
relates
emissions
to
production
levels,
but
in
a
more
equitable
way
than
one
based
on
units
of
production.
Also,
an
affected
source
would
have
flexibility
in
choosing
among
several
compliance
options
to
achieve
a
standard
based
on
this
type
of
format.
This
type
of
standard,
when
based
on
mass
or
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited,
takes
into
account
the
transfer
efficiency,
i.
e.,
the
fraction
of
coating
solids
used
that
actually
adhere
to
the
substrate.
A
mass
of
HAP
per
volume
of
coating
format
(
i.
e.,
kg
HAP/
liter
(
lb
HAP/
gallon
(
gal))
of
coating)
either
for
each
coating
or
as
an
average
across
all
coatings
could
be
used.
While
this
format
is
simple
to
understand
and
use,
its
main
disadvantage
is
that
it
would
not
credit
sources
that
switch
to
lower­
emitting,
higher­
solids
coatings.
For
example,
a
facility
using
a
coating
with
a
solids
content
of
40
percent
and
a
HAP
content
of
3
lb/
gal
will
use
fewer
pounds
of
HAP
than
a
facility
using
a
coating
with
a
solids
content
of
20
percent
and
a
HAP
content
of
2
lb/
gal
because
the
first
facility
will
use
50
percent
less
coating
than
the
second.
A
comparison
of
the
emission
potential
of
two
coatings
using
a
mass
HAP
per
volume
coating
format
cannot
be
made.
An
alternative
format
is
a
mass
HAP
per
volume
of
coating
solids
(
i.
e.,
kg
HAP/
liter
(
lb
HAP/
gal)
of
coating
solids).
This
format
would
adequately
credit
sources
that
converted
conventional
higher­
HAP­
solvent
coatings
to
higher­
solids
coatings.
The
same
is
true
for
a
format
of
mass
HAP/
mass
of
solids
(
i.
e.,
kg
HAP/
kg
(
lb
HAP/
lb)
solids).
For
example,
if
a
source
were
to
increase
the
solids
content
of
a
coating
and
thereby
decrease
the
quantity
of
coating
used,
either
of
these
formats
would
properly
credit
the
affected
source's
emissions
reductions.
However,
there
are
potential
drawbacks
to
the
mass
HAP/
mass
solids
format.
Such
a
standard
does
not
take
into
account
the
sometimes
considerable
differences
in
coating
solids
densities.
Either
the
mass
HAP/
mass
solid
or
the
mass
HAP/
volume
solid
formats
can
be
restated
to
consider
applied
solids
rather
than
solids
contained
in
the
coating
to
provide
credit
for
application
techniques
with
higher
transfer
efficiencies.
The
second
format
considered
is
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
per
unit
of
production
(
e.
g.,
kg
HAP
per
vehicle
coated).
Its
major
disadvantage
is
that
the
surface
area
of
automobiles
and
light­
duty
trucks
varies
greatly.
The
third
format
considered,
a
limit
on
the
concentration
of
organic
HAP
in
the
exhaust
from
the
control
device
would
only
apply
to
sources
that
use
add­
on
control
devices.
This
format
for
a
standard
is
the
easiest
to
enforce
because
direct
emissions
measurements
can
be
made
using
Method
25
or
25A.
However,
the
concentration
of
organic
HAP
emitted
from
the
control
device
does
not
reflect
total
emissions
because
of
the
possibility
of
uncaptured
emissions
from
the
coating
operation,
nor
does
it
limit
total
emissions
because
of
the
effect
of
varying
the
exhaust
flow
rates
(
i.
e.,
increasing
dilution
air).
For
example,
two
similar
coating
operations
could
produce
the
same
amount
of
organic
HAP
yet
have
different
inlet
concentrations
to
the
control
device
because
of
variations
in
capture
of
emissions
from
the
coating
operation
and
because
of
varying
oven
airflow
rates.
A
standard
based
on
outlet
concentration
would
require
the
line
with
the
higher
concentration
(
lower
airflow
rate)
to
control
more
organic
HAP
emissions
than
the
line
with
the
lower
inlet
concentration.
Because
management
of
airflow
rates
is
generally
under
the
control
of
the
operator,
this
format
would
not
reflect
the
application
of
MACT
for
the
coating
operation.
Furthermore,
this
format
would
limit
the
compliance
options
available
to
sources
because
it
would
not
accommodate
the
use
of
either
low­
HAP
content
coatings
and
other
materials,
or
the
use
of
a
combination
of
capture
and
control
systems
in
conjunction
with
reduced­
HAP
coatings
and
other
materials.
The
fourth
format,
organic
HAP
emissions
per
unit
surface
area
coated,
provides
flexibility
in
the
selection
of
coating
materials,
the
streams
to
be
controlled,
and
the
approach
to
capture
and
control.
We
requested
surface
area
data
for
vehicles
produced
during
the
ICR
reporting
year
and
received
data
of
this
type
from
a
number
of
respondents.
The
data
that
we
received
were
incomplete,
and
the
methods
of
estimating
vehicle
surface
areas
varied
widely.
In
many
cases,
computer
generated
design
drawings
were
analyzed
to
estimate
surface
areas.
The
algorithms
used
to
make
the
estimates
are
unlikely
to
be
consistent
from
manufacturer
to
manufacturer.
While
a
standard
in
this
format
has
some
advantages,
it
would
be
difficult
to
establish
MACT
because
of
the
inconsistent
basis
of
the
estimates.
The
fifth
format,
percent
reduction,
would
only
apply
to
sources
that
use
add­
on
control
devices.
This
format
is
often
the
best
choice
when
capture
and
control
systems
are
widely
used
in
the
source
category,
and
the
achievable
percent
reduction
over
a
wide
range
of
operating
conditions
is
predictable.
The
advantages
of
this
format
are
that
it
would
reflect
MACT
at
all
facilities,
and
the
facilities
would
be
allowed
flexibility
in
the
method
selected
for
achieving
the
percent
reduction.
A
disadvantage
of
the
percent
reduction
format
is
that
it
does
not
credit
improvements
in
the
materials
or
processes.
For
example,
reduction
in
the
organic
HAP
content
of
a
coating
or
in
the
amount
of
coating
applied
per
unit
of
substrate
manufactured
would
not
be
credited
toward
compliance.
This
might
discourage
development
of
low­
or
non­
HAP
coatings.
Similar
to
the
concentration
format
for
a
standard,
this
format
also
would
not
accommodate
the
use
of
either
low­
HAP
content
coatings
and
other
materials
or
a
combination
of
capture
and
control
systems
in
conjunction
with
reduced­
HAP
coatings
and
other
materials
as
a
means
of
compliance.
Format
selected.
We
selected
mass
of
HAP
emitted
per
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited
as
the
format
for
the
proposed
emission
limit
for
electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive.
All
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
facilities
presently
calculate
VOC
emissions
from
primersurfacer
and
topcoat
application
in
this
format
and
have
recordkeeping
systems
in
place
to
track
coating
usage,
mass
fraction
of
VOC,
volume
fraction
of
solids,
and
transfer
efficiencies.
Responses
to
the
ICR
were,
for
the
most
part,
based
on
adaptions
of
these
systems
to
calculate
organic
HAP
emissions
from
both
topcoat
and
primer
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78624
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
surfacer
application.
Only
minor
adjustments
would
be
necessary
to
include
electrodeposition
coatings,
as
only
two
to
four
different
materials
are
used
for
this
process,
and
the
transfer
efficiency
is
essentially
100
percent.
Such
a
format
would
be
consistent
with
the
information
upon
which
MACT
determination
was
based.
This
format
gives
credit
for
the
use
of
low­
or
zeroorganic
HAP
coatings
or
high
solids
coatings
in
one
or
more
application
processes,
as
well
as
improved
application
techniques
which
result
in
higher
transfer
efficiencies
for
primersurfacer
and
topcoat.
This
format
would
allow
sources
flexibility
to
use
a
combination
of
emission
capture
and
control
systems
as
well
as
low­
HAP
content
coatings
and
other
materials.
We
selected
mass
of
organic
HAP
per
mass
of
coating
as
the
format
for
the
proposed
standards
for
adhesives
and
sealers,
and
deadeners.
These
materials
are
applied
with
nearly
100
percent
transfer
efficiency
in
most
cases
and
emissions
from
these
materials
are
rarely,
if
ever,
directed
to
add­
on
control
devices.

F.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Testing
and
Initial
Compliance
Requirements?
We
have
proposed
a
compliance
procedure
for
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive.
The
procedure
takes
into
account
the
volume
of
each
coating
used,
its
mass
organic
HAP
content,
volume
solids
content,
and
density,
as
well
as
the
transfer
efficiency
and
the
overall
efficiency
of
any
add­
on
control
devices.
The
procedure
is
modeled
after
the
procedure
in
``
Protocol
for
Determining
Daily
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emission
Rate
of
Automobile
and
Light­
Duty
Truck
Topcoat
Operations,''
EPA
 
450/
3
 
88
 
018
(
docket
A
 
2001
 
22),
presently
used
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
VOC
emission
limits
for
topcoat
and
primersurfacer
application
at
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
facilities.
We
have
proposed
a
monthly
average
mass
organic
HAP
content
determination
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
for
adhesives
and
sealers,
and
deadeners.
Method
311
of
40
CFR
part
63,
appendix
A,
is
the
method
developed
by
EPA
for
determining
the
HAP
content
of
coatings
and
has
been
used
in
previous
surface
coating
NESHAP.
We
have
not
identified
any
other
methods
that
provide
advantages
over
Method
311
for
use
in
the
proposed
rule.
Method
24
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A,
is
the
method
developed
by
EPA
for
determining
the
VOC
content
of
coatings
and
can
be
used
if
you
choose
to
determine
the
nonaqueous
volatile
matter
content
as
a
surrogate
for
organic
HAP.
In
past
rules,
VOC
emission
control
measures
have
been
implemented
in
the
coatings
industry
with
Method
24
as
the
compliance
method.
We
have
not
identified
any
other
methods
that
provide
advantages
over
Method
24
for
use
in
the
proposed
rule.
The
proposed
requirements
for
determining
volume
solids
would
allow
you
to
choose
between
calculating
the
value
using
either
ASTM
Method
D2697
 
86
(
1988)
or
ASTM
Method
D6093
 
97.
You
may
use
information
provided
by
your
coating
supplier
instead
of
conducting
the
HAP,
solids,
and
density
determinations
yourself.
The
above
specified
test
methods
will
take
precedence
if
there
is
any
discrepancy
between
the
result
of
the
methods
and
information
provided
by
your
suppliers.
Capture
and
control
systems.
If
you
use
an
emission
capture
and
control
system,
you
would
be
required
to
conduct
an
initial
performance
test
of
the
system
to
determine
its
overall
control
efficiency.
The
overall
control
efficiency
would
be
combined
with
the
monthly
HAP
content
of
the
coatings
and
other
materials
used
in
the
affected
source
to
derive
the
monthly
HAP
emission
rate
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
standard
for
electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive.
If
you
conduct
a
performance
test,
you
would
also
determine
parameter
operating
limits
during
the
test.
The
test
methods
that
the
proposed
rule
would
require
for
the
performance
test
have
been
required
for
many
industrial
surface
coating
sources
under
NSPS
in
40
CFR
part
60
and
NESHAP
in
40
CFR
part
63.
We
have
not
identified
any
other
methods
that
provide
advantages
over
these
methods.
Work
practices.
In
the
initial
compliance
report,
you
would
certify
that
you
have
met
the
proposed
work
practice
standards
during
the
initial
compliance
period.
You
would
also
keep
the
records
required
to
document
your
actions.
These
are
minimal
compliance
requirements
to
ensure
you
are
meeting
the
standards.

G.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements?
To
ensure
continuous
compliance
with
the
proposed
emission
limits
and
operating
limits,
the
proposed
rule
would
require
continuous
parameter
monitoring
of
capture
systems,
add­
on
control
devices,
and
recordkeeping.
We
selected
the
following
requirements
based
on:
reasonable
cost,
ease
of
execution,
and
usefulness
of
the
resulting
data
to
both
the
owners
or
operators
and
EPA
for
ensuring
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
and
operating
limits.
We
are
proposing
that
certain
parameters
be
continuously
monitored
for
the
types
of
capture
and
control
systems
commonly
used
in
the
industry.
These
monitoring
parameters
have
been
used
in
other
standards
for
similar
industries.
The
values
of
these
parameters
that
correspond
to
compliance
with
the
proposed
emission
limits
are
established
during
the
initial
or
most
recent
performance
test
that
demonstrates
compliance.
These
values
are
your
operating
limits
for
the
capture
and
control
system.
You
would
be
required
to
determine
3­
hour
average
values
for
most
monitored
parameters
for
the
affected
source.
We
selected
this
averaging
period
to
allow
for
normal
variation
of
the
parameter
while
ensuring
that
the
control
system
is
continuously
operating
at
the
same
or
better
control
level
as
during
a
performance
test
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
emission
limits.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
monthly
emission
limits,
you
would
also
need
records
of
the
quantity
of
coatings
and
other
materials
used
and
the
data
and
calculations
supporting
your
determination
of
their
HAP
content.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards,
you
would
keep
the
associated
records
specified
in
your
work
practice
plan,
as
required
by
the
proposed
rule,
and
comply
with
the
associated
reporting
requirements.

H.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements?
You
would
be
required
to
comply
with
the
applicable
requirements
in
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions,
subpart
A
of
40
CFR
part
63,
as
described
in
Table
2
of
the
proposed
rule.
We
evaluated
the
General
Provisions
requirements
and
included
those
we
determined
to
be
the
minimum
notification,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
necessary
to
ensure
compliance
with,
and
effective
enforcement
of,
the
proposed
standards.

I.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Compliance
Date?
The
proposed
rule
allows
existing
sources
3
years
from
the
effective
date
of
the
final
standards
to
demonstrate
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78625
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
compliance.
This
is
the
maximum
compliance
period
permitted
by
the
CAA.
We
believe
that
3
years
may
be
necessary
for
some
affected
sources
to
design,
install,
and
test
improved
capture
systems
and
control
devices.
Sources
that
adopt
reformulated
lower
HAP
coatings
or
powder
coatings
may
also
need
3
years
to
specify,
adjust
application
equipment,
and
modify
existing
coating
processes.
New
or
reconstructed
affected
sources
must
comply
immediately
upon
startup
or
the
effective
date
of
the
proposed
rule,
whichever
is
later
as
required
by
the
CAA.

IV.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy,
and
Economic
Impacts
A.
What
Are
the
Air
Quality
Impacts?

The
proposed
rule
would
decrease
HAP
emissions
from
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
facilities
from
an
estimated
10,000
tpy
to
4,000
tpy.
This
represents
a
decrease
of
6,000
tpy
or
60
percent.
The
proposed
rule
would
also
decrease
VOC
by
approximately
12,000
to
18,000
tpy.
These
values
were
calculated
in
comparison
to
baseline
emissions
reported
to
EPA
by
individual
facilities
for
1996
or
1997.

B.
What
Are
the
Cost
Impacts?

The
estimated
total
capital
costs
of
compliance,
including
the
costs
of
monitors,
is
$
670
million.
This
will
result
in
an
additional
annualized
capital
cost
of
$
75
million
compared
to
a
baseline
total
capital
expenditure
of
$
4
to
$
5
billion
per
year.
The
projected
total
annual
costs,
including
capital
recovery,
operating
costs,
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
is
$
154
million
per
year.
This
represents
less
than
one­
tenth
of
1
percent
of
the
baseline
industry
revenues
of
$
290
billion
and
just
over
1.0
percent
of
baseline
industry
pre­
tax
earnings
of
$
14
billion.
The
cost
analysis
assumed
that
each
existing
facility
would
use,
in
the
order
presented,
as
many
of
the
following
four
steps
as
necessary
to
meet
the
proposed
emission
limit.
First,
if
needed,
facilities
that
did
not
already
control
their
electrodeposition
primer
bake
oven
exhaust
would
install
and
operate
such
control
at
an
average
cost
of
$
8,200
per
ton
of
HAP
controlled.
Next,
if
needed,
facilities
would
reduce
the
HAP­
to­
VOC
ratio
of
their
primer­
surfacer
and
topcoat
materials
to
0.3
to
1.0
at
an
average
cost
of
$
540
per
ton
of
HAP
controlled.
Finally,
if
needed,
facilities
would
control
the
necessary
amount
of
primer­
surfacer
and
topcoat
spray
booth
exhaust
at
an
average
cost
of
$
40,000
per
ton
of
HAP
controlled.
For
all
four
steps
combined,
the
average
cost
is
about
$
25,000
per
ton
of
HAP
controlled.
New
facilities
and
new
paint
shops
would
incur
little
additional
cost
to
meet
the
proposed
emission
limit.
These
facilities
would
already
include
bake
oven
controls
and
partial
spray
booth
exhaust
controls
for
VOC
control
purposes.
New
facilities
might
need
to
make
some
downward
adjustment
in
the
HAP
content
of
their
materials
to
meet
the
proposed
emission
limit.

C.
What
Are
the
Economic
Impacts?
The
EPA
prepared
an
economic
impact
analysis
to
evaluate
the
primary
and
secondary
impacts
the
proposed
rule
would
have
on
the
producers
and
consumers
of
automobiles
and
lightduty
trucks,
and
society
as
a
whole.
The
analysis
was
conducted
to
determine
the
economic
impacts
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
at
both
the
market
and
industry
levels.
Overall,
the
analysis
indicates
a
minimal
change
in
vehicle
prices
and
production
quantities.
Based
on
the
estimated
compliance
costs
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
and
the
predicted
changes
in
prices
and
production
in
the
affected
industry,
the
estimated
annual
social
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
is
projected
to
be
$
161
million
(
1999
dollars).
The
social
costs
take
into
account
changes
in
behavior
by
producers
and
consumers
due
to
the
imposition
of
compliance
costs
from
the
proposed
rule.
For
this
reason
the
estimated
annual
social
costs
differ
from
the
estimated
annual
engineering
costs
of
$
154
million.
Producers,
in
aggregate,
are
expected
to
bear
$
152
million
annually
in
costs
while
the
consumers
are
expected
to
incur
the
remaining
$
10
million
in
social
costs
associated
with
the
proposed
rule.
The
economic
model
projects
an
aggregate
price
increase
for
the
modeled
vehicle
classes
of
automobiles
and
lightduty
trucks
to
be
less
than
1/
100th
of
1
percent
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
standards.
This
represents
at
most
an
increase
in
price
of
$
3.00
per
vehicle.
The
model
also
projects
that
directly
affected
producers
would
reduce
total
production
by
approximately
1,400
vehicles
per
year.
This
represents
approximately
0.01
percent
of
the
12.7
million
vehicles
produced
by
the
potentially
affected
plants
in
1999,
the
baseline
year
of
analysis.
In
terms
of
industry
impacts,
the
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
manufacturers
are
projected
to
experience
a
decrease
in
pre­
tax
earnings
of
about
1
percent
or
$
152
million.
In
comparison,
total
pre­
tax
earnings
for
the
potentially
affected
plants
included
in
the
analysis
exceeded
$
14
billion
in
1999.
The
reduction
in
pre­
tax
earnings
of
1
percent
reflects
an
increase
in
production
costs
and
a
decline
in
revenues
earned
from
a
reduction
in
the
quantity
of
vehicles
sold.
Through
the
market
and
industry
impacts
described
above,
the
proposed
rule
would
lead
to
a
redistribution
of
profits
within
the
industry.
Some
facilities
(
28
percent)
are
projected
to
experience
a
profit
increase
with
the
proposed
rule;
however,
the
majority
(
72
percent)
that
continue
operating
are
projected
to
lose
profits.
No
facilities
are
projected
to
close
due
to
the
proposed
rule.

D.
What
Are
the
Non­
Air
Health,
Environmental,
and
Energy
Impacts?
Solid
waste
and
water
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
are
expected
to
be
negligible.
Capture
of
additional
organic
HAP­
laden
streams
and
control
of
these
streams
with
regenerative
thermal
oxidizers
is
expected
to
require
an
additional
180
million
kilowatt
hours
per
year
and
an
additional
4.9
billion
standard
cubic
feet
per
year
of
natural
gas.

E.
Can
We
Achieve
the
Goals
of
the
Proposed
Rule
in
a
Less
Costly
Manner?
We
have
made
every
effort
in
developing
this
proposal
to
minimize
the
cost
to
the
regulated
community
and
allow
maximum
flexibility
in
compliance
options
consistent
with
our
statutory
obligations.
We
recognize,
however,
that
the
proposal
may
still
require
some
facilities
to
take
costly
steps
to
further
control
emissions
even
though
those
emissions
may
not
result
in
exposures
which
could
pose
an
excess
individual
lifetime
cancer
risk
greater
than
1
in
1
million
or
exceed
thresholds
determined
to
provide
an
ample
margin
of
safety
for
protecting
public
health
and
the
environment
from
the
effects
of
HAP.
We
are,
therefore,
specifically
soliciting
comment
on
whether
there
are
further
ways
to
structure
the
proposed
rule
to
focus
on
the
facilities
which
pose
significant
risks
and
avoid
the
imposition
of
high
costs
on
facilities
that
pose
little
risk
to
public
health
and
the
environment.
During
the
rulemaking
process
on
a
separate
proposed
NESHAP,
representatives
of
the
plywood
and
composite
wood
products
industry
provided
EPA
with
descriptions
of
three
approaches
that
they
believed
could
be
used
to
implement
more
cost­
effective
reductions
in
risk.
These
approaches
could
be
effective
in
focusing
regulatory
controls
on
facilities
that
pose
significant
risks
and
avoiding
the
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78626
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
imposition
of
high
costs
on
facilities
that
pose
little
risk
to
public
health
or
the
environment,
and
we
are
seeking
public
comment
on
the
utility
of
each
of
these
approaches
with
respect
to
this
rule.
The
docket
for
today's
proposed
rule
contains
``
white
papers''
prepared
by
the
plywood
and
composite
wood
products
industry
that
outline
their
proposed
approaches
(
see
docket
number
A
 
2001
 
22).
One
of
the
approaches,
an
applicability
cutoff
for
threshold
pollutants,
would
be
implemented
under
the
authority
of
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4);
the
second
approach,
subcategorization
and
delisting,
would
be
implemented
under
the
authority
of
CAA
section
112(
c)(
1)
and
(
c)(
9);
and
the
third
approach
would
involve
the
use
of
a
concentration­
based
applicability
threshold.
We
are
seeking
comment
on
whether
these
approaches
are
legally
justified
and,
if
so,
we
ask
for
information
that
could
be
used
to
support
such
approaches.
The
MACT
program
outlined
in
CAA
section
112(
d)
is
intended
to
reduce
emissions
of
HAP
through
the
application
of
MACT
to
major
sources
of
toxic
air
pollutants.
Section
112(
c)(
9)
is
intended
to
allow
EPA
to
avoid
setting
MACT
standards
for
categories
or
subcategories
of
sources
that
pose
less
than
a
specified
level
of
risk
to
public
health
and
the
environment.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
the
proposals
described
here
appropriately
rely
on
these
provisions
of
CAA
section
112.
The
two
health­
based
approaches
focus
on
assessing
inhalation
exposures
or
accounting
for
adverse
environmental
impacts.
In
addition
to
the
specific
requests
for
comment
noted
in
this
section,
we
are
also
interested
in
any
information
or
comment
concerning
technical
limitations,
environmental
and
cost
impacts,
compliance
assurance,
legal
rationale,
and
implementation
relevant
to
the
identified
approaches.
We
also
request
comment
on
appropriate
practicable
and
verifiable
methods
to
ensure
that
sources'
emissions
remain
below
levels
that
protect
public
health
and
the
environment.
We
will
evaluate
all
comments
before
determining
whether
to
include
an
approach
in
the
final
rule.

1.
Industry
HAP
emissions
and
potential
health
effects
For
the
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
source
category,
seven
HAP
account
for
over
95
percent
of
the
total
HAP
emitted.
Those
seven
HAP
are
toluene,
xylene,
glycol
ethers
(
including
ethylene
glycol
monobutyl
ether
(
EGBE)),
MEK,
MIBK,
ethylbenzene,
and
methanol.
Additional
HAP
which
may
be
emitted
by
some
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operations
are:
Ethylene
glycol,
hexane,
formaldehyde,
chromium
compounds,
diisocyanates,
manganese
compounds,
methyl
methacrylate,
methylene
chloride,
and
nickel
compounds.
Of
the
seven
HAP
emitted
in
the
largest
quantities
by
this
source
category,
all
can
cause
toxic
effects
following
sufficient
exposure.
The
potential
toxic
effects
of
these
seven
HAP
include
effects
to
the
central
nervous
system,
such
as
fatigue,
nausea,
tremors,
and
loss
of
motor
coordination;
adverse
effects
on
the
liver,
kidneys,
and
blood;
respiratory
effects;
and
developmental
effects.
In
addition,
one
of
the
seven
predominant
HAP,
EGBE,
is
a
possible
carcinogen,
although
information
on
this
compound
is
not
currently
sufficient
to
allow
us
to
quantify
its
potency.
In
accordance
with
CAA
section
112(
k),
EPA
developed
a
list
of
33
HAP
which
present
the
greatest
threat
to
public
health
in
the
largest
number
of
urban
areas.
None
of
the
predominant
seven
HAP
is
included
on
this
list
for
EPA's
Urban
Air
Toxics
Program,
although
three
of
the
other
emitted
HAP
(
formaldehyde,
manganese
compounds,
and
nickel
compounds)
appear
on
the
list.
In
November
1998,
EPA
published
``
A
Multimedia
Strategy
for
Priority
Persistent,
Bioaccumulative,
and
Toxic
(
PBT)
Pollutants.''
None
of
the
predominant
seven
HAP
emitted
by
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operations
appears
on
the
published
list
of
compounds
referred
to
in
EPA's
PBT
strategy.
To
estimate
the
potential
baseline
risks
posed
by
the
source
category
and
the
potential
impact
of
applicability
cutoffs,
EPA
performed
a
``
rough''
risk
assessment
for
56
of
the
approximately
60
facilities
in
the
source
category
by
using
a
model
plant
placed
at
the
actual
location
of
each
plant
and
simulating
impacts
using
air
emissions
data
from
the
1999
EPA
Toxics
Release
Inventory
(
TRI).
In
addition
to
the
seven
predominant
HAP,
the
following
additional
HAP
were
included
in
this
rough
risk
assessment
because
they
were
reported
in
TRI
as
being
emitted
by
facilities
in
the
source
category:
ethylene
glycol,
hexane,
formaldehyde,
diisocyanates,
manganese
compounds,
nickel
compounds,
and
benzene.
The
benzene
emissions
and
some
of
the
nickel
emissions
are
from
non­
surface
coating
activities
which
are
not
part
of
the
source
category.
Of
the
HAP
reported
in
TRI
which
are
emitted
from
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operations,
three
(
formaldehyde,
nickel
compounds,
and
EGBE)
are
carcinogens
that,
at
present,
are
not
considered
to
have
thresholds
for
cancer
effects.
Ethylene
glycol
monobutyl
ether,
however,
may
be
a
threshold
carcinogen,
as
suggested
by
some
recent
evidence
from
animal
studies,
though
EPA,
at
present,
considers
it
to
be
a
nonthreshold
carcinogen
without
sufficient
information
to
quantify
its
cancer
potency.
Likewise,
formaldehyde
is
a
potential
threshold
carcinogen,
and
EPA
is
currently
revising
the
dose­
response
assessment
for
formaldehyde.
Most
facilities
in
this
source
category
emit
some
small
quantity
of
formaldehyde.
In
the
1999
TRI,
however,
only
two
facilities
in
this
source
category
reported
formaldehyde
emissions.
No
other
facilities
exceeded
the
TRI
reporting
threshold
for
formaldehyde
in
1999.
The
baseline
cancer
risk
and
subsequent
cancer
risk
reductions
were
estimated
to
be
minimal
for
this
source
category.
Of
the
three
carcinogens
included
in
the
assessment,
emissions
reductions
attributable
to
the
proposed
standards
could
be
estimated
for
only
EGBE.
However,
since
EGBE
risks
cannot
currently
be
quantified,
the
cancer
risk
reductions
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
are
estimated
by
this
rough
assessment
to
be
minimal.
However,
noncancer
risks
are
projected
to
be
significantly
reduced
by
the
proposed
rule.
(
Details
of
this
assessment
are
available
in
the
docket.)

2.
Applicability
Cutoffs
for
Threshold
Pollutants
Under
CAA
Section
112(
d)(
4)

The
first
approach
is
an
``
applicability
cutoff''
for
threshold
pollutants
that
is
based
on
EPA's
authority
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
establish
standards
for
HAP
which
are
``
threshold
pollutants.''
A
``
threshold
pollutant''
is
one
for
which
there
is
a
concentration
or
dose
below
which
adverse
effects
are
not
expected
to
occur
over
a
lifetime
of
exposure.
For
such
pollutants,
section
112(
d)(
4)
allows
EPA
to
consider
the
threshold
level,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
when
establishing
emission
standards.
Specifically,
section
112(
d)(
4)
allows
EPA
to
establish
emission
standards
that
are
not
based
upon
the
MACT
specified
under
section
112(
d)(
2)
for
pollutants
for
which
a
health
threshold
has
been
established.
Such
standards
may
be
less
stringent
than
MACT.
Historically,
EPA
has
interpreted
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
allow
categories
of
sources
that
emit
only
threshold
pollutants
to
avoid
further
regulation
if
those
emissions
result
in
ambient
levels
that
do
not
exceed
the
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78627
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
1
See
63
18754,
18765
 
66
(
April
15,
1998)
(
Pulp
and
Paper
Combustion
Sources
Proposed
NESHAP).
2
``
Methods
for
Derivation
of
Inhalation
reference
Concentrations
and
Applications
of
Inhalation
Dosimetry.''
EPA
 
600/
8
 
90
 
066F,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
USEPA,
October
1994.
3
``
Supplementary
Guidance
for
Conducting
Health
Risk
Assessment
of
Chemical
Mixtures.
Risk
Assessment
Forum
Technical
Panel,''
EPA/
630/
R
 
00/
002.
USEPA,
August
2000.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
nceawww1/
pdfs/
chem_
mix/
chem_
mix_
08_
2001.
pdf.
threshold,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
1
A
different
interpretation
would
allow
us
to
exempt
individual
facilities
within
a
source
category
that
meet
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
requirements.
There
are
three
potential
scenarios
under
this
interpretation
of
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
provision.
One
scenario
would
allow
an
exemption
for
individual
facilities
that
emit
only
threshold
pollutants
and
can
demonstrate
that
their
emissions
of
threshold
pollutants
would
not
result
in
air
concentrations
above
the
threshold
levels,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
even
if
the
category
is
otherwise
subject
to
MACT.
A
second
scenario
would
allow
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
provision
to
be
applied
to
both
threshold
and
nonthreshold
pollutants,
using
the
1
in
1
million
cancer
risk
level
for
decisionmaking
for
non­
threshold
pollutants.
A
third
scenario
would
allow
a
section
112(
d)(
4)
exemption
at
a
facility
that
emits
both
threshold
and
nonthreshold
pollutants.
For
those
emission
points
where
only
threshold
pollutants
are
emitted
and
where
emissions
of
the
threshold
pollutants
would
not
result
in
air
concentrations
above
the
threshold
levels,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
those
emission
points
could
be
exempt
from
the
MACT
standards.
The
MACT
standards
would
still
apply
to
nonthreshold
emissions
from
other
emission
points
at
the
source.
For
this
third
scenario,
emission
points
that
emit
a
combination
of
threshold
and
nonthreshold
pollutants
that
are
cocontrolled
by
MACT
would
still
be
subject
to
the
MACT
level
of
control.
However,
any
threshold
HAP
eligible
for
exemption
under
section
112(
d)(
4)
that
are
controlled
by
control
devices
different
from
those
controlling
nonthreshold
HAP
would
be
able
to
use
the
exemption,
and
the
facility
would
still
be
subject
to
the
sections
of
the
standards
that
control
non­
threshold
pollutants
or
that
control
both
threshold
and
non­
threshold
pollutants.
Estimation
of
hazard
quotients
and
hazard
indices.
Under
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
approach,
EPA
would
have
to
determine
that
emissions
of
each
of
the
threshold
pollutants
emitted
by
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operations
at
the
facility
do
not
result
in
exposures
which
exceed
the
threshold
levels,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
The
common
approach
for
evaluating
the
potential
hazard
of
a
threshold
air
pollutant
is
to
calculate
a
``
hazard
quotient''
by
dividing
the
pollutant's
inhalation
exposure
concentration
(
often
assumed
to
be
equivalent
to
its
estimated
concentration
in
air
at
a
location
where
people
could
be
exposed)
by
the
pollutant's
inhalation
Reference
Concentration
(
RfC).
An
RfC
is
an
estimate
(
with
uncertainty
spanning
perhaps
an
order
of
magnitude)
of
a
continuous
inhalation
exposure
that,
over
a
lifetime,
likely
would
not
result
in
the
occurrence
of
adverse
health
effects
in
humans,
including
sensitive
individuals.
The
EPA
typically
establishes
an
RfC
by
applying
uncertainty
factors
to
the
critical
toxic
effect
derived
from
the
lowest­
or
no­
observed­
adverse­
effect
level
of
a
pollutant
2.
A
hazard
quotient
less
than
one
means
that
the
exposure
concentration
of
the
pollutant
is
less
than
the
RfC
and,
therefore,
presumed
to
be
without
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
health
effects.
A
hazard
quotient
greater
than
one
means
that
the
exposure
concentration
of
the
pollutant
is
greater
than
the
RfC.
Further,
EPA
guidance
for
assessing
exposures
to
mixtures
of
threshold
pollutants
recommends
calculating
a
hazard
index
(
HI)
by
summing
the
individual
hazard
quotients
for
those
pollutants
in
the
mixture
that
affect
the
same
target
organ
or
system
by
the
same
mechanism
3.
The
HI
values
would
be
interpreted
similarly
to
hazard
quotients;
values
below
one
would
generally
be
considered
to
be
without
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
health
effects,
and
values
above
one
would
generally
be
cause
for
concern.
For
the
determinations
discussed
herein,
EPA
would
generally
plan
to
use
RfC
values
contained
in
EPA's
toxicology
database,
the
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
IRIS).
When
a
pollutant
does
not
have
an
approved
RfC
in
IRIS,
or
when
a
pollutant
is
a
carcinogen,
EPA
would
have
to
determine
whether
a
threshold
exists
based
upon
the
availability
of
specific
data
on
the
pollutant's
mode
or
mechanism
of
action,
potentially
using
a
health
threshold
value
from
an
alternative
source,
such
as
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(
ATSDR)
or
the
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
CalEPA).
Table
4
provides
RfC,
as
well
as
unit
risk
estimates,
for
the
HAP
emitted
by
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operations.
A
unit
risk
estimate
is
defined
as
the
upperbound
excess
lifetime
cancer
risk
estimated
to
result
from
continuous
exposure
to
an
agent
at
a
concentration
of
1
ug/
m
3
in
the
air.

TABLE
4.
 
DOSE­
RESPONSE
ASSESSMENT
VALUES
FOR
HAP
REPORTED
EMITTED
BY
THE
AUTOMOBILE
AND
LIGHT­
DUTY
TRUCK
SURFACE
COATING
SOURCE
CATEGORY
Chemical
name
CAS
No.
Reference
concentration
a
(
mg/
m3)
Unit
risk
estimate
b
(
1/(
ug/
m3))

Chromium
(
VI)
compounds
................................................................
18540
 
29
 
9
1.0E
 
04
(
IRIS)
1.2E
 
02
(
IRIS)
Chromium
(
VI)
trioxide,
chromic
acid
mist
........................................
11115
 
74
 
5
8.0E
 
06
(
IRIS)
Ethyl
benzene
....................................................................................
100
 
41
 
4
1.0E+
00
(
IRIS)
Ethylene
glycol
...................................................................................
107
 
21
 
1
4.0E
 
01
(
CAL)
Formaldehyde
....................................................................................
50
 
00
 
0
9.8E
 
03
(
ATSDR)
1.3E
 
05
(
IRIS)
Diethylene
glycol
monobutyl
ether
.....................................................
112
 
34
 
5
2.0E
 
02
(
HEAST)
Ethylene
glycol
monobutyl
ether
........................................................
111
 
76
 
2
1.3E+
01
(
IRIS)
Hexamethylene­
1,
6­
diisocyanate
......................................................
822
 
06
 
0
1.0E
 
05
(
IRIS)
n­
Hexane
...........................................................................................
110
 
54
 
3
2.0E
 
01
(
IRIS)
Manganese
compounds
....................................................................
7439
 
96
 
5
5.0E
 
05
(
IRIS)
Methanol
............................................................................................
67
 
56
 
1
4.0E+
00
(
CAL)
Methyl
ethyl
ketone
............................................................................
78
 
93
 
3
1.0E+
00
(
IRIS)
Methyl
isobutyl
ketone
.......................................................................
108
 
10
 
1
8.0E
 
02
(
HEAST)
Methyl
methacrylate
...........................................................................
80
 
62
 
6
7.0E
 
01
(
IRIS)
Methylene
chloride
.............................................................................
75
 
09
 
2
1.0E+
00
(
ATSDR)
4.7E
 
07
(
IRIS)

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78628
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
4
Ibid.
5
Senate
Debate
on
Conference
Report
(
October
27,
1990),
reprinted
in
``
A
Legislative
History
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990,''
Comm.
Print
S.
Prt.
103
 
38
(
1993)
(``
Legis.
Hist.'')
at
868.
TABLE
4.
 
DOSE­
RESPONSE
ASSESSMENT
VALUES
FOR
HAP
REPORTED
EMITTED
BY
THE
AUTOMOBILE
AND
LIGHT­
DUTY
TRUCK
SURFACE
COATING
SOURCE
CATEGORY
 
Continued
Chemical
name
CAS
No.
Reference
concentration
a
(
mg/
m3)
Unit
risk
estimate
b
(
1/(
ug/
m3))

Methylene
diphenyl
diisocyanate
.......................................................
101
 
68
 
8
6.0E
 
04
(
IRIS)
Nickel
compounds
.............................................................................
7440
 
02
 
0
2.0E
 
04
(
ATSDR)
Nickel
oxide
.......................................................................................
1313
 
99
 
1
1.0E
 
04
(
CAL)
Toluene
..............................................................................................
108
 
88
 
3
4.0E
 
01
(
IRIS)
2,4/
2,6­
Toluene
diisocyanate
mixture
(
TDI)
......................................
26471
 
62
 
5
7.0E
 
05
(
IRIS)
1.1E
 
05
(
CAL)
Xylenes
(
mixed)
.................................................................................
1330
 
20
 
7
4.3E
 
01
(
ATSDR)

a
Reference
Concentration:
An
estimate
(
with
uncertainty
spanning
perhaps
an
order
of
magnitude)
of
a
continuous
inhalation
exposure
to
the
human
population
(
including
sensitive
subgroups
which
include
children,
asthmatics,
and
the
elderly)
that
is
likely
to
be
without
an
appreciable
risk
of
deleterious
effects
during
a
lifetime.
It
can
be
derived
from
various
types
of
human
or
animal
data,
with
uncertainty
factors
generally
applied
to
reflect
limitations
of
the
data
used.
b
Unit
Risk
Estimate:
The
upper­
bound
excess
lifetime
cancer
risk
estimated
to
result
from
continuous
exposure
to
an
agent
at
a
concentration
of
1
ug/
m3
in
air.
The
interpretation
of
the
Unit
Risk
Estimate
would
be
as
follows:
if
the
Unit
Risk
Estimate
=
1.5
×
10
¥
6
per
ug/
m3,
1.5
excess
tumors
are
expected
to
develop
per
1,000,000
people
if
exposed
daily
for
a
lifetime
to
1
ug
of
the
chemical
in
1
cubic
meter
of
air.
Unit
Risk
Estimates
are
considered
upper
bound
estimates,
meaning
they
represent
a
plausible
upper
limit
to
the
true
value.
(
Note
that
this
is
usually
not
a
true
statistical
confidence
limit.)
The
true
risk
is
likely
to
be
less,
but
could
be
greater.
Sources:
IRIS
=
EPA
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
iris/
subst/
index.
html)
ATSDR
=
U.
S.
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
mrls.
html)
CAL
=
California
Office
of
Environmental
Health
Hazard
Assessment
(
http://
www.
oehha.
ca.
gov/
air/
hot_
spots/
index.
html)
HEAST
=
EPA
Health
Effects
Assessment
Summary
Tables
(#
PB(=
97
 
921199,
July
1997).

To
establish
an
applicability
cutoff
under
section
112(
d)(
4),
EPA
would
need
to
define
ambient
air
exposure
concentration
limits
for
any
threshold
pollutants
involved.
There
are
several
factors
to
consider
when
establishing
such
concentrations.
First,
we
would
need
to
ensure
that
the
concentrations
that
would
be
established
would
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
As
discussed
above,
the
approach
EPA
commonly
uses
when
evaluating
the
potential
hazard
of
a
threshold
air
pollutant
is
to
calculate
the
pollutant's
hazard
quotient,
which
is
the
exposure
concentration
divided
by
the
RfC.
The
EPA's
``
Supplementary
Guidance
for
Conducting
Health
Risk
Assessment
of
Chemical
Mixtures''
suggests
that
the
noncancer
health
effects
associated
with
a
mixture
of
pollutants
ideally
are
assessed
by
considering
the
pollutants'
common
mechanisms
of
toxicity.
4
The
guidance
also
suggests
that
when
exposures
to
mixtures
of
pollutants
are
being
evaluated,
the
risk
assessor
may
calculate
a
HI.
The
recommended
method
is
to
calculate
multiple
hazard
indices
for
each
exposure
route
of
interest
and
for
a
single
specific
toxic
effect
or
toxicity
to
a
single
target
organ.
The
default
approach
recommended
by
the
guidance
is
to
sum
the
hazard
quotients
for
those
pollutants
that
induce
the
same
toxic
effect
or
affect
the
same
target
organ.
A
mixture
is
then
assessed
by
several
HI,
each
representing
one
toxic
effect
or
target
organ.
The
guidance
notes
that
the
pollutants
included
in
the
HI
calculation
are
any
pollutants
that
show
the
effect
being
assessed,
regardless
of
the
critical
effect
upon
which
the
RfC
is
based.
The
guidance
cautions
that
if
the
target
organ
or
toxic
effect
for
which
the
HI
is
calculated
is
different
from
the
RfC's
critical
effect,
then
the
RfC
for
that
chemical
will
be
an
overestimate,
that
is,
the
resultant
HI
potentially
may
be
overprotective.
Conversely,
since
the
calculation
of
a
HI
does
not
account
for
the
fact
that
the
potency
of
a
mixture
of
HAP
can
be
more
potent
than
the
sum
of
the
individual
HAP
potencies,
a
HI
may
potentially
be
underprotective
in
some
situations.
Options
for
establishing
a
HI
limit.
One
consideration
in
establishing
a
HI
limit
is
whether
the
analysis
considers
the
total
ambient
air
concentrations
of
all
the
emitted
HAP
to
which
the
public
is
exposed.
5
There
are
several
options
for
establishing
a
HI
limit
for
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
analysis
that
reflect,
to
varying
degrees,
public
exposure.
One
option
is
to
allow
the
HI
posed
by
all
threshold
HAP
emitted
from
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operations
at
the
facility
to
be
no
greater
than
one.
This
approach
is
protective
if
no
additional
threshold
HAP
exposures
would
be
anticipated
from
other
sources
at,
or
in
the
vicinity
of,
the
facility
or
through
other
routes
of
exposure
(
e.
g.,
through
dermal
absorption).
A
second
option
is
to
adopt
a
``
default
percentage''
approach,
whereby
the
HI
limit
of
the
HAP
emitted
by
the
facility
is
set
at
some
percentage
or
fraction
of
one
(
e.
g.,
20
percent
or
0.2).
This
approach
recognizes
the
fact
that
the
facility
in
question
is
only
one
of
many
sources
of
threshold
HAP
to
which
people
are
typically
exposed
every
day.
Because
noncancer
risk
assessment
is
predicated
on
total
exposure
or
dose,
and
because
risk
assessments
focus
only
on
an
individual
source,
establishing
a
HI
limit
of
0.2
would
account
for
an
assumption
that
20
percent
of
an
individual's
total
exposure
is
from
that
individual
source.
For
the
purposes
of
this
discussion,
we
will
call
all
sources
of
HAP,
other
than
operations
within
the
source
category
at
the
facility
in
question,
``
background''
sources.
If
the
affected
source
is
allowed
to
emit
HAP
such
that
its
own
impacts
could
result
in
HI
values
of
one,
total
exposures
to
threshold
HAP
in
the
vicinity
of
the
facility
could
be
substantially
greater
than
one
due
to
background
sources,
and
this
would
not
be
protective
of
public
health
since
only
HI
values
below
one
are
considered
to
be
without
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
health
effects.
Thus,
setting
the
HI
limit
for
the
facility
at
some
default
percentage
of
one
will
provide
a
buffer
which
would
help
to
ensure
that
total
exposures
to
threshold
HAP
near
the
facility
(
i.
e.,
in
combination
with
exposures
due
to
background
sources)
will
generally
not
exceed
one
and
can
generally
be
considered
to
be
without
appreciable
risk
of
adverse
health
effects.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
using
the
``
default
percentage''
approach
and
on
setting
the
default
HI
limit
at
0.2.
The
EPA
is
also
requesting
comment
on
whether
an
alternative
HI
limit,
in
some
multiple
of
one,
would
be
a
more
appropriate
applicability
cutoff.
A
third
option
is
to
use
available
data
(
from
scientific
literature
or
EPA
studies,
for
example)
to
determine
background
concentrations
of
HAP,

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78629
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
6
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw/
nata.
7
See
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
toxpro2.
html.
8
``
A
Tiered
Modeling
Approach
for
Assessing
the
Risks
due
to
Sources
of
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants.''
EPA
 
450/
4
 
92
 
001.
David
E.
Guinnup,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
USEPA,
March
1992.
9
``
Draft
Revised
Guidelines
for
Carcinogen
Risk
Assessment.''
NCEA
 
F
 
0644.
USEPA,
Risk
Assessment
Forum,
July
1999.
pp
3
 
9ff.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ncea/
raf/
pdfs/
cancer_
gls.
pdf.
possibly
on
a
national
or
regional
basis.
These
data
would
be
used
to
estimate
the
exposures
to
HAP
from
activities
other
than
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
operations.
For
example,
EPA's
National­
Scale
Air
Toxics
Assessment
(
NATA)
6
and
ATSDR's
Toxicological
Profiles
7
contain
information
about
background
concentrations
of
some
HAP
in
the
atmosphere
and
other
media.
The
combined
exposures
from
an
affected
source
and
from
background
emissions
(
as
determined
from
the
literature
or
studies)
would
then
not
be
allowed
to
exceed
a
HI
limit
of
1.0.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
setting
the
HI
limit
at
one
for
such
an
analysis.
A
fourth
option
is
to
allow
facilities
to
estimate
or
measure
their
own
facility­
specific
background
HAP
concentrations
for
use
in
their
analysis.
With
regard
to
the
third
and
fourth
options,
EPA
requests
comment
on
how
these
analyses
could
be
structured.
Specifically,
EPA
requests
comment
on
how
the
analyses
should
take
into
account
background
exposure
levels
from
air,
water,
food,
and
soil
encountered
by
the
individuals
exposed
to
emissions
from
this
source
category.
In
addition,
we
request
comment
on
how
such
analyses
should
account
for
potential
increases
in
exposures
due
to
the
use
of
a
new
HAP
or
the
increased
use
of
a
previously
emitted
HAP,
or
the
effect
of
other
nearby
sources
that
release
HAP.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
the
feasibility
and
scientific
validity
of
each
of
these
or
other
options.
Finally,
EPA
requests
comment
on
how
we
should
implement
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
applicability
cutoffs,
including
appropriate
mechanisms
for
applying
cutoffs
to
individual
facilities.
For
example,
would
the
title
V
permit
process
provide
an
appropriate
mechanism?
Tiered
analytical
approach
for
predicting
exposure.
Establishing
that
a
facility
meets
the
cutoffs
established
under
section
112(
d)(
4)
will
necessarily
involve
combining
estimates
of
pollutant
emissions
with
air
dispersion
modeling
to
predict
exposures.
The
EPA
envisions
that
we
would
promote
a
tiered
analysis
for
these
determinations.
A
tiered
analysis
involves
making
successive
refinements
in
modeling
methodologies
and
input
data
to
derive
successively
less
conservative,
more
realistic
estimates
of
pollutant
concentrations
in
air
and
estimates
of
risk.
As
a
first
tier
of
analysis,
EPA
could
develop
a
series
of
simple
look­
up
tables
based
on
the
results
of
air
dispersion
modeling
conducted
using
conservative
input
assumptions.
By
specifying
a
limited
number
of
input
parameters,
such
as
stack
height,
distance
to
property
line,
and
emission
rate,
a
facility
could
use
these
look­
up
tables
to
determine
easily
whether
the
emissions
from
their
sources
might
cause
a
HI
limit
to
be
exceeded.
A
facility
that
does
not
pass
this
initial
conservative
screening
analysis
could
implement
increasingly
more
sitespecific
and
resource­
intensive
tiers
of
analysis
using
EPA­
approved
modeling
procedures
in
an
attempt
to
demonstrate
that
exposure
to
emissions
from
the
facility
does
not
exceed
the
HI
limit.
Existing
EPA
guidance
could
provide
the
basis
for
conducting
such
a
tiered
analysis.
8
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
methods
for
constructing
and
implementing
a
tiered
analysis
for
determining
applicability
of
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
criteria
to
specific
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
sources.
Ambient
monitoring
data
could
possibly
be
used
to
supplement
or
supplant
the
tiered
modeling
analysis
described
above.
We
envision
that
the
appropriate
monitoring
to
support
such
a
determination
could
be
extensive.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
the
appropriate
use
of
monitoring
in
the
determinations
described
above.
Accounting
for
dose­
response
relationships.
In
the
past,
EPA
routinely
treated
carcinogens
as
non­
threshold
pollutants.
The
EPA
recognizes
that
advances
in
risk
assessment
science
and
policy
may
affect
the
way
EPA
differentiates
between
threshold
and
non­
threshold
HAP.
The
EPA's
draft
Guidelines
for
Carcinogen
Risk
Assessment
9
suggest
that
carcinogens
be
assigned
non­
linear
dose­
response
relationships
where
data
warrant.
Moreover,
it
is
possible
that
doseresponse
curves
for
some
pollutants
may
reach
zero
risk
at
a
dose
greater
than
zero,
creating
a
threshold
for
carcinogenic
effects.
It
is
possible
that
future
evaluations
of
the
carcinogens
emitted
by
this
source
category
would
determine
that
one
or
more
of
the
carcinogens
in
the
category
is
a
threshold
carcinogen
or
is
a
carcinogen
that
exhibits
a
non­
linear
dose­
response
relationship
but
does
not
have
a
threshold.
The
dose­
response
assessment
for
formaldehyde
is
currently
undergoing
revision
by
EPA.
As
part
of
this
revision
effort,
EPA
is
evaluating
formaldehyde
as
a
potential
non­
linear
carcinogen.
The
revised
dose­
response
assessment
will
be
subject
to
review
by
the
EPA
Science
Advisory
Board,
followed
by
full
consensus
review,
before
adoption
into
the
EPA's
IRIS.
At
this
time,
EPA
estimates
that
the
consensus
review
will
be
completed
by
the
end
of
2003.
The
revision
of
the
dose­
response
assessment
could
affect
the
potency
factor
of
formaldehyde,
as
well
as
its
status
as
a
threshold
or
non­
threshold
pollutant.
At
this
time,
the
outcome
is
not
known.
In
addition
to
the
current
reassessment
by
EPA,
there
have
been
several
reassessments
of
the
toxicity
and
carcinogenicity
of
formaldehyde
in
recent
years,
including
work
by
the
World
Health
Organization
and
the
Canadian
Ministry
of
Health.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
how
we
should
consider
the
state
of
the
science
as
it
relates
to
the
treatment
of
threshold
pollutants
when
making
determinations
under
section
112(
d)(
4).
In
addition,
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
there
is
a
level
of
emissions
of
a
non­
threshold
carcinogenic
HAP
at
which
it
would
be
appropriate
to
allow
a
facility
to
use
the
scenarios
discussed
under
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
approach.
Risk
assessment
results.
The
results
of
the
human
health
risk
assessments
described
below
are
based
on
approaches
for
quantifying
exposure,
risk,
and
cancer
incidence
that
carry
significant
assumptions,
uncertainties,
and
limitations.
For
example,
in
conducting
these
types
of
analyses,
there
are
typically
many
uncertainties
regarding
dose­
response
functions,
levels
of
exposure,
exposed
populations,
air
quality
modeling
applications,
emission
levels,
and
control
effectiveness.
Because
the
estimates
derived
from
the
various
scoping
approaches
are
necessarily
rough,
we
are
concerned
that
they
not
convey
a
false
sense
of
precision.
Any
point
estimates
of
risk
reduction
or
benefits
generated
by
these
approaches
should
be
considered
as
part
of
a
range
of
potential
estimates.
If
the
final
rule
is
implemented
as
proposed
at
all
automobile
and
lightduty
truck
surface
coating
facilities,
the
number
of
people
exposed
to
HI
values
equal
to,
or
greater
than,
one
was
estimated
to
be
reduced
from
about
100
to
about
ten.
The
number
of
people
exposed
to
HI
values
of
0.2
or
greater
was
predicted
to
decrease
from
about
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78630
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
3,500
to
about
1,200.
(
Details
of
these
analyses
are
available
in
the
docket.)
Based
on
the
results
of
this
rough
assessment,
if
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
approach
is
applied
only
to
threshold
pollutants,
EPA
estimates
that
none
of
the
facilities
in
this
source
category
could
obtain
an
exemption
from
regulation,
since
all,
or
nearly
all,
facilities
emit
some
amount
of
one
or
more
non­
threshold
pollutants.
This
application
of
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
approach
is
estimated
to
produce
minimal
potential
cost
savings.
If
formaldehyde
and
EGBE
are
determined
to
be
threshold
carcinogens,
these
estimates
could
change.
The
second
scenario
under
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
provision
would
apply
to
both
threshold
and
non­
threshold
pollutants.
If
this
scenario
is
selected,
EPA
estimates,
using
a
HI
limit
of
one
and
treating
10
¥
6
as
a
cancer
risk
threshold,
that
as
many
as
54
of
the
facilities
in
the
source
category
may
be
exempt
from
the
proposed
rule.
The
EPA
estimates
in
this
case
that
the
annualized
cost
of
the
proposed
rule
would
be
about
$
9
million
per
year,
resulting
in
cost
savings
of
about
$
145
million
per
year
(
as
compared
to
establishing
a
MACT
standard
for
all
plants
in
the
industry).
Using
a
HI
limit
of
0.2
and
treating
10
¥
6
as
a
cancer
risk
threshold,
EPA
estimates
that
as
many
as
41
facilities
may
be
exempt
from
the
proposed
rule.
The
EPA
estimates
in
this
case
that
the
annualized
cost
of
the
proposed
rule
would
be
about
$
66
million
per
year,
resulting
in
cost
savings
of
about
$
88
million
per
year
(
as
compared
to
establishing
a
MACT
standard
for
all
plants
in
the
industry).
The
EPA
does
not
expect
the
third
scenario,
which
would
allow
emission
point
exemptions,
to
be
applicable
for
the
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
source
category
because
mixtures
of
threshold
and
non­
threshold
pollutants
are
co­
emitted,
and
the
same
emission
controls
would
apply
to
both.
The
risk
estimates
from
this
rough
assessment
are
based
on
typical
facility
configurations
(
i.
e.,
model
plants)
and,
as
such,
they
are
subject
to
significant
uncertainties,
such
that
the
actual
risks
at
any
one
facility
could
be
significantly
higher
or
lower.
Therefore,
while
these
risk
estimates
assist
in
providing
a
broad
picture
of
impacts
across
the
source
category,
they
should
not
be
the
basis
for
an
exemption
from
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule.
Rather,
any
such
exemption
should
be
based
on
an
estimate
of
the
facilityspecific
risks
which
would
require
sitespecific
data
and
a
more
refined
analysis.
For
either
of
the
first
two
approaches
described
above,
the
actual
number
of
facilities
that
would
qualify
for
an
exemption
would
depend
upon
sitespecific
risk
assessments
and
the
specified
HI
limit
(
see
earlier
discussion
of
HI
limit).
If
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
approach
were
adopted,
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule
would
not
apply
to
any
source
that
demonstrates,
based
on
a
tiered
analysis
that
includes
EPA­
approved
modeling
of
the
affected
source's
emissions,
that
the
anticipated
HAP
exposures
do
not
exceed
the
specified
HI
limit.

3.
Subcategory
Delisting
Under
Section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)
of
the
CAA
The
EPA
is
authorized
to
establish
categories
and
subcategories
of
sources,
as
appropriate,
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112(
c)(
1),
in
order
to
facilitate
the
development
of
MACT
standards
consistent
with
section
112
of
the
CAA.
Further,
section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)
allows
EPA
to
delete
a
category
(
or
subcategory)
from
the
list
of
major
sources
for
which
MACT
standards
are
to
be
developed
when
the
following
can
be
demonstrated:
(
1)
In
the
case
of
carcinogenic
pollutants,
that
``*
*
*
no
source
in
the
category
*
*
*
emits
(
carcinogenic)
air
pollutants
in
quantities
which
may
cause
a
lifetime
risk
of
cancer
greater
than
1
in
1
million
to
the
individual
in
the
population
who
is
most
exposed
to
emissions
of
such
pollutants
from
the
source
*
*
*'';
(
2)
in
the
case
of
pollutants
that
cause
adverse
noncancer
health
effects,
that
``*
*
*
emissions
from
no
source
in
the
category
or
subcategory
*
*
*
exceed
a
level
which
is
adequate
to
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety
*
*
*'';
and
(
3)
in
the
case
of
pollutants
that
cause
adverse
environmental
effects,
that
``
no
adverse
environmental
effect
will
result
from
emissions
from
any
source.
*
*
*''
Given
these
authorities
and
the
suggestions
from
the
white
papers
prepared
by
industry
representatives
and
discussed
previously
(
see
docket
A
 
2001
 
22),
EPA
is
considering
whether
it
would
be
possible
to
establish
a
subcategory
of
facilities
within
the
larger
source
category
that
would
meet
the
risk­
based
criteria
for
delisting.
Such
criteria
would
likely
include
the
same
requirements
as
described
previously
for
the
second
scenario
under
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
approach,
whereby
a
facility
would
be
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory
if
its
emissions
of
threshold
pollutants
do
not
result
in
exposures
which
exceed
the
HI
limits,
and
if
its
emissions
of
non­
threshold
pollutants
do
not
result
in
exposures
which
exceed
a
cancer
risk
level
of
10
¥
6.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
what
an
appropriate
HI
limit
would
be
for
a
determination
that
a
facility
be
included
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory.
Since
each
facility
in
such
a
subcategory
would
be
a
low­
risk
facility
(
i.
e.,
each
would
meet
these
criteria),
the
subcategory
could
be
delisted
in
accordance
with
section
112(
c)(
9),
thereby
limiting
the
costs
and
impacts
of
the
proposed
MACT
rule
to
only
those
facilities
that
do
not
qualify
for
subcategorization
and
delisting.
The
EPA
estimates
that
the
maximum
potential
of
utilizing
this
approach
would
be
the
same
as
that
of
applying
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
approach
for
threshold
and
non­
threshold
pollutants,
though
the
actual
impact
is
likely
to
be
less.
For
example,
with
a
HI
value
limit
of
one
and
treating
10
¥
6
as
a
cancer
risk
threshold,
as
many
as
54
of
the
facilities
may
be
exempted
under
this
approach.
Alternatively,
with
a
HI
limit
of
0.2
and
treating
10
¥
6
as
a
cancer
risk
threshold,
as
many
as
41
facilities
may
be
exempted
under
this
approach.
Facilities
seeking
to
be
included
in
the
delisted
subcategory
would
be
responsible
for
providing
all
data
required
to
determine
whether
they
are
eligible
for
inclusion.
Facilities
that
could
not
demonstrate
that
they
are
eligible
to
be
included
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory
would
be
subject
to
MACT
and
possible
future
residual
risk
standards.
The
EPA
solicits
comment
on
implementing
a
risk­
based
approach
for
establishing
subcategories
of
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
facilities.
Establishing
that
a
facility
qualifies
for
the
low­
risk
subcategory
under
section
112(
c)(
9)
will
necessarily
involve
combining
estimates
of
pollutant
emissions
with
air
dispersion
modeling
to
predict
exposures.
The
EPA
envisions
that
we
would
employ
the
same
tiered
analysis
described
earlier
in
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
discussion
for
these
determinations.
One
concern
that
EPA
has
with
respect
to
the
section
112(
c)(
9)
approach
is
the
effect
that
it
could
have
on
the
MACT
floors.
If
many
of
the
facilities
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory
are
wellcontrolled
that
could
make
the
MACT
floor
less
stringent
for
the
remaining
facilities.
One
approach
that
has
been
suggested
to
mitigate
this
effect
would
be
to
establish
the
MACT
floor
now
based
on
controls
in
place
for
the
entire
category
and
to
allow
facilities
to
become
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
in
the
future,
after
the
MACT
standards
are
established.
This
would
allow
lowrisk
facilities
to
use
the
section
112(
c)(
9)
exemption
without
affecting
the
MACT
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78631
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
floor
calculation.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
this
suggested
approach.
Another
scenario
under
the
section
112(
c)(
9)
approach
would
be
to
define
a
subcategory
of
facilities
within
the
source
category
based
upon
technological
differences,
such
as
differences
in
production
rate,
emission
vent
flow
rates,
overall
facility
size,
emissions
characteristics,
processes,
or
air
pollution
control
device
viability.
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
how
we
might
establish
subcategories
based
on
these,
or
other,
source
characteristics.
If
it
could
then
be
determined
that
each
source
in
this
technologically­
defined
subcategory
presents
a
low
risk
to
the
surrounding
community,
the
subcategory
could
then
be
delisted
in
accordance
with
section
112(
c)(
9).
The
EPA
requests
comment
on
the
concept
of
identifying
technologically­
based
subcategories
that
may
include
only
low­
risk
facilities
within
the
source
category.
If
a
section
112(
c)(
9)
approach
were
adopted,
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule
would
not
apply
to
any
source
that
demonstrates
that
it
belongs
in
a
subcategory
which
has
been
delisted
under
section
112(
c)(
9).
Consideration
of
criteria
pollutants.
Finally,
EPA
projects
that
adoption
of
the
MACT
floor
level
of
controls
would
result
in
increases
in
nitrogen
oxide
(
NOX)
emissions.
This
pollutant
is
a
precursor
in
the
formation
of
ozone
and
fine
particulate
matter
(
PM).
Ozone
has
been
associated
with
a
variety
of
adverse
health
effects
such
as
reduced
lung
function,
respiratory
symptoms
(
e.
g.,
cough
and
chest
pain)
and
increased
hospital
admissions
and
emergency
room
visits
for
respiratory
causes.
Fine
PM
has
been
associated
with
a
variety
of
adverse
health
effects
such
as
premature
mortality,
chronic
bronchitis,
and
increased
frequency
of
asthma
attacks.
The
EPA
requests
comments
on
the
extent
to
which
consideration
should
be
given
to
the
adverse
effects
of
the
possible
increase
in
NOX
emissions
from
applying
MACT
technology,
in
the
context
of
implementing
our
authority
under
section
112(
c)(
9)
or
other
exemptions.

V.
How
Will
the
Proposed
Amendments
to
40
CFR
Parts
264
and
265,
Subparts
BB
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Regulations
Be
Implemented
in
the
States?

A.
Applicability
of
Federal
Rules
in
Authorized
States
Under
section
3006
of
the
RCRA,
EPA
may
authorize
a
qualified
State
to
administer
and
enforce
a
hazardous
waste
program
within
the
State
in
lieu
of
the
Federal
program
and
to
issue
and
enforce
permits
in
the
State.
A
State
may
receive
authorization
by
following
the
approval
process
described
under
40
CFR
271.21.
See
40
CFR
part
271
for
the
overall
standards
and
requirements
for
authorization.
The
EPA
continues
to
have
independent
authority
to
bring
enforcement
actions
under
RCRA
sections
3007,
3008,
3013,
and
7003.
An
authorized
State
also
continues
to
have
independent
authority
to
bring
enforcement
actions
under
State
law.
After
a
State
receives
initial
authorization,
new
Federal
requirements
promulgated
under
RCRA
authority
existing
prior
to
the
1984
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
(
HSWA)
do
not
apply
in
that
State
until
the
State
adopts
and
receives
authorization
for
equivalent
State
requirements.
In
contrast,
under
RCRA
section
3006(
g)
(
42
U.
S.
C.
6926(
g)),
new
Federal
requirements
and
prohibitions
promulgated
pursuant
to
HSWA
provisions
take
effect
in
authorized
States
at
the
same
time
that
they
take
effect
in
unauthorized
States.
As
such,
EPA
carries
out
HSWA
requirements
and
prohibitions
in
authorized
States,
including
the
issuance
of
new
permits
implementing
those
requirements,
until
EPA
authorizes
the
State
to
do
so.
Authorized
States
are
required
to
modify
their
programs
when
EPA
promulgates
Federal
requirements
that
are
more
stringent
or
broader
in
scope
than
existing
Federal
requirements.
The
RCRA
section
3009
allows
the
States
to
impose
standards
more
stringent
than
those
in
the
Federal
program.
(
See
also
section
271.1(
i)).
Therefore,
authorized
States
are
not
required
to
adopt
Federal
regulations,
both
HSWA
and
non­
HSWA,
that
are
considered
less
stringent
than
existing
Federal
requirements.

B.
Authorization
of
States
for
Today's
Proposed
Amendments
Currently,
the
air
emissions
from
the
collection,
transmission,
and
storage
of
purged
paint
and
solvent
at
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
assembly
plants
are
regulated
under
the
authority
of
RCRA
(
see
40
CFR
parts
264
and
265,
subparts
BB).
The
proposed
amendments
would
exempt
these
wastes
from
regulation
under
RCRA
and
defer
regulation
to
the
CAA
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
IIII,
which
is
also
being
proposed
today.
This
exemption
is
considered
to
be
less
stringent
than
the
existing
RCRA
regulations
and,
therefore,
States
are
not
required
to
adopt
and
seek
authorization
for
today's
proposed
exemption.
However,
EPA
will
strongly
encourage
States
to
adopt
today's
proposed
RCRA
provisions
and
seek
authorization
for
them
to
prevent
duplication
with
the
new
NESHAP
when
final.

VI.
Solicitation
of
Comments
and
Public
Participation
We
welcome
comments
from
interested
persons
on
any
aspect
of
the
proposed
standards
and
on
any
statement(
s)
in
this
preamble
or
in
the
referenced
supporting
documents.
In
particular,
we
request
comments
on
how
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
can
be
consolidated
for
sources
that
are
subject
to
more
than
one
rule.
For
example,
all
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
assembly
plants
are
subject
to
VOC
regulations
and
some
may
perform
coating
activities
which
would
be
subject
to
the
NESHAP
for
plastic
parts
coating
or
miscellaneous
metal
parts
coating,
both
currently
under
development.
Supporting
data
and
detailed
analyses
should
be
submitted
with
comments
to
allow
us
to
make
maximum
use
of
the
comments.
All
comments
should
be
directed
to
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center,
Docket
No.
A
 
2001
 
22
(
see
ADDRESSES).
Comments
on
the
proposed
rule
must
be
submitted
on
or
before
the
date
specified
in
DATES.

VII.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
EPA
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs,
or
the
rights
and
obligation
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78632
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
that
the
proposed
rule
is
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
because
it
could
have
an
annual
impact
on
the
economy
of
over
$
100
million.
Consequently,
this
action
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
review
under
Executive
Order
12866.
Changes
made
in
response
to
OMB
suggestions
or
recommendations
will
be
documented
in
the
public
record.
As
stipulated
in
Executive
Order
12866,
in
deciding
how
or
whether
to
regulate,
EPA
is
required
to
assess
all
costs
and
benefits
of
available
regulatory
alternatives,
including
the
alternative
of
not
regulating.
To
this
end,
EPA
prepared
a
detailed
benefit­
cost
analysis
in
the
``
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
for
the
Proposed
Automobile
and
Light­
Duty
Truck
Coatings
NESHAP,''
which
is
contained
in
the
docket.
The
following
is
a
summary
of
the
benefitcost
analysis:
It
is
estimated
that
5
years
after
implementation
of
the
rule
as
proposed,
HAP
emissions
will
be
reduced
from
10,000
tpy
to
4,000
tpy.
This
represents
a
60
percent
reduction
(
or
6,000
tpy)
of
toluene,
xylene,
glycol
ethers,
MEK,
MIBK,
ethylbenzene,
and
methanol.
Based
on
scientific
studies
conducted
over
the
past
20
years,
the
EPA
has
classified
ethylene
glycol
monobutyl
ether
(
EGBE),
one
of
the
glycol
ethers,
as
a
``
possible
human
carcinogen,''
while
ethylbenzene,
MEK,
toluene,
and
xylenes
are
considered
by
the
EPA
as
``
not
classifiable
as
to
human
carcinogenicity.''
At
this
time,
we
are
unable
to
provide
a
comprehensive
quantification
and
monetization
of
the
HAP­
related
benefits
of
this
proposal.
Exposure
to
HAP
can
result
in
the
incidence
of
respiratory
irritation,
chest
constriction,
gastric
irritation,
eye,
nose,
and
throat
irritation
as
well
as
neurological
and
blood
effects.
Specifically,
exposure
to
EGBE
may
result
in
neurological
and
blood
effects,
including
fatigue,
nausea,
tremor,
and
anemia.
Though
no
reliable
human
epidemiological
study
is
available
to
address
the
potential
carcinogenicity
of
EGBE,
a
draft
report
of
a
2­
year
rodent
inhalation
study
reported
equivocal
evidence
of
carcinogenic
activity
in
female
rats
and
male
mice.
Exposure
to
MEK
may
lead
to
eye,
nose,
and
throat
irritation
while
methanol
may
lead
to
blurred
vision,
headache,
dizziness,
and
nausea.
Toluene
may
cause
effects
to
the
central
nervous
system,
such
as
fatigue,
sleepiness,
headache,
and
nausea.
In
addition,
chronic
exposure
to
this
HAP
can
lead
to
tremors,
decreased
brain
size,
involuntary
eye
movements,
and
impairment
of
speech,
hearing,
and
vision.
Xylenes,
a
mixture
of
three
closely
related
compounds,
may
cause
nose
and
throat
irritation,
nausea,
vomiting,
gastric
irritation,
headache,
dizziness,
fatigue,
and
tremors.
The
control
technology
to
reduce
the
level
of
HAP
emitted
from
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
coating
operations
are
also
expected
to
reduce
emissions
of
criteria
pollutants,
particularly
VOC.
Specifically,
the
proposed
rule
achieves
a
12,000
to
18,000
tpy
reduction
in
VOC.
The
VOC
is
a
precursor
to
tropospheric
(
ground­
level)
ozone
and
a
small
percentage
also
precipitate
in
the
atmosphere
to
form
PM.
Although
we
have
not
estimated
the
monetary
value
associated
with
VOC
reductions,
the
benefits
can
be
substantial.
Health
and
welfare
effects
from
exposure
to
ground­
level
ozone
are
well
documented.
Elevated
concentrations
of
ground­
level
ozone
primarily
may
result
in
acute
respiratory­
related
impacts
such
as
coughing
and
difficulty
breathing.
Chronic
exposure
to
ground­
level
ozone
may
lead
to
structural
damage
to
the
lungs,
alterations
in
lung
capacity
and
breathing
frequency,
increased
sensitivity
of
airways,
eye,
nose,
and
throat
irritation,
malaise,
and
nausea.
Adverse
ozone
welfare
effects
include
damage
to
agricultural
crops,
ornamental
plants,
and
materials
damage.
Though
only
a
small
fraction
of
VOC
forms
PM,
exposure
to
PM
can
result
in
human
health
and
welfare
effects
including
excess
deaths,
morbidity,
soiling
and
materials
damage,
as
well
as
reduced
visibility.
To
the
extent
that
reduced
exposure
to
HAP
and
VOC
reduces
the
instances
of
the
above
described
health
effects,
benefits
from
the
proposed
rule
are
realized
by
society
through
an
improvement
in
environmental
quality.
Benefit­
cost
comparison
(
net
benefits)
is
a
tool
used
to
evaluate
the
reallocation
of
society's
resources
used
to
address
the
pollution
externality
created
by
the
coatings
operations
at
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
plants.
The
additional
costs
of
internalizing
the
pollution
produced
at
major
sources
of
emissions
from
automobile
and
lightduty
truck
manufacturing
facilities
can
be
compared
to
the
improvement
in
society's
well­
being
from
a
cleaner
and
healthier
environment.
Comparing
benefits
of
the
proposed
rule
to
the
costs
imposed
by
the
alternative
methods
to
control
emissions
optimally
identifies
a
strategy
that
results
in
the
highest
net
benefit
to
society.
In
the
case
of
the
proposed
automobiles
and
light­
duty
trucks
coating
NESHAP,
we
are
proposing
only
one
option,
the
minimum
level
of
control
mandated
by
the
CAA
or
the
MACT
floor.
Based
on
estimated
compliance
costs
associated
with
this
proposed
rule
and
the
predicted
change
in
prices
and
production
in
the
affected
industry,
the
estimated
social
costs
of
this
proposed
rule
are
$
161
million
(
1999
dollars).

B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
Under
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
The
EPA
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
The
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.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
13132,
it
has
been
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
does
not
have
``
federalism
implications''
because
it
does
not
meet
the
necessary
criteria.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule.
Although
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
did
consult
with
State
and
local
officials
to
enable
them
to
provide
timely
input
in
the
development
of
the
proposed
regulation.

C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
65
FR
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78633
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
10
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy.
1999.
Electric
Power
Annual,
Volume
I.
Table
A2:
Industry
Capability
by
Fuel
Source
and
Industry
Sector,
1999
and
1998
(
Megawatts).
11
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy.
1999.
Natural
Gas
Annual.
Table
1:
Summary
Statistics
for
Natural
Gas
in
the
United
States,
1995
 
1999.
67249,
November
9,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
No
tribal
governments
own
or
operate
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
facilities.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule.

D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045,
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
EPA
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
The
EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5
 
501
of
the
Executive
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
The
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
does
not
establish
environmental
standards
based
on
an
assessment
of
health
or
safety
risks.
No
children's
risk
analysis
was
performed
because
no
alternative
technologies
exist
that
would
provide
greater
stringency
at
a
reasonable
cost.

E.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001),
requires
EPA
to
prepare
and
submit
a
Statement
of
Energy
Effects
to
the
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
for
certain
actions
identified
as
``
significant
energy
actions.''
Section
4(
b)
of
Executive
Order
13211
defines
``
significant
energy
actions''
as
``
any
action
by
an
agency
(
normally
published
in
the
Federal
Register)
that
promulgates
or
is
expected
to
lead
to
the
promulgation
of
a
final
rule
or
regulation,
including
notices
of
inquiry,
advance
notices
of
proposed
rulemaking,
and
notices
of
proposed
rulemaking:
(
1)(
i)
That
is
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866
or
any
successor
order,
and
(
ii)
is
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy;
or
(
2)
that
is
designated
by
the
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
as
a
significant
energy
action.''
This
proposed
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
energy
action''
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
The
proposed
rule
affects
the
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
manufacturing
industries.
There
is
no
crude
oil,
fuel,
or
coal
production
from
these
industries,
therefore
there
is
no
direct
effect
on
such
energy
production
related
to
implementation
of
the
rule
as
proposed.
In
addition,
the
cost
of
energy
distribution
should
not
be
affected
by
this
proposal
at
all
since
this
proposed
rule
does
not
affect
energy
distribution
facilities.
The
proposed
rule
is
projected
to
trigger
an
increase
in
energy
use
due
to
the
installation
and
operation
of
additional
pollution
control
equipment.
The
estimated
increase
in
energy
consumption
is
4.9
billion
standard
cubic
feet
per
year
of
natural
gas
and
180
million
kilowatt
hours
per
year
of
electricity
nationwide.
The
nationwide
cost
of
this
increased
energy
consumption
is
estimated
at
$
26
million
per
year.
The
increase
in
energy
costs
does
not
reflect
changes
in
energy
prices,
but
rather
an
increase
in
the
quantity
of
electricity
and
natural
gas
demanded.
Given
that
the
existing
electricity
generation
capacity
in
the
United
States
was
785,990
megawatts
in
1999
10
and
that
23,755
billion
cubic
feet
of
natural
gas
was
produced
domestically
in
the
same
year,
11
the
proposed
rule
is
not
likely
to
have
any
significant
adverse
impact
on
energy
prices,
distribution,
availability,
or
use.

F.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
We
have
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
contains
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
Accordingly,
we
have
prepared
a
written
statement
(
titled
``
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Analysis
for
the
Proposed
Automobiles
and
Light­
Duty
Trucks
Coating
NESHAP'')
under
section
202
of
the
UMRA
which
is
summarized
below.

1.
Statutory
Authority
The
statutory
authority
for
this
rulemaking
is
section
112
of
the
CAA,
enacted
to
reduce
nationwide
air
toxic
emissions.
In
compliance
with
UMRA
section
205(
a),
we
identified
and
considered
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives.
Additional
information
on
the
costs
and
environmental
impacts
of
these
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78634
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
regulatory
alternatives
is
presented
in
the
docket.
The
regulatory
alternative
upon
which
the
proposed
rule
is
based
represents
the
MACT
floor
for
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
coating
operations
and,
as
a
result,
is
the
least
costly
and
least
burdensome
alternative.

2.
Social
Costs
and
Benefits
The
RIA
prepared
for
the
proposed
rule,
including
EPA's
assessment
of
costs
and
benefits,
is
detailed
in
the
``
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
for
the
Automobiles
and
Light­
Duty
Trucks
Coating
NESHAP''
in
the
docket.
Based
on
the
estimated
compliance
costs
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
and
the
predicted
changes
in
prices
and
production
in
the
affected
industry,
the
estimated
annual
social
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
is
projected
to
be
$
161
million
(
1999
dollars).
It
is
estimated
that
5
years
after
implementation
of
the
rule
as
proposed,
HAP
will
be
reduced
from
10,000
tpy
to
4,000
tpy.
This
represents
a
60
percent
reduction
(
6,000
tpy)
of
toluene,
xylene,
glycol
ethers,
MEK,
MIBK,
ethylbenzene,
and
methanol.
Based
on
scientific
studies
conducted
over
the
past
20
years,
EPA
has
classified
EGBE
as
a
``
possible
human
carcinogen,''
while
ethylbenzene,
MEK,
toluene,
and
xylenes
are
considered
by
the
Agency
as
``
not
classifiable
as
to
human
carcinogenicity.''
The
studies
upon
which
these
classifications
are
based
have
worked
toward
the
determination
of
a
relationship
between
exposure
to
these
HAP
and
the
onset
of
cancer.
However,
there
are
several
questions
remaining
on
how
cancers
that
may
result
from
exposure
to
these
HAP
can
be
quantified
in
terms
of
dollars.
Therefore,
EPA
is
unable
to
provide
a
monetized
estimate
of
the
benefits
of
HAP
reduced
by
the
proposed
rule
at
this
time.
Exposure
to
HAP
can
result
in
the
incidence
of
respiratory
irritation,
chest
constriction,
gastric
irritation,
eye,
nose,
and
throat
irritation,
as
well
as
neurological
and
blood
effects,
including
fatigue,
nausea,
tremor,
and
anemia.
The
control
technology
to
reduce
the
level
of
HAP
emitted
from
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
coating
operations
is
also
expected
to
reduce
emissions
of
criteria
pollutants,
particularly
VOC.
Specifically,
this
proposed
rule
achieves
a
12,000
to
18,000
tpy
reduction
in
VOC.
The
VOC
is
a
precursor
to
tropospheric
(
ground­
level)
ozone
and
a
small
percentage
also
precipitate
in
the
atmosphere
to
form
PM.
Although
we
have
not
estimated
the
monetary
value
associated
with
VOC
reductions,
the
benefits
can
be
substantial.
Health
and
welfare
effects
from
exposure
to
ground­
level
ozone
are
well
documented.
Elevated
concentrations
of
ground­
level
ozone
primarily
may
result
in
acute
respiratory­
related
impacts
such
as
coughing
and
difficulty
breathing.
Chronic
exposure
to
ground­
level
ozone
may
lead
to
structural
damage
to
the
lungs,
alterations
in
lung
capacity
and
breathing
frequency,
increased
sensitivity
of
airways,
eye,
nose,
and
throat
irritation,
malaise,
and
nausea.
Adverse
ozone
welfare
effects
include
damage
to
agricultural
crops,
ornamental
plants,
and
materials
damage.
Though
only
a
small
fraction
of
VOC
forms
PM,
exposure
to
PM
can
result
in
human
health
and
welfare
effects,
including
excess
deaths,
morbidity,
soiling
and
materials
damage,
as
well
as
reduced
visibility.
To
the
extent
that
reduced
exposure
to
HAP
and
VOC
reduces
the
instances
of
the
above
described
health
effects,
benefits
from
the
proposed
rule
would
be
realized
by
society
through
an
improvement
in
environmental
quality.

3.
Future
and
Disproportionate
Costs
The
UMRA
requires
that
we
estimate,
where
accurate
estimation
is
reasonably
feasible,
future
compliance
costs
imposed
by
the
proposed
rule
and
any
disproportionate
budgetary
effects.
We
do
not
believe
that
there
will
be
any
disproportionate
budgetary
effects
of
the
proposed
rule
on
any
particular
areas
of
the
country,
State,
or
local
governments,
types
of
communities
(
e.
g.,
urban,
rural),
or
particular
industry
segments.

4.
Effects
on
the
National
Economy
The
UMRA
requires
that
we
estimate
the
effect
of
the
proposed
rule
on
the
national
economy.
To
the
extent
feasible,
we
must
estimate
the
effect
on
productivity,
economic
growth,
full
employment,
creation
of
productive
jobs,
and
international
competitiveness
of
United
States
goods
and
services
if
we
determine
that
accurate
estimates
are
reasonably
feasible
and
that
such
effect
is
relevant
and
material.
The
nationwide
economic
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
is
presented
in
the
``
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
for
the
Automobiles
and
Light­
Duty
Trucks
Coating
NESHAP.''
That
analysis
provides
estimates
of
the
effect
of
the
proposed
rule
on
some
of
the
categories
mentioned
above.
The
estimated
direct
cost
to
the
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
manufacturing
industry
of
compliance
with
the
proposed
rule
is
approximately
$
154
million
(
1999
dollars)
annually.
Indirect
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
to
industries
other
than
the
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
manufacturing
industry,
governments,
tribes,
and
other
affected
entities
are
expected
to
be
minor.
The
estimated
annual
costs
is
minimal
when
compared
to
the
nominal
gross
domestic
product
of
$
9,255
billion
reported
for
the
Nation
in
1999.
The
proposed
rule
is
expected
to
have
little
impact
on
domestic
productivity,
economic
growth,
full
employment,
energy
markets,
creation
of
productive
jobs,
and
the
international
competitiveness
of
United
States
goods
and
services.

5.
Consultation
With
Government
Officials
Although
this
proposed
rule
does
not
affect
any
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments,
EPA
has
consulted
with
State
and
local
air
pollution
control
officials.
The
EPA
has
held
meetings
on
the
proposed
rule
with
many
of
the
stakeholders
from
numerous
individual
companies,
environmental
groups,
consultants
and
vendors,
and
other
interested
parties.
The
EPA
has
added
materials
to
the
docket
to
document
these
meetings.

G.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1966
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601,
et
seq.
The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
For
the
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating
industry,
a
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
according
to
Small
Business
Administration
size
standards
for
companies
identified
by
NAICS
codes
33611
(
automobile
manufacturing)
and
33621
(
light­
duty
truck
and
utility
vehicle
manufacturing)
with
1,000
or
fewer
employees;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district,
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
Based
on
the
above
definition,
there
are
no
small
entities
presently
engaged
in
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
the
proposed
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00024
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78635
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
This
certification
is
based
on
the
observation
that
the
proposed
rule
affects
no
small
entities
since
none
are
engaged
in
the
surface
coating
of
automobiles
and
lightduty
trucks.

H.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
the
proposed
rule
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
OMB
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501,
et
seq.
An
ICR
document
has
been
prepared
by
EPA
(
ICR
No.
2045.01)
and
a
copy
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby
by
mail
at
the
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
by
email
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566
 
1672.
A
copy
may
also
be
downloaded
off
the
internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
The
information
collection
requirements
are
based
on
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A),
which
are
mandatory
for
all
operators
subject
to
national
emission
standards.
These
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
specifically
authorized
by
section
114
of
the
CAA
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7414).
All
information
submitted
to
EPA
pursuant
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
which
a
claim
of
confidentiality
is
made
is
safeguarded
according
to
Agency
policies
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2,
subpart
B.
The
proposed
standards
would
not
require
any
notifications
or
reports
beyond
those
required
by
the
General
Provisions.
The
recordkeeping
requirements
require
only
the
specific
information
needed
to
determine
compliance.
The
annual
monitoring,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
(
averaged
over
the
first
3
years
after
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule)
is
estimated
to
be
33,436
labor
hours
per
year
at
a
total
annual
cost
of
$
982,742.
This
estimate
includes
a
one­
time
performance
test
and
report
(
with
repeat
tests
where
needed)
for
those
affected
sources
that
choose
to
comply
through
the
installation
of
new
capture
systems
and
control
devices;
one­
time
purchase
and
installation
of
CPMS
for
those
affected
sources
that
choose
to
comply
through
the
installation
of
new
capture
systems
and
control
devices;
preparation
and
submission
of
work
practice
plans;
one­
time
submission
of
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
with
semiannual
reports
for
any
event
when
the
procedures
in
the
plan
were
not
followed;
semiannual
excess
emission
reports;
maintenance
inspections;
notifications;
and
recordkeeping.
There
are
no
additional
capital/
startup
costs
associated
with
the
monitoring
requirements
over
the
3­
year
period
of
the
ICR.
The
monitoring
related
operation
and
maintenance
costs
over
this
same
period
are
estimated
at
$
7,000.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.
Comments
are
requested
on
EPA's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques.
By
U.
S.
Postal
Service,
send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
EPA
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
or
by
courier,
send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
EPA
(
2822T),
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Room
6143,
Washington,
DC
20460
((
202)
566
 
1700);
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
St.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20503,
marked
``
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.''
Include
the
ICR
number
in
any
correspondence.
Since
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
December
24,
2002,
a
comment
to
OMB
is
best
assured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
January
23,
2003.
The
final
rule
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
proposal.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
104
 
113,
section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note),
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
(
VCS)
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
The
VCS
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
VCS
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
VCS.
The
proposed
rulemaking
involves
technical
standards.
The
EPA
cites
the
following
standards
in
the
proposed
rule:
EPA
Methods
1,
1A,
2,
2A,
2C,
2D,
2F,
2G,
3,
3A,
3B,
4,
24,
25,
25A,
204,
204A
through
F,
and
311.
Consistent
with
the
NTTAA,
EPA
conducted
searches
to
identify
VCS
in
addition
to
these
EPA
methods.
No
applicable
VCS
were
identified
for
EPA
Methods
1A,
2A,
2D,
2F,
2G,
204A
through
F,
and
311.
The
search
and
review
results
have
been
documented
and
are
placed
in
the
docket
for
the
proposed
rule
(
docket
A
 
2001
 
22).
The
six
VCS
described
below
were
identified
as
acceptable
alternatives
to
EPA
test
methods
for
the
purposes
of
the
proposed
rule.
The
VCS
ASME
PTC
19
 
10
 
1981
 
Part
10,
``
Flue
and
Exhaust
Gas
Analyses,''
is
cited
in
the
proposed
rule
for
its
manual
method
for
measuring
the
oxygen,
carbon
dioxide,
and
carbon
monoxide
content
of
exhaust
gas.
This
part
of
ASME
PTC
19
 
10
 
1981
 
Part
10,
is
an
acceptable
alternative
to
Method
3B.
The
two
VCS,
ASTM
D2697
 
86
(
1998),
``
Standard
Test
Method
for
Volume
Nonvolatile
Matter
in
Clear
or
Pigmented
Coatings''
and
ASTM
D6093
 
97,
``
Standard
Test
Method
for
Percent
Volume
Nonvolatile
Matter
in
Clear
or
Pigmented
Coatings
Using
a
Helium
Gas
Pycnometer,''
are
cited
in
the
proposed
rule
as
acceptable
alternatives
to
EPA
Method
24
to
determine
the
volume
solids
content
of
coatings.
Currently,
EPA
Method
24
does
not
have
a
procedure
for
determining
the
volume
of
solids
in
coatings.
The
two
VCS
standards
augment
the
procedures
in
Method
24,
which
currently
states
that
volume
solids
content
be
calculated
from
the
coating
manufacturer's
formulation.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00025
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78636
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
The
VCS
ASTM
D5066
 
91
(
2001),
``
Standard
Test
Method
for
Determination
of
the
Transfer
Efficiency
Under
Production
Conditions
for
Spray
Application
of
Automotive
Paints­
Weight
Basis,''
is
cited
in
the
proposed
rule
as
an
acceptable
procedure
to
measure
transfer
efficiency
of
spray
coatings.
Currently,
no
EPA
method
is
available
to
measure
transfer
efficiency.
The
two
VCS,
ASTM
D6266
 
00a,
``
Test
Method
for
Determining
the
Amount
of
Volatile
Organic
Compound
(
VOC)
Released
from
Waterborne
Automotive
Coatings
and
Available
for
Removal
in
a
VOC
Control
Device
(
Abatement)''
and
ASTM
D5087
 
91
(
1994),
``
Standard
Test
Method
for
Determining
Amount
of
Volatile
Organic
Compound
(
VOC)
Released
from
Solventborne
Automotive
Coatings
and
Available
for
Removal
in
a
VOC
Control
Device
(
Abatement),''
are
cited
in
the
proposed
rule
as
acceptable
procedures
to
measure
solvent
loading
(
similar
to
capture
efficiency)
for
the
heated
flash
zone
for
waterborne
basecoats
and
for
bake
ovens.
Currently,
no
EPA
method
is
available
to
measure
solvent
release
potential
from
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
coatings
in
order
to
determine
the
potential
solvent
loading
from
the
coatings
used.
Six
VCS:
ASTM
D1475
 
90,
ASTM
D2369
 
95,
ASTM
D3792
 
91,
ASTM
D4017
 
96a,
ASTM
D4457
 
85
(
Reapproved
91),
and
ASTM
D5403
 
93
are
already
incorporated
by
reference
in
EPA
Method
24.
Five
VCS:
ASTM
D1979
 
91,
ASTM
D3432
 
89,
ASTM
D4747
 
87,
ASTM
D4827
 
93,
and
ASTM
PS9
 
94
are
incorporated
by
reference
in
EPA
Method
311.
In
addition
to
the
VCS
EPA
proposes
to
use,
the
search
for
emissions
measurement
procedures
identified
14
other
VCS.
The
EPA
determined
that
10
of
these
14
standards
identified
for
measuring
emissions
of
the
HAP
or
surrogates
subject
to
emission
standards
in
the
proposed
rule
were
impractical
alternatives
to
EPA
test
methods
for
the
purposes
of
the
proposed
rule.
Therefore,
EPA
does
not
intend
to
adopt
these
standards
for
this
purpose.
(
See
docket
A
 
2001
 
22
for
further
information
on
the
methods.)
Four
of
the
14
VCS
identified
in
this
search
were
not
available
at
the
time
the
review
was
conducted
for
the
purposes
of
the
proposed
rule
because
they
are
under
development
by
a
voluntary
consensus
body:
ASME/
BSR
MFC
13M,
``
Flow
Measurement
by
Velocity
Traverse,''
for
EPA
Method
2
(
and
possibly
1);
ASME/
BSR
MFC
12M,
``
Flow
in
Closed
Conduits
Using
Multiport
Averaging
Pitot
Primary
Flowmeters,''
for
EPA
Method
2;
ISO/
DIS
12039,
``
Stationary
Source
Emissions­
Determination
of
Carbon
Monoxide,
Carbon
Dioxide,
and
Oxygen
 
Automated
Methods,''
for
EPA
Method
3A;
and
ISO/
PWI
17895,
``
Paints
and
Varnishes­
Determination
of
the
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Content
of
Water­
based
Emulsion
Paints,''
for
EPA
Method
24.
Sections
63.3161
and
63.3166
to
the
proposed
standards
list
the
EPA
testing
methods
included
in
the
proposed
rule.
Under
§
63.7(
f)
of
subpart
A
of
the
General
Provisions,
a
source
may
apply
to
EPA
for
permission
to
use
alternative
test
methods
in
place
of
any
of
the
EPA
testing
methods.
During
the
development
of
the
proposed
rulemaking,
EPA
searched
for
VCS
that
might
be
applicable
and
included
ASTM
test
methods
as
appropriate
for
determination
of
volume
fraction
of
coating
solids.

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
substances,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
264
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
waste,
Insurance,
Packaging
and
containers,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Security
measures,
Surety
bonds.

40
CFR
Part
265
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
waste,
Insurance,
Packaging
and
containers,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Security
measures,
Surety
bonds,
Water
supply.

Dated:
November
26,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
stated
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I,
parts
63,
264,
and
265
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
are
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.

2.
Part
63
is
amended
by
adding
subpart
IIII
to
read
as
follows:
Subpart
IIII
 
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants:
Surface
Coating
of
Automobiles
and
Light­
Duty
Trucks
Sec.

What
This
Subpart
Covers
63.3080
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?
63.3081
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?
63.3082
What
parts
of
my
plant
does
this
subpart
cover?
63.3083
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?

Emission
Limitations
63.3090
What
emission
limits
must
I
meet
for
a
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source?
63.3091
What
emission
limits
must
I
meet
for
an
existing
affected
source?
63.3092
How
must
I
control
emissions
from
my
electrodeposition
primer
system
if
I
want
to
comply
with
the
combined
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
emission
limit?
63.3093
What
operating
limits
must
I
meet?
63.3094
What
work
practice
standards
must
I
meet?

General
Compliance
Requirements
63.3100
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?
63.3101
What
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
me?

Notifications,
Reports,
and
Records
63.3110
What
notifications
must
I
submit?
63.3120
What
reports
must
I
submit?
63.3130
What
records
must
I
keep?
63.3131
In
what
form
and
for
how
long
must
I
keep
my
records?

Compliance
Requirements
for
Adhesive,
Sealer,
and
Deadener
63.3150
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
the
initial
compliance
demonstration?
63.3151
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations?
63.3152
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations?

Compliance
Requirements
for
the
Combined
Electrodeposition
Primer,
Primer­
Surfacer,
Topcoat,
Final
Repair,
Glass
Bonding
Primer,
and
Glass
Bonding
Adhesive
Emission
Rates
63.3160
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
performance
tests
and
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations?
63.3161
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance?
63.3162
[
Reserved]
63.3163
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations?
63.3164
What
are
the
general
requirements
for
performance
tests?
63.3165
How
do
I
determine
the
emission
capture
system
efficiency?
63.3166
How
do
I
determine
the
add­
on
control
device
emission
destruction
or
removal
efficiency?

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00026
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78637
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
1
Proposed
December
4,
2002
(
67
FR
72275).
2
Proposed
August
13,
2002
(
67
FR
52780).
63.3167
How
do
I
establish
the
add­
on
control
device
operating
limits
during
the
performance
test?
63.3168
What
are
the
requirements
for
continuous
parameter
monitoring
system
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance?

Compliance
Requirements
for
the
Combined
Primer­
Surfacer,
Topcoat,
Final
Repair,
Glass
Bonding
Primer,
and
Glass
Bonding
Adhesive
Emission
Rates
and
the
Separate
Electrodeposition
Primer
Emission
Rates
63.3170
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
performance
tests
and
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations?
63.3171
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance?
63.3172
[
Reserved]
63.3173
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations?

Other
Requirements
and
Information
63.3175
Who
implements
and
enforces
this
subpart?
63.3176
What
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

Tables
to
Subpart
IIII
of
Part
63
Table
1
to
Subpart
IIII
of
Part
63
 
Operating
Limits
for
Capture
Systems
and
Add­
On
Control
Devices
Table
2
to
Subpart
IIII
of
Part
63
 
Applicability
of
General
Provisions
to
Subpart
IIII
of
Part
63
Table
3
to
Subpart
IIII
of
Part
63
 
Default
Organic
HAP
Mass
Fraction
for
Solvents
and
Solvent
Blends
Table
4
to
Subpart
IIII
of
Part
63
 
Default
Organic
HAP
Mass
Fraction
for
Petroleum
Solvent
Groups
Subpart
IIII
 
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants:
Surface
Coating
of
Automobiles
and
Light­
Duty
Trucks
What
This
Subpart
Covers
§
63.3080
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?
This
subpart
establishes
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
facilities
which
surface
coat
new
automobile
or
light­
duty
truck
bodies
or
collections
of
body
parts
for
new
automobiles
or
new
light­
duty
trucks.
This
subpart
also
establishes
requirements
to
demonstrate
initial
and
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations.

§
63.3081
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?
(
a)
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section,
the
source
category
to
which
this
subpart
applies
is
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
surface
coating.
(
b)
You
are
subject
to
this
subpart
if
you
own
or
operate
a
new,
reconstructed,
or
existing
affected
source,
as
defined
in
§
63.3082,
that
is
located
at
a
facility
which
surface
coats
new
automobile
or
new
light­
duty
truck
bodies
or
collections
of
body
parts
for
new
automobiles
or
new
light­
duty
trucks,
and
that
is
a
major
source,
is
located
at
a
major
source,
or
is
part
of
a
major
source
of
emissions
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP).
A
major
source
of
HAP
emissions
is
any
stationary
source
or
group
of
stationary
sources
located
within
a
contiguous
area
and
under
common
control
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
any
single
HAP
at
a
rate
of
9.07
megagrams
(
Mg)
(
10
tons)
or
more
per
year
or
any
combination
of
HAP
at
a
rate
of
22.68
Mg
(
25
tons)
or
more
per
year.
(
c)
This
subpart
does
not
apply
to
surface
coating,
surface
preparation,
or
cleaning
activities
that
meet
the
criteria
of
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
or
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Surface
coating
subject
to
any
other
NESHAP
in
this
part
as
of
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register],
including
plastic
parts
and
products
surface
coating
1
and
miscellaneous
metal
parts
surface
coating
.2
(
2)
Surface
coating
that
occurs
at
research
or
laboratory
facilities
or
that
is
part
of
janitorial,
building,
and
facility
maintenance
operations,
including
maintenance
spray
booths
used
for
painting
production
equipment,
furniture,
signage,
etc.,
for
use
within
the
plant.

§
63.3082
What
parts
of
my
plant
does
this
subpart
cover?

(
a)
This
subpart
applies
to
each
new,
reconstructed,
and
existing
affected
source.
(
b)
The
affected
source
is
the
collection
of
all
of
the
items
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section
that
are
used
for
surface
coating
of
new
automobile
or
light­
duty
truck
bodies
or
collections
of
body
parts
for
new
automobiles
or
new
light­
duty
trucks:
(
1)
All
coating
operations
as
defined
in
§
63.3176;
(
2)
All
storage
containers
and
mixing
vessels
in
which
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials
are
stored
or
mixed;
(
3)
All
manual
and
automated
equipment
and
containers
used
for
conveying
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials;
and
(
4)
All
storage
containers
and
all
manual
and
automated
equipment
and
containers
used
for
conveying
waste
materials
generated
by
a
coating
operation.
(
c)
An
affected
source
is
a
new
affected
source
if
you
commenced
its
construction
after
December
24,
2002,
and
the
construction
is
of
a
completely
new
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
assembly
plant
where
previously
no
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
assembly
plant
had
existed,
or
a
completely
new
automobile
and
lightduty
truck
paint
shop
where
previously
no
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck
assembly
plant
had
existed.
(
d)
An
affected
source
is
reconstructed
if
it
contains
a
paint
shop
that
has
undergone
replacement
of
components
to
such
an
extent
that:
(
1)
The
fixed
capital
cost
of
the
new
components
exceeded
50
percent
of
the
fixed
capital
cost
that
would
be
required
to
construct
a
new
paint
shop;
and
(
2)
It
was
technologically
and
economically
feasible
for
the
reconstructed
source
to
meet
the
relevant
standards
established
by
the
Administrator
pursuant
to
section
112
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
(
e)
An
affected
source
is
existing
if
it
is
not
new
or
reconstructed.

§
63.3083
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?

The
date
by
which
you
must
comply
with
this
subpart
is
called
the
compliance
date.
The
compliance
date
for
each
type
of
affected
source
is
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
c)
of
this
section.
The
compliance
date
begins
the
initial
compliance
period
during
which
you
conduct
the
initial
compliance
demonstrations
described
in
§
§
63.3150,
63.3160
and
63.3170.
(
a)
For
a
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source,
the
compliance
date
is
the
applicable
date
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
or
(
2)
of
this
section:
(
1)
If
the
initial
startup
of
your
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
is
before
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
the
compliance
date
is
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(
2)
If
the
initial
startup
of
your
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
occurs
after
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
the
compliance
date
is
the
date
of
initial
startup
of
your
affected
source.
(
b)
For
an
existing
affected
source,
the
compliance
date
is
the
date
3
years
after
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(
c)
For
an
area
source
that
increases
its
emissions
or
its
potential
to
emit
such
that
it
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP
emissions,
the
compliance
date
is
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
For
any
portion
of
the
source
that
becomes
a
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
subject
to
this
subpart,
the
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00027
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78638
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
compliance
date
is
the
date
of
initial
startup
of
the
affected
source
or
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
whichever
is
later.
(
2)
For
any
portion
of
the
source
that
becomes
an
existing
affected
source
subject
to
this
subpart,
the
compliance
date
is
the
date
1
year
after
the
area
source
becomes
a
major
source
or
3
years
after
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
whichever
is
later.
(
d)
You
must
meet
the
notification
requirements
in
§
63.3110
according
to
the
dates
specified
in
that
section
and
in
subpart
A
of
this
part.
Some
of
the
notifications
must
be
submitted
before
the
compliance
dates
described
in
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
c)
of
this
section.

Emission
Limitations
§
63.3090
What
emission
limits
must
I
meet
for
a
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source?
(
a)
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section,
you
must
limit
combined
organic
HAP
emissions
to
the
atmosphere
from
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
application
to
no
more
than
0.036
kilogram
(
kg)/
liter
(
0.30
pound
(
lb)/
gallon
(
gal))
of
coating
solids
deposited
during
each
month,
determined
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.3161.
(
b)
If
you
meet
the
operating
limits
of
§
63.3092(
a)
and
(
b),
you
must
either
meet
the
emission
limits
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
or
limit
combined
organic
HAP
emissions
to
the
atmosphere
from
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
application
to
no
more
than
0.060
kg/
liter
(
0.50
lb/
gal)
of
applied
coating
solids
used
during
each
month,
determined
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.3171.
If
you
do
not
have
an
electrodeposition
primer
system,
you
must
limit
combined
organic
HAP
emissions
to
the
atmosphere
from
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
application
to
no
more
than
0.060
kg/
liter
(
0.50
lb/
gal)
of
applied
coating
solids
used
during
each
month,
determined
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.3171.
(
c)
You
must
limit
average
organic
HAP
emissions
from
all
adhesive
and
sealer
materials
other
than
materials
used
as
components
of
glass
bonding
systems
to
no
more
than
0.010
kg/
kg
(
lb/
lb)
of
adhesive
and
sealer
material
used
during
each
month.
(
d)
You
must
limit
average
organic
HAP
emissions
from
all
deadener
materials
to
no
more
than
0.010
kg/
kg
(
lb/
lb)
of
deadener
material
used
during
each
month.

§
63.3091
What
emission
limits
must
I
meet
for
an
existing
affected
source?

(
a)
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section,
you
must
limit
combined
organic
HAP
emissions
to
the
atmosphere
from
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
application
to
no
more
than
0.072
kg/
liter
0.60
lb/
gal)
of
coating
solids
deposited
during
each
month,
determined
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.3161.
(
b)
If
you
meet
the
operating
limits
of
§
63.3092(
a)
and
(
b),
you
must
either
meet
the
emission
limits
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
or
limit
combined
organic
HAP
emissions
to
the
atmosphere
from
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
application
to
no
more
than
0.132
kg/
liter
(
1.10
lb/
gal)
of
coating
solids
deposited
during
each
month,
determined
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.3171.
If
you
do
not
have
an
electrodeposition
primer
system,
you
must
limit
combined
organic
HAP
emissions
to
the
atmosphere
from
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
application
to
no
more
than
0.132
kg/
liter
(
1.10
lb/
gal)
of
coating
solids
deposited
during
each
month,
determined
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.3171.
(
c)
You
must
limit
average
organic
HAP
emissions
from
all
adhesive
and
sealer
materials
other
than
materials
used
as
components
of
glass
bonding
systems
to
no
more
than
0.010
kg/
kg
(
lb/
lb)
of
adhesive
and
sealer
material
used
during
each
month.
(
d)
You
must
limit
average
organic
HAP
emissions
from
all
deadener
materials
to
no
more
than
0.010
kg/
kg
(
lb/
lb)
of
deadener
material
used
during
each
month.

§
63.3092
How
must
I
control
emissions
from
my
electrodeposition
primer
system
if
I
want
to
comply
with
the
combined
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
emission
limit?

If
your
electrodeposition
primer
system
meets
the
requirements
of
either
paragraph
(
a)
or
(
b)
of
this
section,
you
may
choose
to
comply
with
the
emission
limits
of
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b)
instead
of
the
emission
limits
of
§
63.3090(
a)
or
§
63.3091(
a).
(
a)
Each
individual
material
added
to
the
electrodeposition
primer
system
contains
no
more
than:
(
1)
1.0
percent
by
weight
of
any
organic
HAP;
and
(
2)
0.10
percent
by
weight
of
any
organic
HAP
which
is
an
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
 
defined
carcinogen
as
specified
in
29
CFR
1910.1200(
d)(
4).
(
b)
Emissions
from
all
bake
ovens
used
to
cure
electrodeposition
primers
must
be
captured
and
ducted
to
a
control
device
having
a
control
efficiency
of
at
least
95
percent.

§
63.3093
What
operating
limits
must
I
meet?

(
a)
You
are
not
required
to
meet
any
operating
limits
for
any
coating
operation(
s)
without
add­
on
controls.
(
b)
For
any
controlled
coating
operation(
s),
you
must
meet
the
operating
limits
specified
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart.
These
operating
limits
apply
to
the
emission
capture
and
addon
control
systems
on
the
coating
operation(
s)
for
which
you
use
this
option,
and
you
must
establish
the
operating
limits
during
the
performance
test
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.3167.
You
must
meet
the
operating
limits
at
all
times
after
you
establish
them.
(
c)
If
you
choose
to
meet
the
emission
limitations
of
§
63.3092(
b)
and
the
emission
limits
of
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b),
then
you
must
operate
the
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
used
to
capture
and
control
emissions
from
your
electrodeposition
primer
bake
oven(
s)
so
that
they
meet
the
operating
limits
specified
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart.
(
d)
If
you
use
an
add­
on
control
device
other
than
those
listed
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
or
wish
to
monitor
an
alternative
parameter
and
comply
with
a
different
operating
limit,
you
must
apply
to
the
Administrator
for
approval
of
alternative
monitoring
under
§
63.8(
f).

§
63.3094
What
work
practice
standards
must
I
meet?

(
a)
[
Reserved]
(
b)
You
must
develop
and
implement
a
work
practice
plan
to
minimize
organic
HAP
emissions
from
the
storage,
mixing,
and
conveying
of
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials
used
in,
and
waste
materials
generated
by,
all
coating
operations
for
which
emission
limits
are
established
under
§
63.3090(
a)
through
(
d)
or
§
63.3091(
a)
through
(
d).
The
plan
must
specify
practices
and
procedures
to
ensure
that,
at
a
minimum,
the
elements
specified
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section
are
implemented.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00028
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78639
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(
1)
All
organic­
HAP­
containing
coatings,
thinners,
cleaning
materials,
and
waste
materials
must
be
stored
in
closed
containers.
(
2)
The
risk
of
spills
of
organic­
HAPcontaining
coatings,
thinners,
cleaning
materials,
and
waste
materials
must
be
minimized.
(
3)
Organic­
HAP­
containing
coatings,
thinners,
cleaning
materials,
and
waste
materials
must
be
conveyed
from
one
location
to
another
in
closed
containers
or
pipes.
(
4)
Mixing
vessels,
other
than
day
tanks
equipped
with
continuous
agitation
systems,
which
contain
organic­
HAP­
containing
coatings
and
other
materials
must
be
closed
except
when
adding
to,
removing,
or
mixing
the
contents.
(
5)
Emissions
of
organic
HAP
must
be
minimized
during
cleaning
of
storage,
mixing,
and
conveying
equipment.
(
c)
You
must
develop
and
implement
a
work
practice
plan
to
minimize
organic
HAP
emissions
from
cleaning
and
from
purging
of
equipment
associated
with
all
coating
operations
for
which
emission
limits
are
established
under
§
63.3090(
a)
through
(
d)
or
§
63.3091(
a)
through
(
d).
(
1)
The
plan
shall,
at
a
minimum,
address
each
of
the
operations
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
i)
through
(
viii)
of
this
section
in
which
you
use
organic
HAPcontaining
materials
or
in
which
there
is
a
potential
for
emission
of
organic
HAP.
(
i)
The
plan
must
address
vehicle
body
wipe
emissions
through
one
or
more
of
the
techniques
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
i)(
A)
through
(
E)
of
this
section,
or
an
approved
alternative.
(
A)
Use
of
solvent­
moistened
wipes.
(
B)
Keeping
solvent
containers
closed
when
not
in
use.
(
C)
Keeping
wipe
disposal/
recovery
containers
closed
when
not
in
use.
(
D)
Use
of
tack­
wipes.
(
E)
Use
of
solvents
containing
less
than
1
percent
organic
HAP
by
weight.
(
ii)
The
plan
must
address
coating
line
purging
emissions
through
one
or
more
of
the
techniques
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
ii)(
A)
through
(
D)
of
this
section,
or
an
approved
alternative.
(
A)
Air/
solvent
push­
out.
(
B)
Capture
and
reclaim
or
recovery
of
purge
materials
(
excluding
applicator
nozzles/
tips).
(
C)
Block
painting
to
the
maximum
extent
feasible.
(
D)
Use
of
low­
HAP
or
no­
HAP
solvents
for
purge.
(
iii)
The
plan
must
address
emissions
from
flushing
of
coating
systems
through
one
or
more
of
the
techniques
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
iii)(
A)
through
(
D)
of
this
section,
or
an
approved
alternative.
(
A)
Keeping
solvent
tanks
closed.
(
B)
Recovering
and
recycling
solvents.
(
C)
Keeping
recovered/
recycled
solvent
tanks
closed.
(
D)
Use
of
low­
HAP
or
no­
HAP
solvents.
(
iv)
The
plan
must
address
emissions
from
cleaning
of
spray
booth
grates
through
one
or
more
of
the
techniques
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
iv)(
A)
through
(
E)
of
this
section,
or
an
approved
alternative.
(
A)
Controlled
burn­
off.
(
B)
Rinsing
with
high­
pressure
water
(
in
place).
(
C)
Rinsing
with
high­
pressure
water
(
off
line).
(
D)
Use
of
spray­
on
masking
or
other
type
of
liquid
masking.
(
E)
Use
of
low­
HAP
or
no­
HAP
content
cleaners.
(
v)
The
plan
must
address
emissions
from
cleaning
of
spray
booth
walls
through
one
or
more
of
the
techniques
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
v)(
A)
through
(
E)
of
this
section,
or
an
approved
alternative.
(
A)
Use
of
masking
materials
(
contact
paper,
plastic
sheet,
or
other
similar
type
of
material).
(
B)
Use
of
spray­
on
masking.
(
C)
Use
of
rags
and
manual
wipes
instead
of
spray
application
when
cleaning
walls.
(
D)
Use
of
low­
HAP
or
no­
HAP
content
cleaners.
(
E)
Controlled
access
to
cleaning
solvents.
(
vi)
The
plan
must
address
emissions
from
cleaning
of
spray
booth
equipment
through
one
or
more
of
the
techniques
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
vi)(
A)
through
(
E)
of
this
section,
or
an
approved
alternative.
(
A)
Use
of
covers
on
equipment
(
disposable
or
reusable).
(
B)
Use
of
parts
cleaners
(
off­
line
submersion
cleaning).
(
C)
Use
of
spray­
on
masking
or
other
protective
coatings.
(
D)
Use
of
low­
HAP
or
no­
HAP
content
cleaners.
(
E)
Controlled
access
to
cleaning
solvents.
(
vii)
The
plan
must
address
emissions
from
cleaning
of
external
spray
booth
areas
through
one
or
more
of
the
techniques
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
vii)(
A)
through
(
F)
of
this
section,
or
an
approved
alternative.
(
A)
Use
of
removable
floor
coverings
(
paper,
foil,
plastic,
or
similar
type
of
material).
(
B)
Use
of
manual
and/
or
mechanical
scrubbers,
rags,
or
wipes
instead
of
spray
application.
(
C)
Use
of
shoe
cleaners
to
eliminate
coating
track­
out
from
spray
booths.
(
D)
Use
of
booties
or
shoe
wraps.
(
E)
Use
of
low­
HAP
or
no­
HAP
content
cleaners.
(
F)
Controlled
access
to
cleaning
solvents.
(
viii)
The
plan
must
address
emissions
from
housekeeping
measures
not
addressed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
i)
through
(
vii)
of
this
section
through
one
or
more
of
the
techniques
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
viii)(
A)
through
(
C)
of
this
section,
or
an
approved
alternative.
(
A)
Keeping
solvent­
laden
articles
(
cloths,
paper,
plastic,
rags,
wipes,
and
similar
items)
in
covered
containers
when
not
in
use.
(
B)
Storing
new
and
used
solvents
in
closed
containers.
(
C)
Transferring
of
solvents
in
a
manner
to
minimize
the
risk
of
spills.
(
2)
Notwithstanding
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
i)
through
(
viii)
of
this
section,
if
the
type
of
coatings
used
in
any
facility
with
surface
coating
operations
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
section
are
of
such
a
nature
that
the
need
for
one
or
more
of
the
practices
specified
under
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)(
i)
through
(
viii)
is
eliminated,
then
the
plan
may
include
approved
alternative
or
equivalent
measures
that
are
applicable
or
necessary
during
cleaning
of
storage,
conveying,
and
application
equipment.
(
d)
As
provided
in
§
63.6(
g),
we,
EPA,
may
choose
to
grant
you
permission
to
use
an
alternative
to
the
work
practice
standards
in
this
section.

General
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.3100
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?
(
a)
You
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
in
§
§
63.3090
and
63.3091
at
all
times,
as
determined
on
a
monthly
basis.
(
b)
The
coating
operations
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
operating
limits
for
emission
capture
systems
and
add­
on
control
devices
required
by
§
63.3093
at
all
times
except
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
c)
You
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards
in
§
63.3094
at
all
times.
(
d)
You
must
always
operate
and
maintain
your
affected
source
including
all
air
pollution
control
and
monitoring
equipment
you
use
for
purposes
of
complying
with
this
subpart
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e)(
1)(
i).
(
e)
You
must
maintain
a
log
detailing
the
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
emission
capture
systems,
add­
on
control
devices,
and
continuous
parameter
monitors
(
CPM)
during
the
period
between
the
compliance
date
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.3083
and
the
date
when
the
initial
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78640
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
performance
tests
have
been
completed,
as
specified
in
§
63.3160.
(
f)
If
your
affected
source
uses
emission
capture
systems
and
add­
on
control
devices,
you
must
develop
and
implement
a
written
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3).
The
plan
must
address
startup,
shutdown,
and
corrective
actions
in
the
event
of
a
malfunction
of
the
emission
capture
system
or
the
add­
on
control
devices.

§
63.3101
What
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
me?
Table
2
to
this
subpart
shows
which
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
in
§
§
63.1
through
63.15
apply
to
you.

Notifications,
Reports,
and
Records
§
63.3110
What
notifications
must
I
submit?
(
a)
General.
You
must
submit
the
notifications
in
§
§
63.7(
b)
and
(
c),
63.8(
f)(
4),
and
63.9(
b)
through
(
e)
and
(
h)
that
apply
to
you
by
the
dates
specified
in
those
sections,
except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
b)
and
(
c)
of
this
section.
(
b)
Initial
notification.
You
must
submit
the
Initial
Notification
required
by
§
63.9(
b)
for
a
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
no
later
than
120
days
after
initial
startup
or
120
days
after
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
whichever
is
later.
For
an
existing
affected
source,
you
must
submit
the
Initial
Notification
no
later
than
1
year
after
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(
c)
Notification
of
compliance
status.
You
must
submit
the
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
required
by
§
63.9(
h)
no
later
than
30
calendar
days
following
the
end
of
the
initial
compliance
period
described
in
§
63.3160
that
applies
to
your
affected
source.
The
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
must
contain
the
information
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
12)
of
this
section
and
in
§
63.9(
h).
(
1)
Company
name
and
address.
(
2)
Statement
by
a
responsible
official
with
that
official's
name,
title,
and
signature,
certifying
the
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
the
content
of
the
report.
(
3)
Date
of
the
report
and
beginning
and
ending
dates
of
the
reporting
period.
The
reporting
period
is
the
initial
compliance
period
described
in
§
63.3160
that
applies
to
your
affected
source.
(
4)
Identification
of
the
compliance
option
specified
in
§
63.3090(
a)
or
(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
a)
or
(
b)
that
you
used
for
electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
application
in
the
affected
source
during
the
initial
compliance
period.
(
5)
Statement
of
whether
or
not
the
affected
source
achieved
the
emission
limitations
for
the
initial
compliance
period.
(
6)
If
you
had
a
deviation,
include
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
A
description
and
statement
of
the
cause
of
the
deviation.
(
ii)
If
you
failed
to
meet
any
of
the
applicable
emission
limits
in
§
63.3090
or
§
63.3091,
include
all
the
calculations
you
used
to
determine
the
applicable
emission
rate
or
applicable
average
organic
HAP
content
for
the
emission
limit(
s)
that
you
failed
to
meet.
You
do
not
need
to
submit
information
provided
by
the
materials
suppliers
or
manufacturers,
or
test
reports.
(
7)
All
data
and
calculations
used
to
determine
the
monthly
average
mass
of
organic
HAP
emitted
per
volume
of
applied
coating
solids
from:
(
i)
The
combined
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations
if
you
were
eligible
for
and
chose
to
comply
with
the
emission
limits
of
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b);
or
(
ii)
The
combined
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations.
(
8)
All
data
and
calculations
used
to
determine
compliance
with
the
separate
limits
for
electrodeposition
primer
in
§
63.3092(
a)
or
(
b)
if
you
were
eligible
for
and
chose
to
comply
with
the
emission
limits
of
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b).
(
9)
All
data
and
calculations
used
to
determine
the
monthly
mass
average
HAP
content
of
materials
subject
to
the
emission
limits
of
§
63.3090(
c)
and
(
d)
or
§
63.3091(
c)
and
(
d).
(
10)
All
data
and
calculations
used
to
determine
the
transfer
efficiency
for
primer­
surfacer
and
topcoat
coatings.
(
11)
You
must
include
the
information
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
11)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
For
each
emission
capture
system,
a
summary
of
the
data
and
copies
of
the
calculations
supporting
the
determination
that
the
emission
capture
system
is
a
permanent
total
enclosure
(
PTE)
or
a
measurement
of
the
emission
capture
system
efficiency.
Include
a
description
of
the
procedure
followed
for
measuring
capture
efficiency,
summaries
of
any
capture
efficiency
tests
conducted,
and
any
calculations
supporting
the
capture
efficiency
determination.
If
you
use
the
data
quality
objective
(
DQO)
or
lower
confidence
limit
(
LCL)
approach,
you
must
also
include
the
statistical
calculations
to
show
you
meet
the
DQO
or
LCL
criteria
in
appendix
A
to
subpart
KK
of
this
part.
You
do
not
need
to
submit
complete
test
reports.
(
ii)
A
summary
of
the
results
of
each
add­
on
control
device
performance
test.
You
do
not
need
to
submit
complete
test
reports
unless
requested.
(
iii)
A
list
of
each
emission
capture
system's
and
add­
on
control
device's
operating
limits
and
a
summary
of
the
data
used
to
calculate
those
limits.
(
12)
A
statement
of
whether
or
not
you
developed
and
implemented
the
work
practice
plans
required
by
§
63.3094(
b)
and
(
c).

§
63.3120
What
reports
must
I
submit?
(
a)
Semiannual
compliance
reports.
You
must
submit
semiannual
compliance
reports
for
each
affected
source
according
to
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
7)
of
this
section.
The
semiannual
compliance
reporting
requirements
may
be
satisfied
by
reports
required
under
other
parts
of
the
CAA,
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
a)(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Dates.
Unless
the
Administrator
has
approved
a
different
schedule
for
submission
of
reports
under
§
63.10(
a),
you
must
prepare
and
submit
each
semiannual
compliance
report
according
to
the
dates
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
i)
The
first
semiannual
compliance
report
must
cover
the
first
semiannual
reporting
period
which
begins
the
day
after
the
end
of
the
initial
compliance
period
described
in
§
63.3160
that
applies
to
your
affected
source
and
ends
on
June
30
or
December
31,
whichever
occurs
first
following
the
end
of
the
initial
compliance
period.
(
ii)
Each
subsequent
semiannual
compliance
report
must
cover
the
subsequent
semiannual
reporting
period
from
January
1
through
June
30
or
the
semiannual
reporting
period
from
July
1
through
December
31.
(
iii)
Each
semiannual
compliance
report
must
be
postmarked
or
delivered
no
later
than
July
31
or
January
31,
whichever
date
is
the
first
date
following
the
end
of
the
semiannual
reporting
period.
(
iv)
For
each
affected
source
that
is
subject
to
permitting
regulations
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
70
or
40
CFR
part
71,
and
if
the
permitting
authority
has
established
dates
for
submitting
semiannual
reports
pursuant
to
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
40
CFR
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00030
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78641
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A),
you
may
submit
the
first
and
subsequent
compliance
reports
according
to
the
dates
the
permitting
authority
has
established
instead
of
according
to
the
date
specified
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
2)
Inclusion
with
title
V
report.
If
you
have
obtained
a
title
V
operating
permit
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
70
or
40
CFR
part
71,
you
must
report
all
deviations
as
defined
in
this
subpart
in
the
semiannual
monitoring
report
required
by
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
40
CFR
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A).
If
you
submit
a
semiannual
compliance
report
pursuant
to
this
section
along
with,
or
as
part
of,
the
semiannual
monitoring
report
required
by
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
40
CFR
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A),
and
the
semiannual
compliance
report
includes
all
required
information
concerning
deviations
from
any
emission
limit,
operating
limit,
or
work
practice
in
this
subpart,
its
submission
shall
be
deemed
to
satisfy
any
obligation
to
report
the
same
deviations
in
the
semiannual
monitoring
report.
However,
submission
of
a
semiannual
compliance
report
shall
not
otherwise
affect
any
obligation
you
may
have
to
report
deviations
from
permit
requirements
to
the
permitting
authority.
(
3)
General
requirements.
The
semiannual
compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
3)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section,
and
the
information
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
4)
through
(
9)
and
(
c)(
1)
of
this
section
that
are
applicable
to
your
affected
source.
(
i)
Company
name
and
address.
(
ii)
Statement
by
a
responsible
official
with
that
official's
name,
title,
and
signature,
certifying
the
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
the
content
of
the
report.
(
iii)
Date
of
report
and
beginning
and
ending
dates
of
the
reporting
period.
The
reporting
period
is
the
6­
month
period
ending
on
June
30
or
December
31.
(
iv)
Identification
of
the
compliance
option
specified
in
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b)
that
you
used
for
electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
application
in
the
affected
source
during
the
initial
compliance
period.
(
4)
No
deviations.
If
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
emission
limitations,
operating
limits,
or
work
practices
in
§
§
63.3090,
63.3091,
63.3092,
63.3093,
and
63.3094
that
apply
to
you,
the
semiannual
compliance
report
must
include
a
statement
that
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
emission
limitations
during
the
reporting
period.
If
you
used
control
devices
to
comply
with
the
emission
limits,
and
there
were
no
periods
during
which
the
continuous
parameter
monitoring
systems
(
CPMS)
were
out
of
control
as
specified
in
§
63.8(
c)(
7),
the
semiannual
compliance
report
must
include
a
statement
that
there
were
no
periods
during
which
the
CPMS
were
out
of
control
during
the
reporting
period.
(
5)
Deviations:
adhesive,
sealer,
and
deadener.
If
there
was
a
deviation
from
the
applicable
emission
limits
in
§
63.3090(
c)
and
(
d)
or
§
63.3091(
c)
and
(
d),
the
semiannual
compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
5)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
i)
The
beginning
and
ending
dates
of
each
month
during
which
the
monthly
average
organic
HAP
content
exceeded
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
c)
and
(
d)
or
§
63.3091(
c)
and
(
d).
(
ii)
The
volume
and
organic
HAP
content
of
each
material
used
that
is
subject
to
the
applicable
organic
HAP
content
limit.
(
iii)
The
calculation
used
to
determine
the
average
monthly
organic
HAP
content
for
the
month
in
which
the
deviation
occurred.
(
iv)
The
reason
for
the
deviation.
(
6)
Deviations:
combined
electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer
and
glass
bonding
adhesive,
or
combined
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive.
If
there
was
a
deviation
from
the
applicable
emission
limits
in
§
63.3090(
a)
or
(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
a)
or
(
b),
the
semiannual
compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
6)(
i)
through
(
xiv)
of
this
section.
(
i)
The
beginning
and
ending
dates
of
each
month
during
which
the
monthly
organic
HAP
emission
rate
from
combined
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
exceeded
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
a)
or
§
63.3091(
a);
or
the
monthly
organic
HAP
emission
rate
from
combined
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
exceeded
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b).
(
ii)
The
calculation
used
to
determine
the
monthly
organic
HAP
emission
rate
in
accordance
with
§
63.3161
or
§
63.3171.
You
do
not
need
to
submit
the
background
data
supporting
these
calculations,
for
example
information
provided
by
materials
suppliers
or
manufacturers,
or
test
reports.
(
iii)
The
date
and
time
that
any
malfunctions
of
the
capture
system
or
add­
on
control
devices
used
to
control
emissions
from
these
operations
started
and
stopped.
(
iv)
A
brief
description
of
the
CPMS.
(
v)
The
date
of
the
latest
CPMS
certification
or
audit.
(
vi)
The
date
and
time
that
each
CPMS
was
inoperative,
except
for
zero
(
low­
level)
and
high­
level
checks.
(
vii)
The
date
and
time
period
that
each
CPMS
was
out
of
control,
including
the
information
in
§
63.8(
c)(
8).
(
viii)
The
date
and
time
period
of
each
deviation
from
an
operating
limit
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart;
date
and
time
period
of
each
bypass
of
an
add­
on
control
device;
and
whether
each
deviation
occurred
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
or
during
another
period.
(
ix)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
and
the
percent
of
the
total
source
operating
time
of
the
deviations
from
each
operating
limit
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart
and
the
bypass
of
each
add­
on
control
device
during
the
semiannual
reporting
period.
(
x)
A
breakdown
of
the
total
duration
of
the
deviations
from
each
operating
limit
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart
and
bypasses
of
each
add­
on
control
device
during
the
semiannual
reporting
period
into
those
that
were
due
to
startup,
shutdown,
control
equipment
problems,
process
problems,
other
known
causes,
and
other
unknown
causes.
(
xi)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
and
the
percent
of
the
total
source
operating
time
of
the
downtime
for
each
CPMS
during
the
semiannual
reporting
period.
(
xii)
A
description
of
any
changes
in
the
CPMS,
coating
operation,
emission
capture
system,
or
add­
on
control
devices
since
the
last
semiannual
reporting
period.
(
xiii)
For
each
deviation
from
the
work
practice
standards,
a
description
of
the
deviation,
the
date
and
time
period
of
the
deviation,
and
the
actions
you
took
to
correct
the
deviation.
(
xiv)
A
statement
of
the
cause
of
each
deviation.
(
7)
Deviations:
separate
electrodeposition
primer
organic
HAP
content
limit.
If
you
used
the
separate
electrodeposition
primer
organic
HAP
content
limits
in
§
63.3092(
a),
and
there
was
a
deviation
from
these
limits,
the
semiannual
compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
7)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Identification
of
each
material
used
that
deviated
from
the
emission
limit,

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00031
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78642
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
and
the
dates
and
time
periods
each
was
used.
(
ii)
The
determination
of
mass
fraction
of
each
organic
HAP
for
each
material
identified
in
paragraph
(
a)(
7)(
i)
of
this
section.
You
do
not
need
to
submit
background
data
supporting
this
calculation,
for
example,
information
provided
by
material
suppliers
or
manufacturers,
or
test
reports.
(
iii)
A
statement
of
the
cause
of
each
deviation.
(
8)
Deviations:
separate
electrodeposition
primer
bake
oven
capture
and
control
limitations.
If
you
used
the
separate
electrodeposition
primer
bake
oven
capture
and
control
limitations
in
§
63.3092(
b),
and
there
was
a
deviation
from
these
limitations,
the
semiannual
compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
8)(
i)
through
(
xii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
The
beginning
and
ending
dates
of
each
month
during
which
there
was
a
deviation
from
the
separate
electrodeposition
primer
bake
oven
capture
and
control
limitations
in
§
63.3092(
b).
(
ii)
The
date
and
time
that
any
malfunctions
of
the
capture
systems
or
control
devices
used
to
control
emissions
from
the
electrodeposition
primer
bake
oven
started
and
stopped.
(
iii)
A
brief
description
of
the
CPMS.
(
iv)
The
date
of
the
latest
CPMS
certification
or
audit.
(
v)
The
date
and
time
that
each
CPMS
was
inoperative,
except
for
zero
(
lowlevel
and
high­
level
checks.
(
vi)
The
date,
time,
and
duration
that
each
CPMS
was
out
of
control,
including
the
information
in
§
63.8(
c)(
8).
(
vii)
The
date
and
time
period
of
each
deviation
from
an
operating
limit
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart;
date
and
time
period
of
each
bypass
of
an
add­
on
control
device;
and
whether
each
deviation
occurred
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
or
during
another
period.
(
viii)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
and
the
percent
of
the
total
source
operating
time
of
the
deviations
from
each
operating
limit
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart
and
the
bypasses
of
each
addon
control
device
during
the
semiannual
reporting
period.
(
ix)
A
breakdown
of
the
total
duration
of
the
deviations
from
each
operating
limit
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart
and
bypasses
of
each
add­
on
control
device
during
the
semiannual
reporting
period
into
those
that
were
due
to
startup,
shutdown,
control
equipment
problems,
process
problems,
other
known
causes,
and
other
unknown
causes.
(
x)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
and
the
percent
of
the
total
source
operating
time
of
the
downtime
for
each
CPMS
during
the
semiannual
reporting
period.
(
xi)
A
description
of
any
changes
in
the
CPMS,
coating
operation,
emission
capture
system,
or
add­
on
control
devices
since
the
last
semiannual
reporting
period.
(
xii)
A
statement
of
the
cause
of
each
deviation.
(
9)
Deviations:
work
practice
plans.
If
there
was
a
deviation
from
an
applicable
work
practice
plan
developed
in
accordance
with
§
63.3094(
b)
or
(
c),
the
semiannual
compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
9)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
The
time
period
during
which
each
deviation
occurred.
(
ii)
The
nature
of
each
deviation.
(
iii)
The
corrective
action(
s)
taken
to
bring
the
applicable
work
practices
into
compliance
with
the
work
practice
plan.
(
b)
Performance
test
reports.
If
you
use
add­
on
control
devices,
you
must
submit
reports
of
performance
test
results
for
emission
capture
systems
and
add­
on
control
devices
no
later
than
60
days
after
completing
the
tests
as
specified
in
§
63.10(
d)(
2).
(
c)
Startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
reports.
If
you
used
add­
on
control
devices
and
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
during
the
semiannual
reporting
period,
you
must
submit
the
reports
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
If
your
actions
were
consistent
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
you
must
include
the
information
specified
in
§
63.10(
d)
in
the
semiannual
compliance
report
required
by
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section.
(
2)
If
your
actions
were
not
consistent
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
you
must
submit
an
immediate
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
report
as
described
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
You
must
describe
the
actions
taken
during
the
event
in
a
report
delivered
by
facsimile,
telephone,
or
other
means
to
the
Administrator
within
2
working
days
after
starting
actions
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
plan.
(
ii)
You
must
submit
a
letter
to
the
Administrator
within
7
working
days
after
the
end
of
the
event,
unless
you
have
made
alternative
arrangements
with
the
Administrator
as
specified
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii).
The
letter
must
contain
the
information
specified
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii).

§
63.3130
What
records
must
I
keep?

You
must
collect
and
keep
records
of
the
data
and
information
specified
in
this
section.
Failure
to
collect
and
keep
these
records
is
a
deviation
from
the
applicable
standard.
(
a)
A
copy
of
each
notification
and
report
that
you
submitted
to
comply
with
this
subpart,
and
the
documentation
supporting
each
notification
and
report.
(
b)
A
current
copy
of
information
provided
by
materials
suppliers
or
manufacturers,
such
as
manufacturer's
formulation
data,
or
test
data
used
to
determine
the
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP,
the
density
and
the
volume
fraction
of
coating
solids
for
each
coating,
the
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
and
the
density
for
each
thinner,
and
the
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
for
each
cleaning
material.
If
you
conducted
testing
to
determine
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP,
density,
or
volume
fraction
of
coating
solids,
you
must
keep
a
copy
of
the
complete
test
report.
If
you
use
information
provided
to
you
by
the
manufacturer
or
supplier
of
the
material
that
was
based
on
testing,
you
must
keep
the
summary
sheet
of
results
provided
to
you
by
the
manufacturer
or
supplier.
If
you
use
the
results
of
an
analysis
conducted
by
an
outside
testing
lab,
you
must
keep
a
copy
of
the
test
report.
You
are
not
required
to
obtain
the
test
report
or
other
supporting
documentation
from
the
manufacturer
or
supplier.
(
c)
For
each
month,
the
records
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section.
(
1)
For
each
coating
material
used
for
electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations,
a
record
of
the
volume
used
in
each
month,
the
mass
fraction
organic
HAP
content,
the
density,
and
the
volume
fraction
of
solids.
(
2)
For
each
coating
material
used
for
deadener,
sealer,
or
adhesive,
a
record
of
the
mass
used
in
each
month
and
the
mass
organic
HAP
content.
(
3)
A
record
of
the
calculation
of
the
organic
HAP
emission
rate
for
electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
for
each
month
if
subject
to
the
emission
rate
limit
of
§
63.3090(
a)
or
§
63.3091(
a).
(
4)
A
record
of
the
calculation
of
the
organic
HAP
emission
rate
for
primersurfacer
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
for
each
month
if
subject
to
the
emission
rate
limit
of
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b),
and
a
record
of
the
weight
fraction
of
each
organic
HAP
in
each
material
added
to
the
electrodeposition
primer
system
if
subject
to
the
limitations
of
§
63.3092(
a).

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00032
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78643
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(
5)
A
record,
for
each
month,
of
the
calculation
of
the
average
monthly
mass
organic
HAP
content
of:
(
i)
Sealers
and
adhesives;
and
(
ii)
Deadeners.
(
d)
A
record
of
the
name
and
volume
of
each
cleaning
material
used
during
each
month.
(
e)
A
record
of
the
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
for
each
cleaning
material
used
during
each
month.
(
f)
A
record
of
the
density
for
each
cleaning
material
used
during
each
month.
(
g)
A
record
of
the
date,
time,
and
duration
of
each
deviation,
and
for
each
deviation,
a
record
of
whether
the
deviation
occurred
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction.
(
h)
The
records
required
by
§
63.6(
e)(
3)(
iii)
through
(
v)
related
to
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
i)
For
each
capture
system
that
is
a
PTE,
the
data
and
documentation
you
used
to
support
a
determination
that
the
capture
system
meets
the
criteria
in
Method
204
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51
for
a
PTE
and
has
a
capture
efficiency
of
100
percent.
(
j)
For
each
capture
system
that
is
not
a
PTE,
the
data
and
documentation
you
used
to
determine
capture
efficiency
according
to
the
requirements
specified
in
§
63.3164,
including
the
records
specified
in
paragraphs
(
j)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section
that
apply
to
you.
(
1)
Records
for
a
liquid­
touncaptured
gas
protocol
using
a
temporary
total
enclosure
or
building
enclosure.
Records
of
the
mass
of
total
volatile
hydrocarbon
(
TVH),
as
measured
by
Method
204A
or
F
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51,
for
each
material
used
in
the
coating
operation,
and
the
total
TVH
for
all
materials
used
during
each
capture
efficiency
test
run,
including
a
copy
of
the
test
report.
Records
of
the
mass
of
TVH
emissions
not
captured
by
the
capture
system
that
exited
the
temporary
total
enclosure
or
building
enclosure
during
each
capture
efficiency
test
run,
as
measured
by
Method
204D
or
E
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51,
including
a
copy
of
the
test
report.
Records
documenting
that
the
enclosure
used
for
the
capture
efficiency
test
met
the
criteria
in
Method
204
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51
for
either
a
temporary
total
enclosure
or
a
building
enclosure.
(
2)
Records
for
a
gas­
to­
gas
protocol
using
a
temporary
total
enclosure
or
a
building
enclosure.
Records
of
the
mass
of
TVH
emissions
captured
by
the
emission
capture
system,
as
measured
by
Method
204B
or
C
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51,
at
the
inlet
to
the
addon
control
device,
including
a
copy
of
the
test
report.
Records
of
the
mass
of
TVH
emissions
not
captured
by
the
capture
system
that
exited
the
temporary
total
enclosure
or
building
enclosure
during
each
capture
efficiency
test
run,
as
measured
by
Method
204D
or
E
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51,
including
a
copy
of
the
test
report.
Records
documenting
that
the
enclosure
used
for
the
capture
efficiency
test
met
the
criteria
in
Method
204
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51
for
either
a
temporary
total
enclosure
or
a
building
enclosure.
(
3)
Records
for
panel
tests.
Records
needed
to
document
a
capture
efficiency
determination
using
a
panel
test
as
described
in
§
63.3165(
e),
including
a
copy
of
the
test
report
and
calculations
performed
to
convert
the
panel
test
results
to
percent
capture
efficiency
values.
(
4)
Records
for
an
alternative
protocol.
Records
needed
to
document
a
capture
efficiency
determination
using
an
alternative
method
or
protocol,
if
applicable.
(
k)
The
records
specified
in
paragraphs
(
k)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section
for
each
add­
on
control
device
organic
HAP
destruction
or
removal
efficiency
determination
as
specified
in
§
63.3166.
(
1)
Records
of
each
add­
on
control
device
performance
test
conducted
according
to
§
§
63.3164
and
63.3166.
(
2)
Records
of
the
coating
operation
conditions
during
the
add­
on
control
device
performance
test
showing
that
the
performance
test
was
conducted
under
representative
operating
conditions.
(
l)
Records
of
the
data
and
calculations
you
used
to
establish
the
emission
capture
and
add­
on
control
device
operating
limits
as
specified
in
§
63.3167
and
to
document
compliance
with
the
operating
limits
as
specified
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart.
(
m)
Records
of
the
data
and
calculations
you
used
to
determine
the
transfer
efficiency
for
primer­
surfacer
and
topcoat
application.
(
n)
A
record
of
the
work
practice
plans
required
by
§
63.3094(
b)
and
(
c)
and
documentation
that
you
are
implementing
the
plan
on
a
continuous
basis.

§
63.3131
In
what
form
and
for
how
long
must
I
keep
my
records?

(
a)
Your
records
must
be
in
a
form
suitable
and
readily
available
for
expeditious
review
according
to
§
63.10(
b)(
1).
Where
appropriate,
the
records
may
be
maintained
as
electronic
spreadsheets
or
as
a
database.
(
b)
As
specified
in
§
63.10(
b)(
1),
you
must
keep
each
record
for
5
years
following
the
date
of
each
occurrence,
measurement,
maintenance,
corrective
action,
report,
or
record.
(
c)
You
must
keep
each
record
on
site
for
at
least
2
years
after
the
date
of
each
occurrence,
measurement,
maintenance,
corrective
action,
report,
or
record
according
to
§
63.10(
b)(
1).
You
may
keep
the
records
off
site
for
the
remaining
3
years.

Compliance
Requirements
for
Adhesive,
Sealer,
and
Deadener
§
63.3150
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
the
initial
compliance
demonstration?
You
must
complete
the
initial
compliance
demonstration
for
the
initial
compliance
period
according
to
the
requirements
of
§
63.3151.
The
initial
compliance
period
begins
on
the
applicable
compliance
date
specified
in
§
63.3083
and
ends
on
the
last
day
of
the
month
following
the
compliance
date.
If
the
compliance
date
occurs
on
any
day
other
than
the
first
day
of
a
month,
then
the
initial
compliance
period
extends
through
the
end
of
that
month
plus
the
next
month.
You
must
determine
the
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
of
the
materials
used
each
month
for
each
group
of
materials
for
which
an
emission
limitation
is
established
in
§
63.3090(
c)
and
(
d)
or
§
63.3091(
c)
and
(
d).
The
initial
compliance
demonstration
includes
the
calculations
according
to
§
63.3151
and
supporting
documentation
showing
that
during
the
initial
compliance
period,
the
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
for
each
group
of
materials
was
equal
to
or
less
than
the
applicable
emission
limits
in
§
63.3090(
c)
and
(
d)
or
§
63.3091(
c)
and
(
d).

§
63.3151
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations?
You
must
separately
calculate
the
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
of
the
materials
used
during
the
initial
compliance
period
for
each
group
of
materials
for
which
an
emission
limit
is
established
in
§
63.3090(
c)
and
(
d)
or
§
63.3091(
c)
and
(
d).
If
every
individual
material
used
within
a
group
of
materials
meets
the
emission
limit
for
that
group
of
materials,
you
may
demonstrate
compliance
with
that
emission
limit
by
documenting
the
name
and
the
organic
HAP
content
of
each
material
used
during
the
initial
compliance
period.
If
any
individual
material
used
within
a
group
of
materials
exceeds
the
emission
limit
for
that
group
of
materials,
you
must
determine
the
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
according
to
the
procedures
of
paragraphs
(
d)
and
(
e)
of
this
section.
(
a)
Determine
the
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
for
each
material
used.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00033
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78644
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
You
must
determine
the
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
for
each
material
used
during
the
compliance
period
by
using
one
of
the
options
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Method
311
(
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
63).
You
may
use
Method
311
for
determining
the
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP.
Use
the
procedures
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section
when
performing
a
Method
311
test.
(
i)
Count
each
organic
HAP
that
is
measured
to
be
present
at
0.1
percent
by
mass
or
more
for
OSHA­
defined
carcinogens,
as
specified
in
29
CFR
1910.1200(
d)(
4),
and
at
1.0
percent
by
mass
or
more
for
other
compounds.
For
example,
if
toluene
(
not
an
OSHA
carcinogen)
is
measured
to
be
0.5
percent
of
the
material
by
mass,
you
do
not
have
to
count
it.
Express
the
mass
fraction
of
each
organic
HAP
you
count
as
a
value
truncated
to
four
places
after
the
decimal
point
(
e.
g.,
0.3791).
(
ii)
Calculate
the
total
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
in
the
test
material
by
adding
up
the
individual
organic
HAP
mass
fractions
and
truncating
the
result
to
three
places
after
the
decimal
point
(
e.
g.,
0.7638
truncates
to
0.763).
(
2)
Method
24
(
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60).
For
coatings,
you
may
use
Method
24
to
determine
the
mass
fraction
of
nonaqueous
volatile
matter
and
use
that
value
as
a
substitute
for
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP.
(
3)
Alternative
method.
You
may
use
an
alternative
test
method
for
determining
the
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
once
the
Administrator
has
approved
it.
You
must
follow
the
procedure
in
§
63.7(
f)
to
submit
an
alternative
test
method
for
approval.
(
4)
Information
from
the
supplier
or
manufacturer
of
the
material.
You
may
rely
on
information
other
than
that
generated
by
the
test
methods
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section,
such
as
manufacturer's
formulation
data,
if
it
represents
each
organic
HAP
that
is
present
at
0.1
percent
by
mass
or
more
for
OSHAdefined
carcinogens,
as
specified
in
29
CFR
1910.1200(
d)(
4),
and
at
1.0
percent
by
mass
or
more
for
other
compounds.
For
example,
if
toluene
(
not
an
OSHA
carcinogen)
is
0.5
percent
of
the
material
by
mass,
you
do
not
have
to
count
it.
If
there
is
a
disagreement
between
such
information
and
results
of
a
test
conducted
according
to
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section,
then
the
test
method
results
will
take
precedence.
(
5)
Solvent
blends.
Solvent
blends
may
be
listed
as
single
components
for
some
materials
in
data
provided
by
manufacturers
or
suppliers.
Solvent
blends
may
contain
organic
HAP
which
must
be
counted
toward
the
total
organic
HAP
mass
fraction
of
the
materials.
When
neither
test
data
nor
manufacturer's
data
for
solvent
blends
are
available,
you
may
use
the
default
values
for
the
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
in
the
solvent
blends
listed
in
Table
3
or
4
to
this
subpart.
If
you
use
the
tables,
you
must
use
the
values
in
Table
3
for
all
solvent
blends
that
match
Table
3
entries,
and
you
may
only
use
Table
4
if
the
solvent
blends
in
the
materials
you
use
do
not
match
any
of
the
solvent
blends
in
Table
3
and
you
only
know
whether
the
blend
is
aliphatic
or
aromatic.
However,
if
the
results
of
a
Method
311
test
indicate
higher
values
than
those
listed
on
Table
3
or
4
to
this
subpart,
the
Method
311
results
will
take
precedence.
(
b)
Determine
the
density
of
each
material
used.
Determine
the
density
of
each
material
used
during
the
compliance
period
from
test
results
using
ASTM
Method
D1475
 
98
or
information
from
the
supplier
or
manufacturer
of
the
material.
If
there
is
disagreement
between
ASTM
Method
D1475
 
98
test
results
and
the
supplier's
or
manufacturer's
information,
the
test
results
will
take
precedence.
(
c)
Determine
the
volume
of
each
material
used.
Determine
the
volume
(
liters)
of
each
material
used
during
each
month
by
measurement
or
usage
records.
(
d)
Determine
the
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
for
each
group
of
materials.
Determine
the
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
of
the
materials
used
during
the
initial
compliance
period
for
each
group
of
materials
for
which
an
emission
limit
is
established
in
§
63.3090(
c)
and
(
d)
or
§
63.3091(
c)
and
(
d),
using
Equations
1
and
2
of
this
section.
(
1)
Calculate
the
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
of
adhesive
and
sealer
materials
other
than
components
of
the
glass
bonding
system
used
in
the
initial
compliance
period
using
Equation
1
of
this
section:

C
Vol
D
W
Vol
D
Eq
avg
as
as
j
as
j
as
j
j
r
as
j
as
j
j
r
,
,
,
,

,
,
(
.
=
(
)(
)(
)

(
)(
)
=

=
 

 
1
1
1)

Where:
Cavg,
as
=
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
of
adhesives
and
sealers
used,
kg/
kg.
Volas,
j
=
volume
of
adhesive
or
sealer
j
used,
liters.
Das,
j
=
Density
of
adhesive
or
sealer
j
used,
kg
per
liter.
Was,
j
=
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
in
adhesive
or
sealer,
j,
kg/
kg.
r
=
number
of
adhesives
and
sealers
used.
(
2)
Calculate
the
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
of
deadener
used
in
the
initial
compliance
period
using
Equation
2
of
this
section:

C
Vol
D
W
Vol
D
Eq
avg
d
d
m
d
m
d
m
m
s
d
m
d
m
m
s
,
,
,
,

,
,
(
.
=
(
)(
)(
)

(
)(
)
=

=
 

 
1
1
2)

Where:
Cavg,
d
=
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
of
deadener
used,
kg/
kg.
Vold,
m
=
volume
of
deadener,
m,
used,
liters.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00034
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
EP24DE02.006</
GPH>
EP24DE02.007</
GPH>
78645
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Dd,
m
=
density
of
deadener,
m,
used,
kg
per
liter.
Wd,
m
=
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
in
deadener,
m,
kg/
kg.
s
=
number
of
deadener
materials
used.
(
e)
Compliance
demonstration.
The
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
for
the
compliance
period
must
be
less
than
or
equal
to
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
c)
and
(
d)
or
§
63.3091(
c)
and
(
d).
You
must
keep
all
records
as
required
by
§
§
63.3130
and
63.3131.
As
part
of
the
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
required
by
§
63.3110,
you
must
submit
a
statement
that
the
coating
operations
were
in
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
during
the
initial
compliance
period
because
the
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
was
less
than
or
equal
to
the
applicable
emission
limits
in
§
63.3090(
c)
and
(
d)
or
§
63.3091(
c)
and
(
d),
determined
according
to
this
section.

§
63.3152
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations?
(
a)
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance,
the
mass
average
organic
HAP
content
for
each
compliance
period,
determined
according
to
§
63.3151(
a)
through
(
c),
must
be
less
than
or
equal
to
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
c)
and
(
d)
or
§
63.3091(
c)
and
(
d).
A
compliance
period
consists
of
1
month.
Each
month
after
the
end
of
the
initial
compliance
period
described
in
§
63.3150
is
a
compliance
period
consisting
of
that
month.
(
b)
If
the
mass
average
organic
HAP
emission
content
for
any
compliance
period
exceeds
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
c)
and
(
d)
or
§
63.3091(
c)
and
(
d),
this
is
a
deviation
from
the
emission
limitations
for
that
compliance
period
and
must
be
reported
as
specified
in
§
§
63.3110(
c)(
6)
and
63.3120(
a)(
5).
(
c)
You
must
maintain
records
as
specified
in
§
§
63.3130
and
63.3131.

Compliance
Requirements
for
the
Combined
Electrodeposition
Primer,
Primer­
Surfacer,
Topcoat,
Final
Repair,
Glass
Bonding
Primer,
and
Glass
Bonding
Adhesive
Emission
Rates
§
63.3160
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
performance
tests
and
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations?
(
a)
New
and
reconstructed
affected
sources.
For
a
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source,
you
must
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
All
emission
capture
systems,
addon
control
devices,
and
CPMS
must
be
installed
and
operating
no
later
than
the
applicable
compliance
date
specified
in
§
63.3083.
You
must
conduct
a
performance
test
of
each
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
according
to
§
§
63.3164
and
63.3166
and
establish
the
operating
limits
required
by
§
63.3093
no
later
than
180
days
after
the
applicable
compliance
date
specified
in
§
63.3083.
(
2)
You
must
develop
and
begin
implementing
the
work
practice
plans
required
by
§
63.3094(
b),
(
c),
and
(
e)
no
later
than
the
compliance
date
specified
in
§
63.3083.
(
3)
You
must
complete
the
initial
compliance
demonstration
for
the
initial
compliance
period
according
to
the
requirements
of
§
63.3161.
The
initial
compliance
period
begins
on
the
applicable
compliance
date
specified
in
§
63.3083
and
ends
on
the
last
day
of
the
month
following
the
compliance
date.
If
the
compliance
date
occurs
on
any
day
other
than
the
first
day
of
a
month,
then
the
initial
compliance
period
extends
through
the
end
of
that
month
plus
the
next
month.
You
must
determine
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
and
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited
in
the
initial
compliance
period.
The
initial
compliance
demonstration
includes
the
results
of
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
performance
tests
conducted
according
to
§
§
63.3164
and
63.3166;
supporting
documentation
showing
that
during
the
initial
compliance
period
the
organic
HAP
emission
rate
was
equal
to
or
less
than
the
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
a);
the
operating
limits
established
during
the
performance
tests
and
the
results
of
the
continuous
parameter
monitoring
required
by
§
63.3168;
and
documentation
of
whether
you
developed
and
implemented
the
work
practice
plans
required
by
§
63.3094(
b),
(
c),
and
(
e).
(
4)
You
do
not
need
to
comply
with
the
operating
limits
for
the
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
required
by
§
63.3093
until
after
you
have
completed
the
performance
tests
specified
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
of
this
section.
Instead,
you
must
maintain
a
log
detailing
the
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
emission
capture
system,
add­
on
control
device,
and
CPM
during
the
period
between
the
compliance
date
and
the
performance
test.
You
must
begin
complying
with
the
operating
limits
for
your
affected
source
on
the
date
you
complete
the
performance
tests
specified
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
of
this
section.
(
b)
Existing
affected
sources.
For
an
existing
affected
source,
you
must
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
All
emission
capture
systems,
addon
control
devices,
and
CPMS
must
be
installed
and
operating
no
later
than
the
applicable
compliance
date
specified
in
§
63.3083.
You
must
conduct
a
performance
test
of
each
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
according
to
the
procedures
in
§
§
63.3164
and
63.3166
and
establish
the
operating
limits
required
by
§
63.3093
no
later
than
the
compliance
date
specified
in
§
63.3083.
(
2)
You
must
develop
and
begin
implementing
the
work
practice
plans
required
by
§
63.3094(
b),
(
c),
and
(
e)
no
later
than
the
compliance
date
specified
in
§
63.3083.
(
3)
You
must
complete
the
initial
compliance
demonstration
for
the
initial
compliance
period
according
to
the
requirements
of
§
63.3161.
The
initial
compliance
period
begins
on
the
applicable
compliance
date
specified
in
§
63.3083
and
ends
on
the
last
day
of
the
month
following
the
compliance
date.
If
the
compliance
date
occurs
on
any
day
other
than
the
first
day
of
a
month,
then
the
initial
compliance
period
extends
through
the
end
of
that
month
plus
the
next
month.
You
must
determine
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
and
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited
during
the
initial
compliance
period.
The
initial
compliance
demonstration
includes
the
results
of
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
performance
tests
conducted
according
to
§
§
63.3164
and
63.3166;
supporting
documentation
showing
that
during
the
initial
compliance
period
the
organic
HAP
emission
rate
was
equal
to
or
less
than
the
emission
limits
in
§
63.3091(
a);
the
operating
limits
established
during
the
performance
tests
and
the
results
of
the
continuous
parameter
monitoring
required
by
§
63.3168;
and
documentation
of
whether
you
developed
and
implemented
the
work
practice
plans
required
by
§
63.3094(
b),
(
c),
and
(
e).

§
63.3161
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance?

(
a)
You
must
meet
all
of
the
requirements
of
this
section
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance.
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance,
the
organic
HAP
emissions
from
the
combined
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations
must
meet
the
applicable
emission
limitation
in
§
63.3090(
a)
or
§
63.3091(
a).
(
b)
Compliance
with
operating
limits.
Except
as
provided
in
§
63.3160(
a)(
4),
you
must
establish
and
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
during
the
initial
compliance
period
with
the
operating
limits
required
by
§
63.3093,

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00035
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78646
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
using
the
procedures
specified
in
§
§
63.3167
and
63.3168.
(
c)
Compliance
with
work
practice
requirements.
You
must
develop,
implement,
and
document
your
implementation
of
the
work
practice
plans
required
by
§
63.3094(
b)
and
(
c)
during
the
initial
compliance
period,
as
specified
in
§
63.3130.
(
d)
Compliance
with
emission
limits.
You
must
follow
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
e)
through
(
o)
of
this
section
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
a)
or
§
63.3091(
a).
You
may
also
use
the
guidelines
presented
in
``
Protocol
for
Determining
Daily
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emission
Rate
of
Automobile
and
Light­
Duty
Truck
Topcoat
Operations,''
EPA
 
450/
3
 
88
 
018
(
docket
A
 
2001
 
22)
in
making
this
demonstration.
(
e)
Determine
the
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP,
density
and
volume
used.
Follow
the
procedures
specified
in
§
63.3151(
a)
through
(
c)
to
determine
the
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
and
the
density
and
volume
of
each
coating
and
thinner
used
during
each
month.
(
f)
Determine
the
volume
fraction
of
coating
solids
for
each
coating.
You
must
determine
the
volume
fraction
of
coating
solids
(
liter
of
coating
solids
per
liter
of
coating)
for
each
coating
used
during
the
compliance
period
by
a
test
or
by
information
provided
by
the
supplier
or
the
manufacturer
of
the
material,
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
If
test
results
obtained
according
to
paragraph
(
f)(
1)
of
this
section
do
not
agree
with
the
information
obtained
under
paragraph
(
f)(
2)
of
this
section,
the
test
results
will
take
precedence.
(
1)
ASTM
Method
D2697
 
86(
1998)
or
D6093
 
97.
You
may
use
ASTM
Method
D2697
 
86(
1998)
or
D6093
 
97
to
determine
the
volume
fraction
of
coating
solids
for
each
coating.
Divide
the
nonvolatile
volume
percent
obtained
with
the
methods
by
100
to
calculate
volume
fraction
of
coating
solids.
(
2)
Information
from
the
supplier
or
manufacturer
of
the
material.
You
may
obtain
the
volume
fraction
of
coating
solids
for
each
coating
from
the
supplier
or
manufacturer.
(
g)
Determine
the
transfer
efficiency
for
each
coating.
You
must
determine
the
transfer
efficiency
for
each
primersurfacer
and
topcoat
coating
using
ASTM
Method
D5066
 
91(
2001)
or
the
guidelines
presented
in
``
Protocol
for
Determining
Daily
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emission
Rate
of
Automobile
and
Light­
Duty
Truck
Topcoat
Operations,''
EPA
 
450/
3
 
88
 
018
(
docket
A
 
2001
 
22).
Those
guidelines
include
provisions
for
testing
representative
coatings
instead
of
testing
every
coating.
You
may
assume
100
percent
transfer
efficiency
for
electrodeposition
primer
coatings,
glass
bonding
primers,
and
glass
bonding
adhesives.
For
final
repair
coatings,
you
may
assume
40
percent
transfer
efficiency
for
air
atomized
spray
and
55
percent
transfer
efficiency
for
electrostatic
spray
and
high
volume,
low
pressure
spray.
(
h)
Calculate
the
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
before
add­
on
controls.
Calculate
the
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
before
consideration
of
addon
controls
from
all
coatings
and
thinners
used
during
each
month
in
the
combined
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations
using
Equation
1
of
this
section:

H
A
B
Eq
BC=
+
(
.
1)

Where:
HBC
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
before
consideration
of
add­
on
controls
during
the
month,
kg.
A
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
coatings
used
during
the
month,
kg,
as
calculated
in
Equation
1A
of
this
section.
B
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
thinners
used
during
the
month,
kg,
as
calculated
in
Equation
1B
of
this
section.
(
1)
Calculate
the
kg
organic
HAP
in
the
coatings
used
during
the
month
using
Equation
1A
of
this
section:

A
Vol
D
W
Eq
c
i
i
m
c
i
c
i
=
(
)(
)(
)

=
 
,
,
,
(
.

1
1A)

Where:
A
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
coatings
used
during
the
month,
kg.
Volc,
i
=
total
volume
of
coating,
i,
used
during
the
month,
liters.
Dc,
i
=
density
of
coating,
i,
kg
coating
per
liter
coating.
Wc,
i
=
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
in
coating,
i,
kg
organic
HAP
per
kg
coating.
m
=
number
of
different
coatings
used
during
the
month.
(
2)
Calculate
the
kg
of
organic
HAP
in
the
thinners
used
during
the
month
using
Equation
1B
of
this
section:

B
Vol
D
W
Eq
t
j
j
n
t
j
t
j
=
(
)(
)(
)

=
 
,
,
,
(
.

1
1B)

Where:
B
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
thinners
used
during
the
month,
kg.
Volt,
j
=
total
volume
of
thinner,
j,
used
during
the
month,
liters.
Dt,
j
=
density
of
thinner,
j,
kg
per
liter.
Wt,
j
=
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
in
thinner,
j,
kg
organic
HAP
per
kg
thinner.
n
=
number
of
different
thinners
used
during
the
month.

(
i)
Calculate
the
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
for
each
controlled
coating
operation.
Determine
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
reduced
for
each
controlled
coating
operation
during
each
month.
The
emission
reduction
determination
quantifies
the
total
organic
HAP
emissions
captured
by
the
emission
capture
system
and
destroyed
or
removed
by
the
add­
on
control
device.
Use
the
procedures
in
paragraph
(
j)
of
this
section
to
calculate
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
for
each
controlled
coating
operation
using
an
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
other
than
a
solvent
recovery
system
for
which
you
conduct
liquid­
liquid
material
balances.
For
each
controlled
coating
operation
using
a
solvent
recovery
system
for
which
you
conduct
a
liquid­
liquid
material
balance,
use
the
procedures
in
paragraph
(
k)
of
this
section
to
calculate
the
organic
HAP
emission
reduction.
(
j)
Calculate
the
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
for
each
controlled
coating
operation
not
using
liquid­
liquid
material
balances.
For
each
controlled
coating
operation
using
an
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
other
than
a
solvent
recovery
system
for
which
you
conduct
liquidliquid
material
balances,
calculate
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
for
the
controlled
coating
operation
during
the
month
using
Equation
2
of
this
section.
The
calculation
of
mass
of
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
for
the
controlled
coating
operation
during
the
month
applies
the
emission
capture
system
efficiency
and
add­
on
control
device
efficiency
to
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
contained
in
the
coatings
and
thinners
that
are
used
in
the
coating
operation
served
by
the
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
during
each
month.
For
any
period
of
time
a
deviation
specified
in
§
63.3163(
c)
or
(
d)
occurs
in
the
controlled
coating
operation,
including
a
deviation
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
you
must
assume
zero
efficiency
for
the
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device.
Equation
2
of
this
section
treats
the
materials
used
during
such
a
deviation
as
if
they
were
used
on
an
uncontrolled
coating
operation
for
the
time
period
of
the
deviation.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00036
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
EP24DE02.008</
GPH>
EP24DE02.009</
GPH>
EP24DE02.010</
GPH>
78647
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
H
A
B
H
CE
DRE
Eq
C
C
C
UNC
=
+
 
(
)
×
 
 
 
 
100
100
(
.
2)

Where:
HC
=
mass
of
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
for
the
controlled
coating
operation
during
the
month,
kg.
AC
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
coatings
used
in
the
controlled
coating
operation
during
the
month,
kg,
as
calculated
in
Equation
2A
of
this
section.
BC
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
thinners
used
in
the
controlled
coating
operation
during
the
month,
kg,
as
calculated
in
Equation
2B
of
this
section.
Hunc
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
coatings
and
thinners
used
during
all
deviations
specified
in
§
63.3163(
c)
and
(
d)
that
occurred
during
the
month
in
the
controlled
coating
operation,
kg,
as
calculated
in
Equation
2C
of
this
section.
CE
=
capture
efficiency
of
the
emission
capture
system
vented
to
the
add­
on
control
device,
percent.
Use
the
test
methods
and
procedures
specified
in
§
§
63.3164
and
63.3165
to
measure
and
record
capture
efficiency.
DRE
=
organic
HAP
destruction
or
removal
efficiency
of
the
add­
on
control
device,
percent.
Use
the
test
methods
and
procedures
in
§
§
63.3164
and
63.3166
to
measure
and
record
the
organic
HAP
destruction
or
removal
efficiency.
(
1)
Calculate
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
coatings
used
in
the
controlled
coating
operation,
kg,
using
Equation
2A
of
this
section.

A
Vol
D
W
Eq
C
ci
i
m
c
i
c
i
=
(
)(
)(
)

=
 
,
,
,
(
.

1
2A)

Where:
AC
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
coatings
used
in
the
controlled
coating
operation
during
the
month,
kg.
Volc,
i
=
total
volume
of
coating,
i,
used
during
the
month,
liters.
Dc,
i
=
density
of
coating,
i,
kg
per
liter.
Wc,
i
=
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
in
coating,
i,
kg
per
kg.
m
=
number
of
different
coatings
used.
(
2)
Calculate
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
thinners
used
in
the
controlled
coating
operation,
kg,
using
Equation
2B
of
this
section.
B
Vol
D
W
Eq
C
tj
j
n
t
j
t
j
=
(
)(
)(
)

=
 
,
,
,
(
.

1
2B)

Where:
BC
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
thinners
used
in
the
controlled
coating
operation
during
the
month,
kg.
Volt,
j
=
total
volume
of
thinner,
j,
used
during
the
month,
liters.
Dt,
j
=
density
of
thinner,
j,
kg
per
liter.
Wt,
j
=
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
in
thinner,
j,
kg
per
kg.
n
=
number
of
different
thinners
used.
(
3)
Calculate
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
coatings
and
thinners
used
in
the
controlled
coating
operation
during
deviations
specified
in
§
63.3163(
c)
and
(
d),
using
Equation
2C
of
this
section:

H
Vol
D
W
Eq
unc
h
h
h
h
q
=
(
)(
)

=
 
(
)
(
.

1
2C)

Where:
Hunc
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
coatings
and
thinners
used
during
all
deviations
specified
in
§
63.3163(
c)
and
(
d)
that
occurred
during
the
month
in
the
controlled
coating
operation,
kg.
Volh
=
total
volume
of
coating
or
thinner,
h,
used
in
the
controlled
coating
operation
during
deviations,
liters.
Dh
=
density
of
coating
or
thinner,
h,
kg
per
liter.
Wh
=
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
in
coating
or
thinner,
h,
kg
organic
HAP
per
kg
coating.
q
=
number
of
different
coatings
or
thinners.
(
k)
Calculate
the
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
for
each
controlled
coating
operation
using
liquid­
liquid
material
balances.
For
each
controlled
coating
operation
using
a
solvent
recovery
system
for
which
you
conduct
liquid­
liquid
material
balances,
calculate
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
for
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
using
a
liquid­
liquid
material
balance
during
the
month
by
applying
the
volatile
organic
matter
collection
and
recovery
efficiency
to
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
contained
in
the
coatings
and
thinners
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
during
each
month.
Perform
a
liquid­
liquid
material
balance
for
each
month
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
k)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.
Calculate
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
k)(
7)
of
this
section.
(
1)
For
each
solvent
recovery
system,
install,
calibrate,
maintain,
and
operate
according
to
the
manufacturer's
specifications,
a
device
that
indicates
the
cumulative
amount
of
volatile
organic
matter
recovered
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
each
month.
The
device
must
be
initially
certified
by
the
manufacturer
to
be
accurate
to
within
±
2.0
percent
of
the
mass
of
volatile
organic
matter
recovered.
(
2)
For
each
solvent
recovery
system,
determine
the
mass
of
volatile
organic
matter
recovered
for
the
month,
kg,
based
on
measurement
with
the
device
required
in
paragraph
(
k)(
1)
of
this
section.
(
3)
Determine
the
mass
fraction
of
volatile
organic
matter
for
each
coating
and
thinner
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
during
the
month,
kg
volatile
organic
matter
per
kg
coating.
You
may
determine
the
volatile
organic
matter
mass
fraction
using
Method
24
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A,
or
an
EPA
approved
alternative
method,
or
you
may
use
information
provided
by
the
manufacturer
or
supplier
of
the
coating.
In
the
event
of
any
inconsistency
between
information
provided
by
the
manufacturer
or
supplier
and
the
results
of
Method
24
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A,
or
an
approved
alternative
method,
the
test
method
results
will
govern.
(
4)
Determine
the
density
of
each
coating
and
thinner
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
during
the
month,
kg
per
liter,
according
to
§
63.3151(
b).
(
5)
Measure
the
volume
of
each
coating
and
thinner
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
during
the
month,
liters.
(
6)
Each
month,
calculate
the
solvent
recovery
system's
volatile
organic
matter
collection
and
recovery
efficiency,
using
Equation
3
of
this
section:

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00037
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
EP24DE02.011</
GPH>
EP24DE02.012</
GPH>
EP24DE02.013</
GPH>
EP24DE02.014</
GPH>
78648
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
R
M
Vol
D
WV
Vol
D
WV
Eq
v
VR
i
i
ci
j
j
t
j
j
n
i
m
=
+
=
=
 
 
100
1
1
,
,
(
.
3)

Where:

RV
=
volatile
organic
matter
collection
and
recovery
efficiency
of
the
solvent
recovery
system
during
the
month,
percent.
MVR
=
mass
of
volatile
organic
matter
recovered
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
during
the
month,
kg.
Voli
=
volume
of
coating,
i,
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
during
the
month,
liters.
Di
=
density
of
coating,
i,
kg
per
liter.
WVc,
i
=
mass
fraction
of
volatile
organic
matter
for
coating,
i,
kg
volatile
organic
matter
per
kg
coating.
Volj
=
volume
of
thinner,
j,
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
during
the
month,
liters.
Dj
=
density
of
thinner,
j,
kg
per
liter.
WVt,
j
=
mass
fraction
of
volatile
organic
matter
for
thinner,
j,
kg
volatile
organic
matter
per
kg
thinner.
m
=
number
of
different
coatings
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
during
the
month.
n
=
number
of
different
thinners
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
during
the
month.
(
7)
Calculate
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
for
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
during
the
month,
using
Equation
4
of
this
section:

H
A
B
R
Eq
CSR
CSR
CSR
v
=
+
 
 
 
 
(
)
(.
100
4)

Where:
HCSR
=
mass
of
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
for
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
using
a
liquid­
liquid
material
balance
during
the
month,
kg.
ACSR
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
coatings
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system,
kg,
calculated
using
Equation
4A
of
this
section.
BCSR
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
thinners
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system,
kg,
calculated
using
Equation
4B
of
this
section.
RV
=
volatile
organic
matter
collection
and
recovery
efficiency
of
the
solvent
recovery
system,
percent,
from
Equation
3
of
this
section.
(
i)
Calculate
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
coatings
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system,
kg,
using
Equation
4A
of
this
section.

A
Vol
D
W
Eq
CSR
c
i
c
i
i
m
c
i
=
(
)(
)(
)

=
 
,
,
,
(
.

1
4A)

Where:
ACSR
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
coatings
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
during
the
month,
kg.
Volc,
i
=
total
volume
of
coating,
i,
used
during
the
month
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system,
liters.
Dc,
i
=
density
of
coating,
i,
kg
per
liter.
Wc,
i
=
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
in
coating,
i,
kg
per
kg.
m
=
number
of
different
coatings
used.
(
2)
Calculate
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
thinners
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system,
kg,
using
Equation
4B
of
this
section.

B
Vol
D
W
Eq
CSR
t
j
t
j
j
n
t
j
=
(
)(
)(
)

=
 
,
,
,
(
.

1
4B)
Where:
BCSR
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
in
the
thinners
used
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system
during
the
month,
kg.
Volt,
j
=
total
volume
of
thinner,
j,
used
during
the
month
in
the
coating
operation
controlled
by
the
solvent
recovery
system,
liters.
Dt,
j
=
density
of
thinner,
j,
kg
per
liter.
Wt,
j
=
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
in
thinner,
j,
kg
per
kg.
n
=
number
of
different
thinners
used.
(
l)
Calculate
the
total
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited.
Determine
the
total
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited,
liters,
in
the
combined
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations
using
Equation
5
of
this
section:
V
Vol
V
TE
Eq
sdep
c
i
s
i
c
i
i
m
=
(
)(
)(
)

=
 
,
,
,
(
.
5)

1
Where:

Vsdep
=
total
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited
during
the
month,
liters.
Volc,
i
=
total
volume
of
coating,
i,
used
during
the
month,
liters.
Vs,
i
=
volume
fraction
of
coating
solids
for
coating,
i,
liter
solids
per
liter
coating,
determined
according
to
§
63.3161(
f).
TEc,
i
=
transfer
efficiency
of
coating,
i,
determined
according
to
§
63.3161(
g).
m
=
number
of
coatings
used
during
the
month.
(
m)
Calculate
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
for
each
month.
Determine
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions,
kg,
during
each
month,
using
Equation
6
of
this
section.

H
H
H
H
Eq
HAP
BC
C
i
CSR
j
j
r
i
q
=
 
(
) 
(
)
=
=
 
 
,
,
(
.

1
1
6)

Where:
HHAP
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
for
the
month,
kg.
HBC
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
before
add­
on
controls
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00038
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
EP24DE02.015</
GPH>
EP24DE02.016</
GPH>
EP24DE02.017</
GPH>
EP24DE02.018</
GPH>
EP24DE02.019</
GPH>
EP24DE02.020</
GPH>
78649
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
from
all
the
coatings
and
thinners
used
during
the
month,
kg,
determined
according
to
paragraph
(
h)
of
this
section.
HC,
i
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
for
controlled
coating
operation,
i,
not
using
a
liquid­
liquid
material
balance,
during
the
month,
kg,
from
Equation
2
of
this
section.
HCSR,
j
=
total
mass
of
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
for
coating
operation,
j,
controlled
by
a
solvent
recovery
system
using
a
liquidliquid
material
balance,
during
the
month,
kg,
from
Equation
4
of
this
section.
q
=
number
of
controlled
coating
operations
not
using
a
liquid­
liquid
material
balance.
r
=
number
of
coating
operations
controlled
by
a
solvent
recovery
system
using
a
liquid­
liquid
material
balance.
(
n)
Calculate
the
organic
HAP
emission
rate
for
the
month.
Determine
the
organic
HAP
emission
rate
for
the
month
compliance
period,
kg
organic
HAP
per
liter
coating
solids
deposited,
using
Equation
7
of
this
section:

H
H
V
Eq
rate
HAP
sdep
=(
)(
)
(
.
7)

Where:
Hrate
=
organic
HAP
emission
rate
for
the
month
compliance
period,
kg
organic
HAP
per
liter
coating
solids
deposited.
HHAP
=
mass
of
organic
HAP
emissions
for
the
month,
kg,
determined
according
to
Equation
6
of
this
section.
Vsdep
=
total
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited
during
the
month,
liters,
from
Equation
5
of
this
section.
(
o)
Compliance
demonstration.
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance,
the
organic
HAP
emissions
from
the
combined
electrodeposition
primer,
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations
must
meet
the
applicable
emission
limitation
in
§
63.3090(
a)
or
§
63.3091(
a).
You
must
keep
all
records
as
required
by
§
§
63.3130
and
63.3131.
As
part
of
the
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
required
by
§
63.3110,
you
must
submit
a
statement
that
the
coating
operation(
s)
was
(
were)
in
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
during
the
initial
compliance
period
because
the
organic
HAP
emission
rate
was
less
than
or
equal
to
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
a)
or
§
63.3091(
a)
and
you
achieved
the
operating
limits
required
by
§
63.3093
and
the
work
practice
standards
required
by
§
63.3094.
§
63.3162
[
Reserved]

§
63.3163
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations?

(
a)
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
a)
or
§
63.3091(
a),
the
organic
HAP
emission
rate
for
each
compliance
period,
determined
according
to
the
procedures
in
§
63.3161,
must
be
equal
to
or
less
than
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
a)
or
§
63.3091(
a).
A
compliance
period
consists
of
1
month.
Each
month
after
the
end
of
the
initial
compliance
period
described
in
§
63.3160
is
a
compliance
period
consisting
of
that
month.
You
must
perform
the
calculations
in
§
63.3161
on
a
monthly
basis.
(
b)
If
the
organic
HAP
emission
rate
for
any
1
month
compliance
period
exceeded
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
a)
or
§
63.3091(
a),
this
is
a
deviation
from
the
emission
limitation
for
that
compliance
period
and
must
be
reported
as
specified
in
§
§
63.3110(
c)(
6)
and
63.3120(
a)(
6).
(
c)
You
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
each
operating
limit
required
by
§
63.3093
that
applies
to
you,
as
specified
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart.
(
1)
If
an
operating
parameter
is
out
of
the
allowed
range
specified
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
this
is
a
deviation
from
the
operating
limit
that
must
be
reported
as
specified
in
§
§
63.3110(
c)(
6)
and
63.3120(
a)(
6).
(
2)
If
an
operating
parameter
deviates
from
the
operating
limit
specified
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
then
you
must
assume
that
the
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
were
achieving
zero
efficiency
during
the
time
period
of
the
deviation.
(
d)
You
must
meet
the
requirements
for
bypass
lines
in
§
63.3168(
b)
for
control
devices
other
than
solvent
recovery
systems
for
which
you
conduct
liquid­
liquid
material
balances.
If
any
bypass
line
is
opened
and
emissions
are
diverted
to
the
atmosphere
when
the
coating
operation
is
running,
this
is
a
deviation
that
must
be
reported
as
specified
in
§
63.3110(
c)(
6)
and
63.3120(
a)(
6).
For
the
purposes
of
completing
the
compliance
calculations
specified
in
§
63.3161(
k),
you
must
assume
that
the
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
were
achieving
zero
efficiency
during
the
time
period
of
the
deviation.
(
e)
You
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards
in
§
63.3094.
If
you
did
not
develop
a
work
practice
plan,
if
you
did
not
implement
the
plan,
or
if
you
did
not
keep
the
records
required
by
§
63.3130(
n),
this
is
a
deviation
from
the
work
practice
standards
that
must
be
reported
as
specified
in
§
§
63.3110(
c)(
6)
and
63.3120(
a)(
6).
(
f)
If
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
emission
limitations,
submit
a
statement
as
part
of
the
semiannual
compliance
report
that
you
were
in
compliance
with
the
emission
rate
limitations
during
the
reporting
period
because
the
organic
HAP
emission
rate
for
each
compliance
period
was
less
than
or
equal
to
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
a)
or
§
63.3091(
a),
and
you
achieved
the
operating
limits
required
by
§
63.3093
and
the
work
practice
standards
required
by
§
63.3094
during
each
compliance
period.
(
g)
During
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
of
the
emission
capture
system,
add­
on
control
device,
or
coating
operation
that
may
affect
emission
capture
or
control
device
efficiency,
you
must
operate
in
accordance
with
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
required
by
§
63.3100(
f).
(
h)
Consistent
with
§
§
63.6(
e)
and
63.7(
e)(
1),
deviations
that
occur
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
of
the
emission
capture
system,
add­
on
control
device,
or
coating
operation
that
may
affect
emission
capture
or
control
device
efficiency
are
not
violations
if
you
demonstrate
to
the
Administrator's
satisfaction
that
you
were
operating
in
accordance
with
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
The
Administrator
will
determine
whether
deviations
that
occur
during
a
period
you
identify
as
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
are
violations
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e).
(
i)
[
Reserved]
(
j)
You
must
maintain
records
as
specified
in
§
§
63.3130
and
63.3131.

§
63.3164
What
are
the
general
requirements
for
performance
tests?
(
a)
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
required
by
§
63.3160
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7(
e)(
1)
and
under
the
conditions
in
this
section
unless
you
obtain
a
waiver
of
the
performance
test
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.7(
h).
(
1)
Representative
coating
operation
operating
conditions.
You
must
conduct
the
performance
test
under
representative
operating
conditions
for
the
coating
operation.
Operations
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
and
during
periods
of
nonoperation
do
not
constitute
representative
conditions.
You
must
record
the
process
information
that
is
necessary
to
document
operating
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00039
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
EP24DE02.021</
GPH>
78650
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
conditions
during
the
test
and
explain
why
the
conditions
represent
normal
operation.
(
2)
Representative
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
operating
conditions.
You
must
conduct
the
performance
test
when
the
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
are
operating
at
a
representative
flow
rate,
and
the
add­
on
control
device
is
operating
at
a
representative
inlet
concentration.
You
must
record
information
that
is
necessary
to
document
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
operating
conditions
during
the
test
and
explain
why
the
conditions
represent
normal
operation.
(
b)
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
of
an
emission
capture
system
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.3165.
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
of
an
add­
on
control
device
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.3166.

§
63.3165
How
do
I
determine
the
emission
capture
system
efficiency?

You
must
use
the
procedures
and
test
methods
in
this
section
to
determine
capture
efficiency
as
part
of
the
performance
test
required
by
§
63.3160.
(
a)
Assuming
100
percent
capture
efficiency.
You
may
assume
the
capture
system
efficiency
is
100
percent
if
both
of
the
conditions
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section
are
met:
(
1)
The
capture
system
meets
the
criteria
in
Method
204
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51
for
a
PTE
and
directs
all
the
exhaust
gases
from
the
enclosure
to
an
add­
on
control
device.
(
2)
All
coatings
and
thinners
used
in
the
coating
operation
are
applied
within
the
capture
system,
and
coating
solvent
flash­
off
and
coating
curing
and
drying
occurs
within
the
capture
system.
For
example,
this
criterion
is
not
met
if
parts
enter
the
open
shop
environment
when
being
moved
between
a
spray
booth
and
a
curing
oven.
(
b)
Measuring
capture
efficiency.
If
the
capture
system
does
not
meet
both
of
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section,
then
you
must
use
one
of
the
four
procedures
described
in
paragraphs
(
c)
through
(
f)
of
this
section
to
measure
capture
efficiency.
The
capture
efficiency
measurements
use
TVH
capture
efficiency
as
a
surrogate
for
organic
HAP
capture
efficiency.
For
the
protocols
in
paragraphs
(
c)
and
(
d)
of
this
section,
the
capture
efficiency
measurement
must
consist
of
three
test
runs.
Each
test
run
must
be
at
least
3
hours
duration
or
the
length
of
a
production
run,
whichever
is
longer,
up
to
8
hours.
For
the
purposes
of
this
test,
a
production
run
means
the
time
required
for
a
single
part
to
go
from
the
beginning
to
the
end
of
production,
which
includes
surface
preparation
activities
and
drying
or
curing
time.
(
c)
Liquid­
to­
uncaptured­
gas
protocol
using
a
temporary
total
enclosure
or
building
enclosure.
The
liquid­
touncaptured
gas
protocol
compares
the
mass
of
liquid
TVH
in
materials
used
in
the
coating
operation
to
the
mass
of
TVH
emissions
not
captured
by
the
emission
capture
system.
Use
a
temporary
total
enclosure
or
a
building
enclosure
and
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section
to
measure
emission
capture
system
efficiency
using
the
liquid­
touncaptured
gas
protocol.
(
1)
Either
use
a
building
enclosure
or
construct
an
enclosure
around
the
coating
operation
where
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials
are
applied,
and
all
areas
where
emissions
from
these
applied
coatings
and
materials
subsequently
occur,
such
as
flash­
off,
curing,
and
drying
areas.
The
areas
of
the
coating
operation
where
capture
devices
collect
emissions
for
routing
to
an
add­
on
control
device,
such
as
the
entrance
and
exit
areas
of
an
oven
or
spray
booth,
must
also
be
inside
the
enclosure.
The
enclosure
must
meet
the
applicable
definition
of
a
temporary
total
enclosure
or
building
enclosure
in
Method
204
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51.
(
2)
Use
Method
204A
or
F
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51
to
determine
the
mass
fraction
of
TVH
liquid
input
from
each
coating,
thinner,
and
cleaning
material
used
in
the
coating
operation
during
each
capture
efficiency
test
run.
To
make
the
determination,
substitute
TVH
for
each
occurrence
of
the
term
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
in
the
methods.
(
3)
Use
Equation
1
of
this
section
to
calculate
the
total
mass
of
TVH
liquid
input
from
all
the
coatings
and
thinners
used
in
the
coating
operation
during
each
capture
efficiency
test
run.

TVH
TVH
Vol
D
Eq
used
i
i
i
i
n
=
(
)(
)(
)

=
 

1
(
.
1)

Where:

TVHi
=
mass
fraction
of
TVH
in
coating
or
thinner,
i,
used
in
the
coating
operation
during
the
capture
efficiency
test
run,
kg
TVH
per
kg
material.
Voli
=
total
volume
of
coating
or
thinner,
i,
used
in
the
coating
operation
during
the
capture
efficiency
test
run,
liters.
Di
=
density
of
coating
or
thinner,
i,
kg
material
per
liter
material.
n
=
number
of
different
coatings
and
thinners
used
in
the
coating
operation
during
the
capture
efficiency
test
run.
(
4)
Use
Method
204D
or
E
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51
to
measure
the
total
mass,
kg,
of
TVH
emissions
that
are
not
captured
by
the
emission
capture
system;
they
are
measured
as
they
exit
the
temporary
total
enclosure
or
building
enclosure
during
each
capture
efficiency
test
run.
To
make
the
measurement,
substitute
TVH
for
each
occurrence
of
the
term
VOC
in
the
methods.
(
i)
Use
Method
204D
if
the
enclosure
is
a
temporary
total
enclosure.
(
ii)
Use
Method
204E
if
the
enclosure
is
a
building
enclosure.
During
the
capture
efficiency
measurement,
all
organic
compound
emitting
operations
inside
the
building
enclosure,
other
than
the
coating
operation
for
which
capture
efficiency
is
being
determined,
must
be
shut
down,
but
all
fans
and
blowers
must
be
operating
normally.
(
5)
For
each
capture
efficiency
test
run,
determine
the
percent
capture
efficiency
of
the
emission
capture
system
using
Equation
2
of
this
section:

CE
TVH
TVH
TVH
Eq
used
uncaptured
used
=
 
(
)
×
100
(
.
2)

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00040
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4725
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
EP24DE02.022</
GPH>
EP24DE02.023</
GPH>
78651
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Where:
CE
=
capture
efficiency
of
the
emission
capture
system
vented
to
the
add­
on
control
device,
percent.
TVHused
=
total
mass
of
TVH
liquid
input
used
in
the
coating
operation
during
the
capture
efficiency
test
run,
kg.
TVHuncaptured
=
total
mass
of
TVH
that
is
not
captured
by
the
emission
capture
system
and
that
exits
from
the
temporary
total
enclosure
or
building
enclosure
during
the
capture
efficiency
test
run,
kg.
(
6)
Determine
the
capture
efficiency
of
the
emission
capture
system
as
the
average
of
the
capture
efficiencies
measured
in
the
three
test
runs.
(
d)
Gas­
to­
gas
protocol
using
a
temporary
total
enclosure
or
a
building
enclosure.
The
gas­
to­
gas
protocol
compares
the
mass
of
TVH
emissions
captured
by
the
emission
capture
system
to
the
mass
of
TVH
emissions
not
captured.
Use
a
temporary
total
enclosure
or
a
building
enclosure
and
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section
to
measure
emission
capture
system
efficiency
using
the
gas­
to­
gas
protocol.
(
1)
Either
use
a
building
enclosure
or
construct
an
enclosure
around
the
coating
operation
where
coatings,
thinners,
and
cleaning
materials
are
applied,
and
all
areas
where
emissions
from
these
applied
coatings
and
materials
subsequently
occur,
such
as
flash­
off,
curing,
and
drying
areas.
The
areas
of
the
coating
operation
where
capture
devices
collect
emissions
generated
by
the
coating
operation
for
routing
to
an
add­
on
control
device,
such
as
the
entrance
and
exit
areas
of
an
oven
or
a
spray
booth,
must
also
be
inside
the
enclosure.
The
enclosure
must
meet
the
applicable
definition
of
a
temporary
total
enclosure
or
building
enclosure
in
Method
204
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51.
(
2)
Use
Method
204B
or
C
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51
to
measure
the
total
mass,
kg,
of
TVH
emissions
captured
by
the
emission
capture
system
during
each
capture
efficiency
test
run
as
measured
at
the
inlet
to
the
add­
on
control
device.
To
make
the
measurement,
substitute
TVH
for
each
occurrence
of
the
term
VOC
in
the
methods.
(
i)
The
sampling
points
for
the
Method
204B
or
C
measurement
must
be
upstream
from
the
add­
on
control
device
and
must
represent
total
emissions
routed
from
the
capture
system
and
entering
the
add­
on
control
device.
(
ii)
If
multiple
emission
streams
from
the
capture
system
enter
the
add­
on
control
device
without
a
single
common
duct,
then
the
emissions
entering
the
add­
on
control
device
must
be
simultaneously
measured
in
each
duct,
and
the
total
emissions
entering
the
add­
on
control
device
must
be
determined.
(
3)
Use
Method
204D
or
E
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51
to
measure
the
total
mass,
kg,
of
TVH
emissions
that
are
not
captured
by
the
emission
capture
system;
they
are
measured
as
they
exit
the
temporary
total
enclosure
or
building
enclosure
during
each
capture
efficiency
test
run.
To
make
the
measurement,
substitute
TVH
for
each
occurrence
of
the
term
VOC
in
the
methods.
(
i)
Use
Method
204D
if
the
enclosure
is
a
temporary
total
enclosure.
(
ii)
Use
Method
204E
if
the
enclosure
is
a
building
enclosure.
During
the
capture
efficiency
measurement,
all
organic
compound
emitting
operations
inside
the
building
enclosure,
other
than
the
coating
operation
for
which
capture
efficiency
is
being
determined,
must
be
shut
down,
but
all
fans
and
blowers
must
be
operating
normally.
(
4)
For
each
capture
efficiency
test
run,
determine
the
percent
capture
efficiency
of
the
emission
capture
system
using
Equation
3
of
this
section:

CE
TVH
TVH
TVH
Eq
captured
captured
uncaptured
=
+
(
)
×
100
(
.
3)

Where:
CE
=
capture
efficiency
of
the
emission
capture
system
vented
to
the
add­
on
control
device,
percent.
TVHcaptured
=
total
mass
of
TVH
captured
by
the
emission
capture
system
as
measured
at
the
inlet
to
the
add­
on
control
device
during
the
emission
capture
efficiency
test
run,
kg.
TVHuncaptured
=
total
mass
of
TVH
that
is
not
captured
by
the
emission
capture
system
and
that
exits
from
the
temporary
total
enclosure
or
building
enclosure
during
the
capture
efficiency
test
run,
kg.
(
5)
Determine
the
capture
efficiency
of
the
emission
capture
system
as
the
average
of
the
capture
efficiencies
measured
in
the
three
test
runs.
(
e)
Panel
testing
to
determine
the
capture
efficiency
of
flash­
off
or
bake
oven
emissions.
You
may
determine
the
capture
efficiency
of
flash­
off
or
bake
oven
emissions
using
ASTM
Method
D5087­
91(
1994),
ASTM
Method
D6266
 
00a,
or
the
guidelines
presented
in
``
Protocol
for
Determining
Daily
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emission
Rate
of
Automobile
and
Light­
Duty
Truck
Topcoat
Operations,''
EPA
 
450/
3
 
88
 
018
(
docket
A
 
2001­
22).
The
results
of
these
panel
testing
procedures
are
in
units
of
mass
of
VOC
per
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited.
These
results
must
be
converted
to
percent
capture
efficiency
values
using
Equation
4
of
this
section:

CE
P
V
VOC
Eq
i
i
sdep
i
i
=(
)(
)(
)
,
(
.
4)

Where:
CEi
=
capture
efficiency
for
coating
i
for
the
flash­
off
area
or
bake
oven
for
which
the
panel
test
is
conducted,
percent.
Pi
=
panel
test
result
for
coating
i,
kg
of
VOC
per
liter
of
coating
solids
deposited.
Vsdep,
i
=
total
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited
for
coating
i
during
the
month
in
the
spray
booth(
s)
for
the
flash­
off
area
or
bake
oven
for
which
the
panel
test
is
conducted,
liters,
from
Equation
5
of
this
section.
VOCi
=
total
mass
of
VOC
in
coating
i
used
during
the
month
in
the
spray
booth(
s)
for
the
flash­
off
area
or
bake
oven
for
which
the
panel
test
is
conducted,
kg,
from
Equation
6
of
this
section.
(
1)
Calculate
the
total
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited
for
each
coating
used
during
the
month
in
the
spray
booth(
s)
for
the
flash­
off
area
or
bake
oven
for
which
the
panel
test
is
conducted
using
equation
5
of
this
section:

V
Vol
V
TE
Eq
sdep
i
c
i
s
i
c
i
,
,
,
,
(
.
=(
)(
)(
)
5)

Where:
Vsdep,
i
=
total
volume
of
coating
solids
deposited
for
coating
i
during
the
month
in
the
spray
booth(
s)
for
the
flash­
off
area
or
bake
oven
for
which
the
panel
test
is
conducted,
liters.
Volc,
i
=
total
volume
of
coating,
i,
used
during
the
month
in
the
spray
booth(
s)
for
the
flash­
off
area
or
bake
oven
for
which
the
panel
test
is
conducted,
liters.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00041
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
EP24DE02.024</
GPH>
EP24DE02.025</
GPH>
EP24DE02.026</
GPH>
78652
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Vs,
i
=
volume
fraction
of
coating
solids
for
coating,
i,
liter
solids
per
liter
coating,
determined
according
to
§
63.3161(
f).
TEc,
i
=
transfer
efficiency
of
coating,
i,
in
the
spray
booth(
s)
for
the
flashoff
area
or
bake
oven
for
which
the
panel
test
is
conducted
determined
according
to
§
63.3161(
g).
(
2)
Calculate
the
total
mass
of
VOC
in
each
coating
used
during
the
month
in
the
spray
booth(
s)
for
the
flash­
off
area
or
bake
oven
for
which
the
panel
test
is
conducted,
kg,
using
Equation
6
of
this
section:

VOC
Vol
D
Wvoc
Eq
i
ci
ci
ci
=(
)(
)(
)
,
,
,
(
.
6)

Where:
VOCi
=
total
mass
of
VOC
in
coating
i
used
during
the
month
in
the
spray
booth(
s)
for
the
flash­
off
area
or
bake
oven
for
which
the
panel
test
is
conducted,
kg.
Volc,
i
=
total
volume
of
coating
i
used
during
the
month
in
the
spray
booth(
s)
for
the
flash­
off
area
or
bake
oven
for
which
the
panel
test
is
conducted,
liters.
DC
=
density
of
coating
i,
kg
coating
per
liter
coating,
determined
according
to
§
63.3151(
b).
Wvocc,
i
=
mass
fraction
of
VOC
in
coating
i,
kg
organic
HAP
per
kg
coating,
determined
by
Method
24
(
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60)
or
the
guidelines
presented
in
``
Protocol
for
Determining
Daily
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emission
Rate
of
Automobile
and
Light­
Duty
Truck
Topcoat
Operations,''
EPA
 
450/
3
 
88
 
018
(
docket
A
 
2001
 
22).
(
f)
Alternative
capture
efficiency
procedure.
As
an
alternative
to
the
procedures
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)
through
(
e)
of
this
section,
you
may
determine
capture
efficiency
using
any
other
capture
efficiency
protocol
and
test
methods
that
satisfy
the
criteria
of
either
the
DQO
or
LCL
approach
as
described
in
appendix
A
to
subpart
KK
of
this
part.

§
63.3166
How
do
I
determine
the
add­
on
control
device
emission
destruction
or
removal
efficiency?
You
must
use
the
procedures
and
test
methods
in
this
section
to
determine
the
add­
on
control
device
emission
destruction
or
removal
efficiency
as
part
of
the
performance
test
required
by
§
63.3160.
You
must
conduct
three
test
runs
as
specified
in
§
63.7(
e)(
3),
and
each
test
run
must
last
at
least
1
hour.
(
a)
For
all
types
of
add­
on
control
devices,
use
the
test
methods
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Use
Method
1
or
1A
of
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60,
as
appropriate,
to
select
sampling
sites
and
velocity
traverse
points.
(
2)
Use
Method
2,
2A,
2C,
2D,
2F,
or
2G
of
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60,
as
appropriate,
to
measure
gas
volumetric
flow
rate.
(
3)
Use
Method
3,
3A,
or
3B
of
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60,
as
appropriate,
for
gas
analysis
to
determine
dry
molecular
weight.
The
ASME
PTC
19.10
 
1981
may
be
used
as
an
alternative
to
Method
3B.
(
4)
Use
Method
4
of
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60
to
determine
stack
gas
moisture.
(
5)
Methods
for
determining
gas
volumetric
flow
rate,
dry
molecular
weight,
and
stack
gas
moisture
must
be
performed,
as
applicable,
during
each
test
run.
(
b)
Measure
total
gaseous
organic
mass
emissions
as
carbon
at
the
inlet
and
outlet
of
the
add­
on
control
device
simultaneously,
using
either
Method
25
or
25A
of
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60,
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
You
must
use
the
same
method
for
both
the
inlet
and
outlet
measurements.
(
1)
Use
Method
25
if
the
add­
on
control
device
is
an
oxidizer
and
you
expect
the
total
gaseous
organic
concentration
as
carbon
to
be
more
than
50
parts
per
million
by
volume
(
ppmv)
at
the
control
device
outlet.
(
2)
Use
Method
25A
if
the
add­
on
control
device
is
an
oxidizer
and
you
expect
the
total
gaseous
organic
concentration
as
carbon
to
be
50
ppmv
or
less
at
the
control
device
outlet.
(
3)
Use
Method
25A
if
the
add­
control
device
is
not
an
oxidizer.
(
c)
If
two
or
more
add­
on
control
devices
are
used
for
the
same
emission
stream,
then
you
must
measure
emissions
at
the
outlet
of
each
device.
For
example,
if
one
add­
on
control
device
is
a
concentrator
with
an
outlet
for
the
high­
volume,
dilute
stream
that
has
been
treated
by
the
concentrator,
and
a
second
add­
on
control
device
is
an
oxidizer
with
an
outlet
for
the
lowvolume
concentrated
stream
that
is
treated
with
the
oxidizer,
you
must
measure
emissions
at
the
outlet
of
the
oxidizer
and
the
high
volume
dilute
stream
outlet
of
the
concentrator.
(
d)
For
each
test
run,
determine
the
total
gaseous
organic
emissions
mass
flow
rates
for
the
inlet
and
the
outlet
of
the
add­
on
control
device,
using
Equation
1
of
this
section.
If
there
is
more
than
one
inlet
or
outlet
to
the
addon
control
device,
you
must
calculate
the
total
gaseous
organic
mass
flow
rate
using
Equation
1
of
this
section
for
each
inlet
and
each
outlet
and
then
total
all
of
the
inlet
emissions
and
total
all
of
the
outlet
emissions.

M
Q
C
Eq
f
sd
c
=
(
)(
)(
)
 
12
0
0416
10
6
.
(.
1)

Where:
Mf
=
total
gaseous
organic
emissions
mass
flow
rate,
kg/
per
hour
(
h).
Cc
=
concentration
of
organic
compounds
as
carbon
in
the
vent
gas,
as
determined
by
Method
25
or
Method
25A,
ppmv,
dry
basis.
Qsd
=
volumetric
flow
rate
of
gases
entering
or
exiting
the
add­
on
control
device,
as
determined
by
Method
2,
2A,
2C,
2D,
2F,
or
2G,
dry
standard
cubic
meters/
hour
(
dscm/
h).
0.0416
=
conversion
factor
for
molar
volume,
kg­
moles
per
cubic
meter
(
mol/
m3)
(@
293
Kelvin
(
K)
and
760
millimeters
of
mercury
(
mmHg)).
(
e)
For
each
test
run,
determine
the
add­
on
control
device
organic
emissions
destruction
or
removal
efficiency
using
Equation
2
of
this
section:

DRE
M
M
M
Eq
fi
fo
fi
=
 
(
)
100
(
.
2)

Where:
DRE
=
organic
emissions
destruction
or
removal
efficiency
of
the
add­
on
control
device,
percent.
Mfi
=
total
gaseous
organic
emissions
mass
flow
rate
at
the
inlet(
s)
to
the
add­
on
control
device,
using
Equation
1
of
this
section,
kg/
h.
Mfo
=
total
gaseous
organic
emissions
mass
flow
rate
at
the
outlet(
s)
of
the
add­
on
control
device,
using
Equation
1
of
this
section,
kg/
h.
(
f)
Determine
the
emission
destruction
or
removal
efficiency
of
the
add­
on
control
device
as
the
average
of
the
efficiencies
determined
in
the
three
test
runs
and
calculated
in
Equation
2
of
this
section.

§
63.3167
How
do
I
establish
the
add­
on
control
device
operating
limits
during
the
performance
test?

During
the
performance
test
required
by
§
63.3160
and
described
in
§
§
63.3164
and
63.3166,
you
must
establish
the
operating
limits
required
by
§
63.3193
according
to
this
section,
unless
you
have
received
approval
for
alternative
monitoring
and
operating
limits
under
§
63.8(
f)
as
specified
in
§
63.3193.
(
a)
Thermal
oxidizers.
If
your
add­
on
control
device
is
a
thermal
oxidizer,
establish
the
operating
limits
according
to
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
During
the
performance
test,
you
must
monitor
and
record
the
combustion
temperature
at
least
once
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00042
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
EP24DE02.027</
GPH>
EP24DE02.028</
GPH>
EP24DE02.029</
GPH>
78653
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
every
15
minutes
during
each
of
the
three
test
runs.
You
must
monitor
the
temperature
in
the
firebox
of
the
thermal
oxidizer
or
immediately
downstream
of
the
firebox
before
any
substantial
heat
exchange
occurs.
(
2)
Use
the
data
collected
during
the
performance
test
to
calculate
and
record
the
average
combustion
temperature
maintained
during
the
performance
test.
This
average
combustion
temperature
is
the
minimum
operating
limit
for
your
thermal
oxidizer.
(
b)
Catalytic
oxidizers.
If
your
add­
on
control
device
is
a
catalytic
oxidizer,
establish
the
operating
limits
according
to
either
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)
or
paragraphs
(
b)(
3)
and
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
During
the
performance
test,
you
must
monitor
and
record
the
temperature
just
before
the
catalyst
bed
and
the
temperature
difference
across
the
catalyst
bed
at
least
once
every
15
minutes
during
each
of
the
three
test
runs.
(
2)
Use
the
data
collected
during
the
performance
test
to
calculate
and
record
the
average
temperature
just
before
the
catalyst
bed
and
the
average
temperature
difference
across
the
catalyst
bed
maintained
during
the
performance
test.
These
are
the
minimum
operating
limits
for
your
catalytic
oxidizer.
(
3)
As
an
alternative
to
monitoring
the
temperature
difference
across
the
catalyst
bed,
you
may
monitor
the
temperature
at
the
inlet
to
the
catalyst
bed
and
implement
a
site­
specific
inspection
and
maintenance
plan
for
your
catalytic
oxidizer
as
specified
in
paragraph
(
b)(
4)
of
this
section.
During
the
performance
test,
you
must
monitor
and
record
the
temperature
just
before
the
catalyst
bed
at
least
once
every
15
minutes
during
each
of
the
three
test
runs.
Use
the
data
collected
during
the
performance
test
to
calculate
and
record
the
average
temperature
just
before
the
catalyst
bed
during
the
performance
test.
This
is
the
minimum
operating
limit
for
your
catalytic
oxidizer.
(
4)
You
must
develop
and
implement
an
inspection
and
maintenance
plan
for
your
catalytic
oxidizer(
s)
for
which
you
elect
to
monitor
according
to
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section.
The
plan
must
address,
at
a
minimum,
the
elements
specified
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
4)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Annual
sampling
and
analysis
of
the
catalyst
activity
(
i.
e.,
conversion
efficiency)
following
the
oxidizer
manufacturer's
or
catalyst
supplier's
recommended
procedures.
(
ii)
Monthly
inspection
of
the
oxidizer
system,
including
the
burner
assembly
and
fuel
supply
lines
for
problems
and,
as
necessary,
adjustment
of
the
equipment
to
assure
proper
air­
to­
fuel
mixtures.
(
iii)
Annual
internal
and
monthly
external
visual
inspection
of
the
catalyst
bed
to
check
for
channeling,
abrasion,
and
settling.
If
problems
are
found,
you
must
replace
the
catalyst
bed
and
conduct
a
new
performance
test
to
determine
destruction
efficiency
according
to
§
63.3166.
(
c)
Carbon
adsorbers.
If
your
add­
on
control
device
is
a
carbon
adsorber,
establish
the
operating
limits
according
to
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
You
must
monitor
and
record
the
total
regeneration
desorbing
gas
(
e.
g.,
steam
or
nitrogen)
mass
flow
for
each
regeneration
cycle
and
the
carbon
bed
temperature
after
each
carbon
bed
regeneration
and
cooling
cycle
for
the
regeneration
cycle
either
immediately
preceding
or
immediately
following
the
performance
test.
(
2)
The
operating
limits
for
your
carbon
adsorber
are
the
minimum
total
desorbing
gas
mass
flow
recorded
during
the
regeneration
cycle
and
the
maximum
carbon
bed
temperature
recorded
after
the
cooling
cycle.
(
d)
Condensers.
If
your
add­
on
control
device
is
a
condenser,
establish
the
operating
limits
according
to
paragraphs
(
d)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
During
the
performance
test,
you
must
monitor
and
record
the
condenser
outlet
(
product
side)
gas
temperature
at
least
once
every
15
minutes
during
each
of
the
three
test
runs.
(
2)
Use
the
data
collected
during
the
performance
test
to
calculate
and
record
the
average
condenser
outlet
(
product
side)
gas
temperature
maintained
during
the
performance
test.
This
average
condenser
outlet
gas
temperature
is
the
maximum
operating
limit
for
your
condenser.
(
e)
Concentrators.
If
your
add­
on
control
device
includes
a
concentrator,
you
must
establish
operating
limits
for
the
concentrator
according
to
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
During
the
performance
test,
you
must
monitor
and
record
the
desorption
concentrate
stream
gas
temperature
at
least
once
every
15
minutes
during
each
of
the
three
runs
of
the
performance
test.
(
2)
Use
the
data
collected
during
the
performance
test
to
calculate
and
record
the
average
temperature.
This
is
the
minimum
operating
limit
for
the
desorption
concentrate
gas
stream
temperature.
(
3)
During
the
performance
test,
you
must
monitor
and
record
the
pressure
drop
of
the
dilute
stream
across
the
concentrator
at
least
once
every
15
minutes
during
each
of
the
three
runs
of
the
performance
test.
(
4)
Use
the
data
collected
during
the
performance
test
to
calculate
and
record
the
average
pressure
drop.
This
is
the
maximum
operating
limit
for
the
dilute
stream
across
the
concentrator.
(
f)
Emission
capture
systems.
For
each
capture
device
that
is
not
part
of
a
PTE
that
meets
the
criteria
of
§
63.3165(
a),
establish
an
operating
limit
for
either
the
gas
volumetric
flow
rate
or
duct
static
pressure,
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
The
operating
limit
for
a
PTE
is
specified
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart.
(
1)
During
the
capture
efficiency
determination
required
by
§
63.3160
and
described
in
§
§
63.3164
and
63.3165,
you
must
monitor
and
record
either
the
gas
volumetric
flow
rate
or
the
duct
static
pressure
for
each
separate
capture
device
in
your
emission
capture
system
at
least
once
every
15
minutes
during
each
of
the
three
test
runs
at
a
point
in
the
duct
between
the
capture
device
and
the
add­
on
control
device
inlet.
(
2)
Calculate
and
record
the
average
gas
volumetric
flow
rate
or
duct
static
pressure
for
the
three
test
runs
for
each
capture
device.
This
average
gas
volumetric
flow
rate
or
duct
static
pressure
is
the
minimum
operating
limit
for
that
specific
capture
device.

§
63.3168
What
are
the
requirements
for
continuous
parameter
monitoring
system
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance?

(
a)
General.
You
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
each
CPMS
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c),
(
e),
(
f),
and
(
g)
of
this
section
according
to
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.
You
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
each
CPMS
specified
in
paragraphs
(
b)
and
(
d)
of
this
section
according
to
paragraphs
(
a)(
3)
through
(
5)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
CPMS
must
complete
a
minimum
of
one
cycle
of
operation
for
each
successive
15­
minute
period.
You
must
have
a
minimum
of
four
equally
spaced
successive
cycles
of
CPMS
operation
in
1
hour.
(
2)
You
must
determine
the
average
of
all
recorded
readings
for
each
successive
3­
hour
period
of
the
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
operation.
(
3)
You
must
record
the
results
of
each
inspection,
calibration,
and
validation
check
of
the
CPMS.
(
4)
You
must
maintain
the
CPMS
at
all
times
and
have
available
necessary
parts
for
routine
repairs
of
the
monitoring
equipment.
(
5)
You
must
operate
the
CPMS
and
collect
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
parameter
data
at
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00043
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78654
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
all
times
that
a
controlled
coating
operation
is
operating,
except
during
monitoring
malfunctions,
associated
repairs,
and
required
quality
assurance
or
control
activities
(
including,
if
applicable,
calibration
checks
and
required
zero
and
span
adjustments).
(
6)
You
must
not
use
emission
capture
system
or
add­
on
control
device
parameter
data
recorded
during
monitoring
malfunctions,
associated
repairs,
out­
of­
control
periods,
or
required
quality
assurance
or
control
activities
when
calculating
data
averages.
You
must
use
all
the
data
collected
during
all
other
periods
in
calculating
the
data
averages
for
determining
compliance
with
the
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
operating
limits.
(
7)
A
monitoring
malfunction
is
any
sudden,
infrequent,
not
reasonably
preventable
failure
of
the
CPMS
to
provide
valid
data.
Monitoring
failures
that
are
caused
in
part
by
poor
maintenance
or
careless
operation
are
not
malfunctions.
Any
period
for
which
the
monitoring
system
is
out
of
control
and
data
are
not
available
for
required
calculations
is
a
deviation
from
the
monitoring
requirements.
(
b)
Capture
system
bypass
line.
You
must
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section
for
each
emission
capture
system
that
contains
bypass
lines
that
could
divert
emissions
away
from
the
add­
on
control
device
to
the
atmosphere.
(
1)
You
must
monitor
or
secure
the
valve
or
closure
mechanism
controlling
the
bypass
line
in
a
nondiverting
position
in
such
a
way
that
the
valve
or
closure
mechanism
cannot
be
opened
without
creating
a
record
that
the
valve
was
opened.
The
method
used
to
monitor
or
secure
the
valve
or
closure
mechanism
must
meet
one
of
the
requirements
specified
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Flow
control
position
indicator.
Install,
calibrate,
maintain,
and
operate
according
to
the
manufacturer's
specifications
a
flow
control
position
indicator
that
takes
a
reading
at
least
once
every
15
minutes
and
provides
a
record
indicating
whether
the
emissions
are
directed
to
the
add­
on
control
device
or
diverted
from
the
add­
on
control
device.
The
time
of
occurrence
and
flow
control
position
must
be
recorded,
as
well
as
every
time
the
flow
direction
is
changed.
The
flow
control
position
indicator
must
be
installed
at
the
entrance
to
any
bypass
line
that
could
divert
the
emissions
away
from
the
addon
control
device
to
the
atmosphere.
(
ii)
Car­
seal
or
lock­
and­
key
valve
closures.
Secure
any
bypass
line
valve
in
the
closed
position
with
a
car­
seal
or
a
lock­
and­
key
type
configuration.
You
must
visually
inspect
the
seal
or
closure
mechanism
at
least
once
every
month
to
ensure
that
the
valve
is
maintained
in
the
closed
position,
and
the
emissions
are
not
diverted
away
from
the
add­
on
control
device
to
the
atmosphere.
(
iii)
Valve
closure
monitoring.
Ensure
that
any
bypass
line
valve
is
in
the
closed
(
nondiverting)
position
through
monitoring
of
valve
position
at
least
once
every
15
minutes.
You
must
inspect
the
monitoring
system
at
least
once
every
month
to
verify
that
the
monitor
will
indicate
valve
position.
(
iv)
Automatic
shutdown
system.
Use
an
automatic
shutdown
system
in
which
the
coating
operation
is
stopped
when
flow
is
diverted
by
the
bypass
line
away
from
the
add­
on
control
device
to
the
atmosphere
when
the
coating
operation
is
running.
You
must
inspect
the
automatic
shutdown
system
at
least
once
every
month
to
verify
that
it
will
detect
diversions
of
flow
and
shut
down
the
coating
operation.
(
2)
If
any
bypass
line
is
opened,
you
must
include
a
description
of
why
the
bypass
line
was
opened
and
the
length
of
time
it
remained
open
in
the
semiannual
compliance
reports
required
in
§
63.3120.
(
c)
Thermal
oxidizers
and
catalytic
oxidizers.
If
you
are
using
a
thermal
oxidizer
or
catalytic
oxidizer
as
an
addon
control
device
(
including
those
used
to
treat
desorbed
concentrate
streams
from
concentrators
or
carbon
adsorbers),
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section:
(
1)
For
a
thermal
oxidizer,
install
a
gas
temperature
monitor
in
the
firebox
of
the
thermal
oxidizer
or
in
the
duct
immediately
downstream
of
the
firebox
before
any
substantial
heat
exchange
occurs.
(
2)
For
a
catalytic
oxidizer,
install
gas
temperature
monitors
both
upstream
and
downstream
of
the
catalyst
bed.
The
temperature
monitors
must
be
in
the
gas
stream
immediately
before
and
after
the
catalyst
bed
to
measure
the
temperature
difference
across
the
bed.
(
3)
For
all
thermal
oxidizers
and
catalytic
oxidizers,
you
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
6)
and
(
c)(
3)(
i)
through
(
vii)
of
this
section
for
each
gas
temperature
monitoring
device.
(
i)
Locate
the
temperature
sensor
in
a
position
that
provides
a
representative
temperature.
(
ii)
Use
a
temperature
sensor
with
a
measurement
sensitivity
of
4
degrees
Fahrenheit
or
0.75
percent
of
the
temperature
value,
whichever
is
larger.
(
iii)
Shield
the
temperature
sensor
system
from
electromagnetic
interference
and
chemical
contaminants.
(
iv)
If
a
gas
temperature
chart
recorder
is
used,
it
must
have
a
measurement
sensitivity
in
the
minor
division
of
at
least
20
degrees
Fahrenheit.
(
v)
Perform
an
electronic
calibration
at
least
semiannually
according
to
the
procedures
in
the
manufacturer's
owners
manual.
Following
the
electronic
calibration,
you
must
conduct
a
temperature
sensor
validation
check
in
which
a
second
or
redundant
temperature
sensor
placed
nearby
the
process
temperature
sensor
must
yield
a
reading
within
30
degrees
Fahrenheit
of
the
process
temperature
sensor
reading.
(
vi)
Conduct
calibration
and
validation
checks
any
time
the
sensor
exceeds
the
manufacturer's
specified
maximum
operating
temperature
range
or
install
a
new
temperature
sensor.
(
vii)
At
least
monthly,
inspect
components
for
integrity
and
electrical
connections
for
continuity,
oxidation,
and
galvanic
corrosion.
(
d)
Carbon
adsorbers.
If
you
are
using
a
carbon
adsorber
as
an
add­
on
control
device,
you
must
monitor
the
total
regeneration
desorbing
gas
(
e.
g.,
steam
or
nitrogen)
mass
flow
for
each
regeneration
cycle,
the
carbon
bed
temperature
after
each
regeneration
and
cooling
cycle,
and
comply
with
paragraphs
(
a)(
3)
through
(
5)
and
(
d)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
regeneration
desorbing
gas
mass
flow
monitor
must
be
an
integrating
device
having
a
measurement
sensitivity
of
plus
or
minus
10
percent,
capable
of
recording
the
total
regeneration
desorbing
gas
mass
flow
for
each
regeneration
cycle.
(
2)
The
carbon
bed
temperature
monitor
must
have
a
measurement
sensitivity
of
1
percent
of
the
temperature
(
as
expressed
in
degrees
Fahrenheit)
recorded
or
1
degree
Fahrenheit,
whichever
is
greater,
and
must
be
capable
of
recording
the
temperature
within
15
minutes
of
completing
any
carbon
bed
cooling
cycle.
(
e)
Condensers.
If
you
are
using
a
condenser,
you
must
monitor
the
condenser
outlet
(
product
side)
gas
temperature
and
comply
with
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
6)
and
(
e)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
gas
temperature
monitor
must
have
a
measurement
sensitivity
of
1
percent
of
the
temperature
(
expressed
in
degrees
Fahrenheit)
recorded
or
1
degree
Fahrenheit,
whichever
is
greater.
(
2)
The
temperature
monitor
must
provide
a
gas
temperature
record
at
least
once
every
15
minutes.
(
f)
Concentrators.
If
you
are
using
a
concentrator,
such
as
a
zeolite
wheel
or
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00044
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78655
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
rotary
carbon
bed
concentrator,
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
You
must
install
a
temperature
monitor
in
the
desorption
gas
stream.
The
temperature
monitor
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
6)
and
(
c)(
3)
of
this
section.
(
2)
You
must
install
a
device
to
monitor
pressure
drop
across
the
zeolite
wheel
or
rotary
carbon
bed.
The
pressure
monitoring
device
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
6)
and
(
f)(
2)(
i)
through
(
vii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Locate
the
pressure
sensor(
s)
in
a
position
that
provides
a
representative
measurement
of
the
pressure.
(
ii)
Minimize
or
eliminate
pulsating
pressure,
vibration,
and
internal
and
external
corrosion.
(
iii)
Use
a
gauge
with
a
minimum
tolerance
of
0.5
inch
of
water
or
a
transducer
with
a
minimum
tolerance
of
1
percent
of
the
pressure
range.
(
iv)
Check
the
pressure
tap
daily.
(
v)
Using
a
manometer,
check
gauge
calibration
quarterly
and
transducer
calibration
monthly.
(
vi)
Conduct
calibration
checks
anytime
the
sensor
exceeds
the
manufacturer's
specified
maximum
operating
pressure
range
or
install
a
new
pressure
sensor.
(
vii)
At
least
monthly,
inspect
components
for
integrity,
electrical
connections
for
continuity,
and
mechanical
connections
for
leakage.
(
g)
Emission
capture
systems.
The
capture
system
monitoring
system
must
comply
with
the
applicable
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
g)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
For
each
flow
measurement
device,
you
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
6)
and
(
g)(
1)(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Locate
a
flow
sensor
in
a
position
that
provides
a
representative
flow
measurement
in
the
duct
from
each
capture
device
in
the
emission
capture
system
to
the
add­
on
control
device.
(
ii)
Reduce
swirling
flow
or
abnormal
velocity
distributions
due
to
upstream
and
downstream
disturbances.
(
iii)
Conduct
a
flow
sensor
calibration
check
at
least
semiannually.
(
iv)
At
least
monthly,
inspect
components
for
integrity,
electrical
connections
for
continuity,
and
mechanical
connections
for
leakage.
(
2)
For
each
pressure
drop
measurement
device,
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
6)
and
(
g)(
2)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Locate
the
pressure
tap(
s)
in
a
position
that
provides
a
representative
measurement
of
the
pressure
drop
across
each
opening
you
are
monitoring.
(
ii)
Minimize
or
eliminate
pulsating
pressure,
vibration,
and
internal
and
external
corrosion.
(
iii)
Check
pressure
tap
pluggage
daily.
(
iv)
Using
an
inclined
manometer
with
a
measurement
sensitivity
of
0.0002
inch
water,
check
gauge
calibration
quarterly
and
transducer
calibration
monthly.
(
v)
Conduct
calibration
checks
any
time
the
sensor
exceeds
the
manufacturer's
specified
maximum
operating
pressure
range
or
install
a
new
pressure
sensor.
(
vi)
At
least
monthly,
inspect
components
for
integrity,
electrical
connections
for
continuity,
and
mechanical
connections
for
leakage.

Compliance
Requirements
for
the
Combined
Primer
Surfacer,
Topcoat,
Final
Repair,
Glass
Bonding
Primer,
and
Glass
Bonding
Adhesive
Emission
Rates
and
the
Separate
Electrodeposition
Primer
Emission
Rates
§
63.3170
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
performance
tests
and
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations?
(
a)
New
and
reconstructed
affected
sources.
For
a
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source,
you
must
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
§
63.3160.
(
b)
Existing
affected
sources.
For
an
existing
affected
source,
you
must
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
§
63.3160.

§
63.3171
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance?
(
a)
You
must
meet
all
of
the
requirements
of
this
section
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance.
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance,
the
organic
HAP
emissions
from
the
combined
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations
must
meet
the
applicable
emission
limitation
in
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b);
and
the
organic
HAP
emissions
from
the
electrodeposition
primer
operation
must
meet
the
applicable
emissions
limitations
in
§
63.3092(
a)
or
(
b).
(
b)
Compliance
with
operating
limits.
Except
as
provided
in
§
63.3160(
a)(
4),
you
must
establish
and
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
during
the
initial
compliance
period
with
the
operating
limits
required
by
§
63.3093,
using
the
procedures
specified
in
§
§
63.3167
and
63.3168.
(
c)
Compliance
with
work
practice
requirements.
You
must
develop,
implement,
and
document
your
implementation
of
the
work
practice
plans
required
by
§
63.3094(
b)
and
(
c)
during
the
initial
compliance
period,
as
specified
in
§
63.3130.
(
d)
Compliance
with
emission
limits.
You
must
follow
the
procedures
in
§
63.3161(
e)
through
(
n),
excluding
materials
used
in
electrodeposition
primer
operations,
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b).
You
must
follow
the
procedures
in
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
limit
in
§
63.3092(
a),
or
paragraphs
(
f)
through
(
g)
of
this
section
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
in
§
63.3092(
b).
(
e)
Determine
the
mass
fraction
of
each
organic
HAP
in
each
material
used
in
the
electrodeposition
primer
operation.
You
must
determine
the
mass
fraction
of
each
organic
HAP
for
each
material
used
in
the
electrodeposition
primer
operation
during
the
compliance
period
by
using
one
of
the
options
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Method
311
(
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
63).
You
may
use
Method
311
for
determining
the
mass
fraction
of
each
organic
HAP.
(
2)
Alternative
method.
You
may
use
an
alternative
test
method
for
determining
the
mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
once
the
Administrator
has
approved
it.
You
must
follow
the
procedure
in
§
63.7(
f)
to
submit
an
alternative
test
method
for
approval.
(
3)
Information
from
the
supplier
or
manufacturer
of
the
material.
You
may
rely
on
information
other
than
that
generated
by
the
test
methods
specified
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section,
such
as
manufacturer's
formulation
data,
if
it
represents
each
organic
HAP
that
is
present
at
0.1
percent
by
mass
or
more
for
OSHAdefined
carcinogens,
as
specified
in
29
CFR
1910.1200(
d)(
4),
and
at
1.0
percent
by
mass
or
more
for
other
compounds.
If
there
is
a
disagreement
between
such
information
and
results
of
a
test
conducted
according
to
paragraph
(
e)(
1)
or
(
2)
of
this
section,
then
the
test
method
results
will
take
precedence.
(
f)
Capture
of
electrodeposition
bake
oven
emissions.
You
must
show
that
the
electrodeposition
bake
oven
meets
the
criteria
in
sections
5.3
through
5.5
of
Method
204
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51
and
directs
all
of
the
exhaust
gases
from
the
bake
oven
to
an
add­
on
control
device.
(
g)
Control
of
electrodeposition
bake
oven
emissions.
Determine
the
efficiency
of
each
control
device
on
each
electrodeposition
bake
oven
using
the
procedures
in
§
§
63.3164
and
63.3166.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00045
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78656
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(
h)
Compliance
demonstration.
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance,
the
organic
HAP
emissions
from
the
combined
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations
must
meet
the
applicable
emission
limitation
in
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b);
the
organic
HAP
emissions
from
the
electrodeposition
primer
operation
must
meet
the
applicable
emissions
limitations
in
§
63.3092(
a)
or
(
b).
You
must
keep
all
records
as
required
by
§
§
63.3130
and
63.3131.
As
part
of
the
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
required
by
§
63.3110,
you
must
submit
a
statement
that
the
coating
operation(
s)
was
(
were)
in
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
during
the
initial
compliance
period
because
the
organic
HAP
emission
rate
from
the
combined
primer­
surfacer,
topcoat,
final
repair,
glass
bonding
primer,
and
glass
bonding
adhesive
operations
was
less
than
or
equal
to
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b),
and
the
organic
HAP
emissions
from
the
electrodeposition
primer
operation
met
the
applicable
emissions
limitations
in
§
63.3092(
a)
or
(
b),
and
you
achieved
the
operating
limits
required
by
§
63.3093
and
the
work
practice
standards
required
by
§
63.3094.

§
63.3172
[
Reserved]

§
63.3173
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations?

(
a)
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b),
the
organic
HAP
emission
rate
for
each
compliance
period
determined
according
to
the
procedures
in
§
63.3171
must
be
equal
to
or
less
than
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b).
A
compliance
period
consists
of
1
month.
Each
month
after
the
end
of
the
initial
compliance
period
described
in
§
63.3170
is
a
compliance
period
consisting
of
that
month.
You
must
perform
the
calculations
in
§
63.3171
on
a
monthly
basis.
(
b)
If
the
organic
HAP
emission
rate
for
any
1
month
compliance
period
exceeded
the
applicable
emission
limit
in
§
63.3090(
b)
or
§
63.3091(
b),
this
is
a
deviation
from
the
emission
limitation
for
that
compliance
period
and
must
be
reported
as
specified
in
§
§
63.3110(
c)(
6)
and
63.3120(
a)(
6).
(
c)
You
must
meet
the
requirements
of
§
63.3163(
c)
through
(
j).
Other
Requirements
and
Information
§
63.3175
Who
implements
and
enforces
this
subpart?

(
a)
This
subpart
can
be
implemented
and
enforced
by
us,
EPA,
or
a
delegated
authority
such
as
your
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
If
the
Administrator
has
delegated
authority
to
your
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency,
then
that
agency
(
as
well
as
EPA)
has
the
authority
to
implement
and
enforce
this
subpart.
You
should
contact
your
EPA
Regional
Office
to
find
out
if
implementation
and
enforcement
of
this
subpart
is
delegated
to
your
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
(
b)
In
delegating
implementation
and
enforcement
authority
of
this
subpart
to
a
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency
under
subpart
E
of
this
part,
the
authorities
contained
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section
are
retained
by
the
EPA
Administrator
and
are
not
transferred
to
the
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
(
c)
The
authorities
that
will
not
be
delegated
to
State,
local,
or
tribal
agencies
are
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Approval
of
alternatives
to
the
work
practice
standards
in
§
63.3094
under
§
63.6(
g).
(
2)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
test
methods
under
§
63.7(
e)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.
(
3)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
monitoring
under
§
63.8(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.
(
4)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
under
§
63.10(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.

§
63.3176
What
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

Terms
used
in
this
subpart
are
defined
in
the
CAA,
in
40
CFR
63.2,
the
General
Provisions
of
this
part,
and
in
this
section
as
follows:
Add­
on
control
device
means
an
air
pollution
control
device,
such
as
a
thermal
oxidizer
or
carbon
adsorber,
that
reduces
pollution
in
an
air
stream
by
destruction
or
removal
before
discharge
to
the
atmosphere.
Add­
on
control
device
efficiency
means
the
ratio
of
the
emissions
collected
or
destroyed
by
an
add­
on
air
pollution
control
device
to
the
total
emissions
that
are
introduced
into
the
control
device,
expressed
as
a
percentage.
Adhesive
means
any
chemical
substance
that
is
applied
for
the
purpose
of
bonding
two
surfaces
together.
Anti­
chip
coating
means
a
specialty
type
of
coating
designed
to
reduce
stone
chipping
damage.
It
is
applied
on
selected
vehicle
surfaces
that
are
exposed
to
impingement
by
stones
and
other
road
debris.
It
is
typically
applied
after
the
electrodeposition
primer
and
before
the
topcoat
coating
materials
(
may
be
used
as
a
type
of
primersurfacer
Anti­
chip
coatings
are
included
in
the
primer­
surfacer
operation.
As
applied
means
the
condition
of
a
coating
material
after
any
dilution
as
it
is
being
applied
to
the
substrate.
As
supplied
means
the
condition
of
the
coating
material
as
provided
by
the
manufacturer
to
the
user,
either
before
or
after
reducing
for
application.
Automobile
means
a
motor
vehicle
designed
to
carry
up
to
eight
passengers,
excluding
vans,
sport
utility
vehicles,
and
motor
vehicles
designed
primarily
to
transport
light
loads
of
property.
See
also
Light­
duty
truck.
Automobile
and/
or
light­
duty
truck
assembly
plant
means
facilities
involved
primarily
in
assembly
of
automobiles
and
light­
duty
trucks,
including
coating
facilities
and
processes.
Basecoat/
clearcoat
means
a
topcoat
system
applied
to
exterior
and
selected
interior
vehicle
surfaces
primarily
to
provide
an
aesthetically
pleasing
appearance
and
acceptable
durability
performance.
It
consists
of
a
layer
of
pigmented
basecoat
color
coating,
followed
directly
by
a
layer
of
a
clear
or
semitransparent
coating.
It
may
include
multiple
layers
of
color
coats
or
tinted
clear
materials.
Blackout
coating
means
a
type
of
specialty
coating
applied
on
selected
vehicle
surfaces
(
including
areas
of
the
engine
compartment
visible
through
the
grill,
and
window
and
pillar
trim)
to
provide
a
cosmetic
appearance.
Typically
black
or
dark
gray
color.
Blackout
coating
may
be
included
in
either
the
primer­
surfacer
or
topcoat
operations.
Capture
device
means
a
hood,
enclosure,
room,
floor
sweep,
or
other
means
of
containing
or
collecting
emissions
and
directing
those
emissions
into
an
add­
on
air
pollution
control
device.
Capture
efficiency
or
capture
system
efficiency
means
the
portion
(
expressed
as
a
percentage)
of
the
pollutants
from
an
emission
source
that
is
delivered
to
an
add­
on
control
device.
Capture
system
means
one
or
more
capture
devices
intended
to
collect
emissions
generated
by
a
coating
operation
in
the
use
of
coatings,
both
at
the
point
of
application
and
at
subsequent
points
where
emissions
from
the
coatings
occur,
such
as
flashoff
drying,
or
curing.
As
used
in
this
subpart,
multiple
capture
devices
that
collect
emissions
generated
by
a
coating
operation
are
considered
a
single
capture
system.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00046
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78657
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Catalytic
oxidizer
means
a
device
for
oxidizing
pollutants
or
waste
materials
via
flame
and
heat
incorporating
a
catalyst
to
aid
the
combustion
at
lower
operating
temperature.
Cleaning
material
means
a
solvent
used
to
remove
contaminants
and
other
materials
such
as
dirt,
grease,
oil,
and
dried
(
e.
g.,
depainting)
or
wet
coating
from
a
substrate
before
or
after
coating
application;
or
from
equipment
associated
with
a
coating
operation,
such
as
spray
booths,
spray
guns,
tanks,
and
hangers.
Thus,
it
includes
any
cleaning
material
used
on
substrates
or
equipment
or
both.
Coating
means
a
material
applied
to
a
substrate
for
decorative,
protective,
or
functional
purposes.
Such
materials
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
paints,
sealants,
caulks,
inks,
adhesives,
primers,
deadeners,
and
maskants.
Decorative,
protective,
or
functional
materials
that
consist
only
of
protective
oils
for
metal,
acids,
bases,
or
any
combination
of
these
substances
are
not
considered
coatings
for
the
purposes
of
this
subpart.
Coating
operation
means
equipment
used
to
apply
coating
to
a
substrate
(
coating
application)
and
to
dry
or
cure
the
coating
after
application.
A
single
coating
operation
always
includes
at
least
the
point
at
which
a
coating
is
applied
and
all
subsequent
points
in
the
affected
source
where
organic
HAP
emissions
from
that
coating
occur.
There
may
be
multiple
coating
operations
in
an
affected
source.
Coating
application
with
hand­
held
nonrefillable
aerosol
containers,
touchup
markers,
marking
pens,
or
pinstriping
equipment
is
not
a
coating
operation
for
the
purposes
of
this
subpart.
Coating
solids
means
the
nonvolatile
portion
of
the
coating
that
makes
up
the
dry
film.
Continuous
parameter
monitoring
system
(
CPMS)
means
the
total
equipment
that
may
be
required
to
meet
the
data
acquisition
and
availability
requirements
of
this
subpart;
used
to
sample,
condition
(
if
applicable),
analyze,
and
provide
a
record
of
coating
operation,
or
capture
system,
or
add­
on
control
device
parameters.
Controlled
coating
operation
means
a
coating
operation
from
which
some
or
all
of
the
organic
HAP
emissions
are
routed
through
an
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device.
Day
tank
means
tank
with
agitation
and
pumping
system
used
for
mixing
and
continuous
circulation
of
coatings
from
the
paint
storage
area
to
the
spray
booth
area
of
the
paintshop.
Deadener
means
a
specialty
coating
applied
to
selected
vehicle
underbody
surfaces
for
the
purpose
of
reducing
the
sound
of
road
noise
in
the
passenger
compartment.
Deposited
solids
means
the
solids
component
of
the
coating
remains
on
the
substrate
or
object
being
painted.
Deviation
means
any
instance
in
which
an
affected
source
subject
to
this
subpart,
or
an
owner
or
operator
of
such
a
source:
(
1)
Fails
to
meet
any
requirement
or
obligation
established
by
this
subpart
including,
but
not
limited
to,
any
emission
limit,
operating
limit,
or
work
practice
standard;
or
(
2)
Fails
to
meet
any
term
or
condition
that
is
adopted
to
implement
an
applicable
requirement
in
this
subpart
and
that
is
included
in
the
operating
permit
for
any
affected
source
required
to
obtain
such
a
permit;
or
(
3)
Fails
to
meet
any
emission
limit
or
operating
limit
or
work
practice
standard
in
this
subpart
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
such
failure
is
permitted
by
this
subpart.
Electrodeposition
primer
or
electrocoating
primer
means
a
process
of
applying
a
protective,
corrosionresistant
waterborne
primer
on
exterior
and
interior
surfaces
that
provides
thorough
coverage
of
recessed
areas.
It
is
a
dip
coating
method
that
uses
an
electrical
field
to
apply
or
deposit
the
conductive
coating
material
onto
the
part.
The
object
being
painted
acts
as
an
electrode
that
is
oppositely
charged
from
the
particles
of
paint
in
the
dip
tank.
Also
referred
to
as
E­
Coat,
Uni­
Prime,
and
ELPO
Primer.
Emission
limitation
means
an
emission
limit,
operating
limit,
or
work
practice
standard.
Final
repair
means
the
operations
performed
and
coating(
s)
applied
outside
of
the
paint
shop
to
completelyassembled
motor
vehicles
or
in
lowbake
off­
line
operations
within
the
paint
shop
to
correct
damage
or
imperfections
in
the
coating.
Flash­
off
area
means
the
portion
of
a
coating
process
between
the
coating
application
station
and
the
next
coating
application
station
or
drying
oven
where
solvent
begins
to
evaporate
from
the
coated
vehicle.
Glass
bonding
adhesive
means
an
adhesive
used
to
bond
windshield
or
other
glass
to
an
automobile
or
lightduty
truck
body.
Glass
bonding
primer
means
a
primer
applied
to
windshield
or
other
glass,
or
to
body
openings
to
prepare
the
glass
or
body
openings
for
the
application
of
glass
bonding
adhesive,
or
the
installation
of
adhesive
bonded
glass.
Guide
coat
means
Primer­
surfacer.
In­
line
repair
operation
means
the
process
of
surface
preparation
and
application
of
coatings
on
the
paint
line
in
the
paint
shop
to
correct
damage
or
imperfections
in
the
coating
finish.
Also
referred
to
as
high
bake
repair
or
high
bake
reprocess.
Light­
duty
truck
means
vans,
sport
utility
vehicles,
and
motor
vehicles
designed
primarily
to
transport
light
loads
of
property
with
gross
vehicle
weight
rating
of
8,500
lbs
or
less.
Manufacturer's
formulation
data
means
data
on
a
material
(
such
as
a
coating)
that
are
supplied
by
the
material
manufacturer
based
on
knowledge
of
the
ingredients
used
to
manufacture
that
material,
rather
than
based
on
testing
of
the
material
with
the
test
methods
specified
in
§
§
63.3151
and
63.3161.
Manufacturer's
formulation
data
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
information
on
density,
organic
HAP
content,
volatile
organic
matter
content,
and
coating
solids
content.
Mass
fraction
of
organic
HAP
means
the
ratio
of
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
to
the
mass
of
a
material
in
which
it
is
contained,
expressed
as
kg
of
organic
HAP
per
kg
of
material.
Month
means
a
calendar
month
or
a
pre­
specified
period
of
28
days
to
35
days
to
allow
for
flexibility
in
recordkeeping
when
data
are
based
on
a
business
accounting
period.
Organic
HAP
content
means
the
mass
of
organic
HAP
per
mass
of
coating
material.
Paint
shop
means
that
area
of
an
automobile
assembly
plant
in
which
vehicle
bodies
are
cleaned,
phosphated,
and
coatings
(
including
electrodeposition
primer,
primersurfacer
topcoat,
and
deadener)
are
applied.
Permanent
total
enclosure
(
PTE)
means
a
permanently
installed
enclosure
that
meets
the
criteria
of
Method
204
of
appendix
M,
40
CFR
part
51,
for
a
PTE
and
that
directs
all
the
exhaust
gases
from
the
enclosure
to
an
add­
on
control
device.
Primer­
surfacer
means
an
intermediate
protective
coating
applied
on
the
electrodeposition
primer
and
under
the
topcoat.
It
provides
adhesion,
protection,
and
appearance
properties
to
the
total
finish.
Also
called
a
guide
coat
or
surfacer.
Purge/
clean
operation
means
the
process
of
flushing
paint
out
and
cleaning
the
spray
lines
when
changing
colors
or
to
remove
undesired
material.
It
includes
use
of
air
and
solvents
to
clean
the
lines.
Purge
capture
means
the
capture
of
purge
solvent
and
materials
into
a
closed
collection
system
immediately
after
purging
the
system.
It
is
used
to
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00047
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78658
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
prevent
the
release
of
organic
HAP
emissions
and
includes
the
disposal
of
the
captured
purge
material.
Purge
material
means
the
coating
and
associated
cleaning
solvent
materials
expelled
from
the
spray
system
during
the
process
of
cleaning
the
spray
lines
and
applicators
when
color­
changing
or
to
maintain
the
cleanliness
of
the
spray
system.
Protective
oil
means
an
organic
material
that
is
applied
to
metal
for
the
purpose
of
providing
lubrication
or
protection
from
corrosion
without
forming
a
solid
film.
This
definition
of
protective
oil
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
lubricating
oils,
evaporative
oils
(
including
those
that
evaporate
completely),
and
extrusion
oils.
Research
or
laboratory
facility
means
a
facility
whose
primary
purpose
is
for
research
and
development
of
new
processes
and
products,
that
is
conducted
under
the
close
supervision
of
technically
trained
personnel,
and
is
not
engaged
in
the
manufacture
of
final
or
intermediate
products
for
commercial
purposes,
except
in
a
de
minimis
manner.
Responsible
official
means
responsible
official
as
defined
in
40
CFR
70.2.
Spraybooth
means
a
ventilated
structure
housing
automatic
and/
or
manual
spray
application
equipment
for
coating
operations.
Includes
facilities
for
the
capture
and
entrapment
of
particulate
overspray.
Startup,
initial
means
the
first
time
equipment
is
brought
online
in
a
facility.
Surface
preparation
means
use
of
a
cleaning
material
on
a
portion
of
or
all
of
a
substrate.
This
includes
use
of
a
cleaning
material
to
remove
dried
coating,
which
is
sometimes
called
``
depainting.''
Surfacer
means
Primer­
surfacer.
Tack­
wipe
means
solvent
impregnated
cloth
used
to
remove
dust
from
surfaces
prior
to
application
of
coatings.
Temporary
total
enclosure
means
an
enclosure
constructed
for
the
purpose
of
measuring
the
capture
efficiency
of
pollutants
emitted
from
a
given
source
as
defined
in
Method
204
of
appendix
M,
40
CFR
part
51.
Thermal
oxidizer
means
a
device
for
oxidizing
air
pollutants
or
waste
materials
via
flame
and
heat.
Thinner
means
an
organic
solvent
that
is
added
to
a
coating
after
the
coating
is
received
from
the
supplier.
Topcoat
means
the
final
coating
system
applied
to
provide
the
final
color
and/
or
a
protective
finish.
May
be
a
Monocoat
color
or
Basecoat/
Clearcoat
system.
Total
volatile
hydrocarbon
(
TVH)
means
the
total
amount
of
nonaqueous
volatile
organic
matter
determined
according
to
Methods
204
and
204A
through
F
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51
and
substituting
the
term
TVH
each
place
in
the
methods
where
the
term
VOC
is
used.
The
TVH
includes
both
VOC
and
non­
VOC.
Transfer
efficiency
means
the
ratio
of
the
amount
of
coating
solids
deposited
onto
the
surface
of
the
object
to
the
total
amount
of
coating
solids
sprayed
while
applying
the
coating
to
the
object.
Uncontrolled
coating
operation
means
a
coating
operation
from
which
none
of
the
organic
HAP
emissions
are
routed
through
an
emission
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device.
Volatile
organic
compound
(
VOC)
means
any
compound
defined
as
VOC
in
40
CFR
51.100(
s).
Volume
fraction
of
coating
solids
means
the
ratio
of
the
volume
of
coating
solids
(
also
known
as
volume
of
nonvolatiles)
to
the
volume
of
coating;
liters
of
coating
solids
per
liter
of
coating.

Tables
to
Subpart
IIII
of
Part
63
TABLE
1
TO
SUBPART
IIII
OF
PART
63.
 
OPERATING
LIMITS
FOR
CAPTURE
SYSTEMS
AND
ADD­
ON
CONTROL
DEVICES
[
If
you
are
required
to
comply
with
operating
limits
by
§
63.3093,
you
must
comply
with
the
applicable
operating
limits
in
the
following
table]

For
the
following
device
.
.
.
You
must
meet
the
following
operating
limit
.
.
.
And
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operating
limit
by
1.
thermal
oxidizer
...............
a.
the
average
combustion
temperature
in
any
3­
hour
period
must
not
fall
below
the
combustion
temperature
limit
established
according
to
§
63.3167(
a).
i.
collecting
the
combustion
temperature
data
according
to
§
63.3168(
c);
ii.
reducing
the
data
to
3­
hour
block
averages;
and
iii.
maintaining
the
3­
hour
average
combustion
temperature
at
or
above
the
temperature
limit.
2.
catalytic
oxidizer
..............
a.
the
average
temperature
measured
just
before
the
catalyst
bed
in
any
3­
hour
period
must
not
fall
below
the
limit
established
according
to
§
63.3167(
b);
and
either.
i.
collecting
the
temperature
data
according
to
§
63.3168(
c);
ii.
reducing
the
data
to
3­
hour
block
averages;
and
iii.
maintaining
the
3­
hour
average
temperature
before
the
catalyst
bed
at
or
above
the
temperature
limit.
b.
ensure
that
the
average
temperature
difference
across
the
catalyst
bed
in
any
3­
hour
period
does
not
fall
below
the
temperature
difference
limit
established
according
to
§
63.3167(
b)(
2);
or.
i.
collecting
the
temperature
data
according
to
§
63.3168(
c);
ii.
reducing
the
data
to
3­
hour
block
averages;
and
iii.
maintaining
the
3­
hour
average
temperature
difference
at
or
above
the
temperature
difference
limit;
or
c.
develop
and
implement
an
inspection
and
maintenance
plan
according
to
§
63.3167(
b)(
4).
i.
maintaining
an
up­
to­
date
inspection
and
maintenance
plan,
records
of
annual
catalyst
activity
checks,
records
of
monthly
inspections
of
the
oxidizer
system,
and
records
of
the
annual
internal
inspections
of
the
catalyst
bed.
If
a
problem
is
discovered
during
a
monthly
or
annual
inspection
required
by
§
63.3167(
b)(
4),
you
must
take
corrective
action
as
soon
as
practicable
consistent
with
the
manufacturer's
recommendations.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00048
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78659
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
1
TO
SUBPART
IIII
OF
PART
63.
 
OPERATING
LIMITS
FOR
CAPTURE
SYSTEMS
AND
ADD­
ON
CONTROL
DEVICES
 
Continued
[
If
you
are
required
to
comply
with
operating
limits
by
§
63.3093,
you
must
comply
with
the
applicable
operating
limits
in
the
following
table]

For
the
following
device
.
.
.
You
must
meet
the
following
operating
limit
.
.
.
And
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operating
limit
by
3.
carbon
adsorber
...............
a.
the
total
regeneration
desorbing
gas
(
e.
g.,
steam
or
nitrogen)
mass
flow
for
each
carbon
bed
regeneration
cycle
must
not
fall
below
the
total
regeneration
desorbing
gas
mass
flow
limit
established
according
to
§
63.3167(
c).
i.
measuring
the
total
regeneration
desorbing
gas
(
e.
g.,
steam
or
nitrogen)
mass
flow
for
each
regeneration
cycle
according
to
§
63.3168(
d);
and
ii.
maintaining
the
total
regeneration
desorbing
gas
mass
flow
at
or
above
the
mass
flow
limit.
b.
the
temperature
of
the
carbon
bed
after
completing
each
regeneration
and
any
cooling
cycle
must
not
exceed
the
carbon
bed
temperature
limit
established
according
to
§
63.3167(
c).
i.
measuring
the
temperature
of
the
carbon
bed
after
completing
each
regeneration
and
any
cooling
cycle
according
to
§
63.3168(
d);
and
ii.
operating
the
carbon
beds
such
that
each
carbon
bed
is
not
returned
to
service
until
completing
each
regeneration
and
any
cooling
cycle
until
the
recorded
temperature
of
the
carbon
bed
is
at
or
below
the
temperature
limit.
4.
condenser
........................
a.
the
average
condenser
outlet
(
product
side)
gas
temperature
in
any
3­
hour
period
must
not
exceed
the
temperature
limit
established
according
to
§
63.3167(
d).
i.
collecting
the
condenser
outlet
(
product
side)
gas
temperature
according
to
§
63.3168(
e);
ii.
reducing
the
data
to
3­
hour
block
averages;
and
iii.
maintaining
the
3­
hour
average
gas
temperature
at
the
outlet
at
or
below
the
temperature
limit.
5.
concentrators,
including
zeolite
wheels
and
rotary
carbon
adsorbers.
a.
the
average
gas
temperature
of
the
desorption
concentrate
stream
in
any
3­
hour
period
must
not
fall
below
the
limit
established
according
to
§
63.3167(
e).
i.
collecting
the
temperature
data
according
to
§
63.3168(
f);
ii.
reducing
the
data
to
3­
hour
block
averages;
and
iii.
maintaining
the
3­
hour
average
temperature
at
or
above
the
temperature
limit.
b.
the
average
pressure
drop
of
the
dilute
stream
across
the
concentrator
in
any
3­
hour
period
must
not
fall
below
the
limit
established
according
to
§
63.3167(
e).
i.
collecting
the
pressure
drop
data
according
to
§
63.3168(
f);
and
ii.
reducing
the
pressure
drop
data
to
3­
hour
block
averages;
and
iii.
maintaining
the
3­
hour
average
pressure
drop
at
or
above
the
pressure
drop
limit.
6.
emission
capture
system
that
is
a
PTE.
a.
the
direction
of
the
air
flow
at
all
times
must
be
into
the
enclosure;
and
either.
i.
collecting
the
direction
of
air
flow,
and
either
the
facial
velocity
of
air
through
all
natural
draft
openings
according
to
§
63.3168(
g)(
1)
or
the
pressure
drop
across
the
enclosure
according
to
§
63.3168(
g)(
2);
and
ii.
maintaining
the
facial
velocity
of
air
flow
through
all
natural
draft
openings
or
the
pressure
drop
at
or
above
the
facial
velocity
limit
or
pressure
drop
limit,
and
maintaining
the
direction
of
air
flow
into
the
enclosure
at
all
times.
b.
the
average
facial
velocity
of
air
through
all
natural
draft
openings
in
the
enclosure
must
be
at
least
200
feet
per
minute;
or.
i.
collecting
the
direction
of
air
flow,
and
either
the
facial
velocity
of
air
through
all
natural
draft
openings
according
to
§
63.3168(
g)(
1)
or
the
pressure
drop
across
the
enclosure
according
to
§
63.3168(
g)(
2);
and
ii.
maintaining
the
facial
velocity
of
air
flow
through
all
natural
draft
openings
or
the
pressure
drop
at
or
above
the
facial
velocity
limit
or
pressure
drop
limit,
and
maintaining
the
direction
of
air
flow
into
the
enclosure
at
all
times.
c.
the
pressure
drop
across
the
enclosure
must
be
at
least
0.007
inch
water,
as
established
in
Method
204
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51.
i.
collecting
the
direction
of
air
flow,
and
either
the
facial
velocity
of
air
through
all
natural
draft
openings
according
to
§
63.3168(
g)(
1)
or
the
pressure
drop
across
the
enclosure
according
to
§
63.3168(
g)(
2);
and
ii.
maintaining
the
facial
velocity
of
air
flow
through
all
natural
draft
openings
or
the
pressure
drop
at
or
above
the
facial
velocity
limit
or
pressure
drop
limit,
and
maintaining
the
direction
of
air
flow
into
the
enclosure
at
all
times.
7.
emission
capture
system
that
is
not
a
PTE.
a.
the
average
gas
volumetric
flow
rate
or
duct
static
pressure
in
each
duct
between
a
capture
device
and
add­
on
control
device
inlet
in
any
3­
hour
period
must
not
fall
below
the
average
volumetric
flow
rate
or
duct
static
pressure
limit
established
for
that
capture
device
according
to
§
63.3167(
f).
i.
collecting
the
gas
volumetric
flow
rate
or
duct
static
pressure
for
each
capture
device
according
to
§
63.3168(
g);
ii.
reducing
the
data
to
3­
hour
block
averages;
and
iii.
maintaining
the
3­
hour
average
gas
volumetric
flow
rate
or
duct
static
pressure
for
each
capture
device
at
or
above
the
gas
volumetric
flow
rate
or
duct
static
pressure
limit.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78660
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
2
TO
SUBPART
IIII
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
IIII
OF
PART
63
[
You
must
comply
with
the
applicable
General
Provisions
requirements
according
to
the
following
table]

Citation
Subject
Applicable
to
subpart
IIII
Explanation
§
63.1(
a)(
1)
 
(
14)
General
Applicability
..............................................
Yes
§
63.1(
b)(
1)
 
(
3)
Initial
Applicability
Determination
...........................
Yes
Applicability
to
subpart
IIII
is
also
specified
in
§
63.3181.
§
63.1(
c)(
1)
Applicability
After
Standard
Established
................
Yes
§
63.1(
c)(
2)
 
(
3)
Applicability
of
Permit
Program
for
Area
Sources
No
Area
sources
are
not
subject
to
or
subpart
IIII.
§
63.1(
c)(
4)
 
(
5)
Extensions
and
Notifications
..................................
Yes
§
63.1(
e)
Applicability
of
Permit
Program
Before
Relevant
Standard
is
Set.
Yes
§
63.2
Definitions
...............................................................
Yes
Additional
definitions
are
specified
in
§
63.3176.
§
63.3(
a)
 
(
c)
Units
and
Abbreviations
.........................................
Yes
§
63.4(
a)(
1)
 
(
5)
Prohibited
Activities
................................................
Yes
§
63.4(
b)
 
(
c)
Circumvention/
Severability
.....................................
Yes
§
63.5(
a)
Construction/
Reconstruction
..................................
Yes
§
63.5(
b)(
1)
 
(
6)
Requirements
for
Existing,
Newly
Constructed,
and
Reconstructed
Sources.
Yes
§
63.5(
d)
Application
for
Approval
of
Construction/
Reconstruction
Yes
§
63.5(
e)
Approval
of
Construction/
Reconstruction
...............
Yes
§
63.5(
f)
Approval
of
Construction/
Reconstruction
Based
on
Prior
State
Review.
Yes
§
63.6(
a)
Compliance
With
Standards
and
Maintenance
Requirements
 
Applicability.
Yes
§
63.6(
b)(
1)
 
(
7)
Compliance
Dates
for
New
and
Reconstructed
Sources.
Yes
§
63.3083
specifies
the
compliance
dates.

§
63.6(
c)(
1)
 
(
5)
Compliance
Dates
for
Existing
Sources
................
Yes
§
63.3083
specifies
the
compliance
dates.
§
63.6(
e)(
1)
 
(
2)
Operation
and
Maintenance
...................................
Yes
§
63.6(
e)(
3)
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction
Plan
.............
Yes
Only
sources
using
an
add­
on
control
device
to
comply
with
the
standard
must
complete
startup
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plans.
§
63.6(
f)(
1)
Compliance
Except
During
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction.
Yes
Applies
only
to
sources
using
an
add­
on
control
device
to
comply
with
the
standards.
§
63.6(
f)(
2)
 
(
3)
Methods
for
Determining
Compliance
...................
Yes
§
63.6(
g)(
1)
 
(
3)
Use
of
an
Alternative
Standard
..............................
Yes
§
63.6(
h)
Compliance
With
Opacity/
Visible
Emission
Standards
No
Subpart
IIII
does
not
establish
opacity
standards
and
does
not
require
continuous
opacity
monitoring
systems
(
COMS).
§
63.6(
i)(
1)
 
(
16)
Extension
of
Compliance
.......................................
Yes
§
63.6(
j)
Presidential
Compliance
Exemption
......................
Yes
§
63.7(
a)(
1)
Performance
Test
Requirements
 
Applicability
....
Yes
Applies
to
all
affected
sources.
Additional
requirements
for
performance
testing
are
specified
in
§
§
63.3164
and
63.3166.
§
63.7(
a)(
2)
Performance
Test
Requirements
 
Dates
..............
Yes
Applies
only
to
performance
tests
for
capture
system
and
control
device
efficiency
at
sources
using
these
to
comply
with
the
standards.
§
63.3160
specifies
the
schedule
for
performance
test
requirements
that
are
earlier
than
those
specified
in
§
63.7(
a)(
2).
§
63.7(
a)(
3)
Performance
Tests
Required
By
the
Administrator
Yes
§
63.7(
b)
 
(
e)
Performance
Test
Requirements
 
Notification,
Quality
Assurance,
Facilities
Necessary
for
Safe
Testing
Conditions
During
Test.
Yes
Applies
only
to
performance
tests
for
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
efficiency
at
sources
using
these
to
comply
with
the
standards
§
63.7(
f)
Performance
Test
Requirements
 
Use
of
Alternative
Test
Method.
Yes
Applies
to
alltest
methods
except
those
used
to
determine
capture
system
efficiency.
§
63.7(
g)
 
(
h)
Performance
Test
Requirements
 
Data
Analysis,
Recordkeeping,
Reporting,
Waiver
of
Test.
Yes
Applies
only
to
performance
tests
for
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
efficiency
at
sources
using
these
to
comply
with
the
standards
§
63.8(
a)(
1)
 
(
3)
Monitoring
Requirements
 
Applicability
................
Yes
Applies
only
to
monitoring
of
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
efficiency
at
sources
using
these
to
comply
with
the
standards.
Additional
requirements
for
monitoring
are
specified
in
§
63.3168.
§
63.8(
a)(
4)
Additional
Monitoring
Requirements
......................
No
Subpart
IIII
does
not
have
monitoring
requirements
for
flares.
§
63.8(
b)
Conduct
of
Monitoring
............................................
Yes
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78661
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
2
TO
SUBPART
IIII
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
IIII
OF
PART
63
 
Continued
[
You
must
comply
with
the
applicable
General
Provisions
requirements
according
to
the
following
table]

Citation
Subject
Applicable
to
subpart
IIII
Explanation
§
63.8(
c)(
1)
 
(
3)
Continuous
Monitoring
Systems
(
CMS)
Operation
and
Maintenance.
Yes
Applies
only
to
monitoring
of
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
efficiency
at
sources
using
these
to
comply
with
the
standards.
Additional
requirements
for
CMS
operations
and
maintenance
are
specified
in
§
63.3168.
§
63.8(
c)(
4)
CMS
.......................................................................
No
§
63.3168
specifies
the
requirements
for
the
operation
of
CMS
for
capture
systems
and
add­
on
control
devices
at
sources
using
these
to
comply
with
the
standards.
§
63.8(
c)(
5)
COMS
.....................................................................
No
Subpart
IIII
does
not
have
opacity
or
visible
emission
standards.
§
63.8(
c)(
6)
CMS
Requirements
................................................
No
§
63.3168
specifies
the
requirements
for
monitoring
systems
for
capture
systems
and
add­
on
control
devices
at
sources
using
these
to
comply
with
the
standards.
§
63.8(
c)(
7)
CMS
Out­
of­
Control
Periods
..................................
No
§
63.8(
c)(
8)
CMS
Out­
of­
Control
Periods
Reporting
.................
No
§
63.3120
requires
reporting
of
CMS
out­
of­
control
periods.
§
63.8(
d)
 
(
e)
Quality
Control
Program
and
CMS
Performance
Evaluation.
No
Subpart
IIII
does
not
require
the
use
of
continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems.
§
63.8(
f)(
1)
 
(
5)
Use
of
an
Alternative
Monitoring
Method
..............
Yes
§
63.8(
f)(
6)
Alternative
to
Relative
Accuracy
Test
....................
No
Subpart
IIII
does
not
require
the
use
of
continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems.
§
63.8(
g)(
1)
 
Data
Reduction
......................................................
No
§
§
63.3167
and
(
5)
63.3168
specify
monitoring
data
reduction.
§
63.9(
a)
 
(
d)
Notification
Requirements
......................................
Yes
§
63.9(
e)
Notification
of
Performance
Test
...........................
Yes
Applies
only
to
capture
system
and
add­
on
control
device
performance
tests
at
sources
using
these
to
comply
with
the
standards.
§
63.9(
f)
Notification
of
Visible
Emissions/
Opacity
Test
.....
No
Subpart
IIII
does
not
have
opacity
or
visible
emission
standards.
§
63.9(
g)(
1)
 
(
3)
Additional
Notifications
When
Using
CMS
.............
No
Subpart
IIII
does
not
require
the
use
of
continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems.
§
63.9(
h)
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
..........................
Yes
§
63.3110
specifies
the
dates
for
submitting
the
notification
of
compliance
status.
§
63.9(
i)
Adjustment
of
Submittal
Deadlines
........................
Yes
§
63.9(
j)
Change
in
Previous
Information
............................
Yes
§
63.10(
a)
Recordkeeping/
Reporting
 
Applicability
and
General
Information.
Yes
§
63.10(
b)(
1)
General
Recordkeeping
Requirements
..................
Yes
Additional
are
requirements
specified
in
§
§
63.3130
and
63.3131.
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
i)
 
(
v)
Recordkeeping
Relevant
to
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction
Periods
and
CMS.
Yes
Requirements
for
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
records
only
apply
to
capture
systems
and
add­
on
control
devices
used
to
comply
with
the
standards.
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
vi)
 
(
xi)
.................................................................................
Yes
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xii)
Records
..................................................................
Yes
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiii)
.................................................................................
No
Subpart
IIII
does
not
require
the
use
of
continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems.
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiv)
.................................................................................
Yes
§
63.10(
b)(
3)
Recordkeeping
Requirements
for
Applicability
Determinations
Yes
§
63.10(
c)(
1)
 
(
6)
Additional
Recordkeeping
Requirements
for
Sources
with
CMS.
Yes
§
63.10(
c)(
7)
 
8)
.................................................................................
No
The
same
records
are
required
in
§
63.3120(
a)(
6).
§
63.10(
c)(
9)
 
(
15)
.................................................................................
Yes
§
63.10(
d)(
1)
General
Reporting
Requirements
..........................
Yes
Additional
requirements
are
specified
in
§
63.3120.
§
63.10(
d)(
2)
Report
of
Performance
Test
Results
.....................
Yes
Additional
requirements
are
specified
in
§
63.3120(
b).
§
63.10(
d)(
3)
Reporting
Opacity
or
Visible
Emissions
Observations
No
Subpart
IIII
does
not
require
opacity
or
visible
emissions
observations.
§
63.10(
d)(
4)
Progress
Reports
for
Sources
With
Compliance
Extensions.
Yes
§
63.10(
d)(
5)
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction
Reports
........
Yes
Applies
only
to
capture
systems
and
add­
on
control
devices
used
to
comply
with
the
standards.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00051
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78662
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
2
TO
SUBPART
IIII
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
IIII
OF
PART
63
 
Continued
[
You
must
comply
with
the
applicable
General
Provisions
requirements
according
to
the
following
table]

Citation
Subject
Applicable
to
subpart
IIII
Explanation
§
63.10(
e)(
1)
 
(
2)
Additional
CMS
Reports
.........................................
No
Subpart
IIII
does
not
require
the
use
of
continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems.
§
63.10(
e)(
3)
Excess
Emissions/
CMS
Performance
Reports
......
No
§
63.3120(
b)
specifies
the
contents
of
periodic
compliance
reports.
§
63.10(
e)(
4)
COMS
Data
Reports
..............................................
No
Subpart
IIII
does
not
specify
requirements
for
opacity
or
COMS.
§
63.10(
f)
Recordkeeping/
Reporting
Waiver
..........................
Yes
§
63.11
Control
Device
Requirements/
Flares
.....................
No
Subpart
IIII
does
not
specify
use
of
flares
for
compliance
§
63.12
State
Authority
and
Delegations
............................
Yes
§
63.13
Addresses
..............................................................
....................
Yes
§
63.14
Incorporation
by
Reference
....................................
Yes
§
63.15
Availability
of
Information/
Confidentiality
...............
Yes
TABLE
3
TO
SUBPART
IIII
OF
PART
63.
 
DEFAULT
ORGANIC
HAP
MASS
FRACTION
FOR
SOLVENTS
AND
SOLVENT
BLENDS
[
You
may
use
the
mass
fraction
values
in
the
following
table
for
solvent
blends
for
which
you
do
not
have
test
data
or
manufacturer's
formulation
data]

Solvent/
Solvent
blend
CAS.
No.
Average
organic
HAP
mass
fraction
Typical
organic
HAP,
percent
by
mass
1.
Toluene
.......................................................................
108
 
88
 
3
1.0
Toluene.
2.
Xylene(
s)
.....................................................................
1330
 
20
 
7
1.0
Xylenes,
ethylbenzene.
3.
Hexane
.......................................................................
110
 
54
 
3
0.5
n­
hexane.
4.
n­
Hexane
....................................................................
110
 
54
 
3
1.0
n­
hexane.
5.
Ethylbenzene
..............................................................
100
 
41
 
4
1.0
Ethylbenzene.
6.
Aliphatic
140
...............................................................
......................
0
None.
7.
Aromatic
100
..............................................................
......................
0.02
1%
xylene,
1%
cumene.
8.
Aromatic
150
..............................................................
......................
0.09
Naphthalene.
9.
Aromatic
naphtha
.......................................................
64742
 
95
 
6
0.02
1%
xylene,
1%
cumene.
10.
Aromatic
solvent
.......................................................
64742
 
94
 
5
0.1
Naphthalene.
11.
Exempt
mineral
spirits
..............................................
8032
 
32
 
4
0
None.
12.
Ligroines
(
VM
&
P)
...................................................
8032
 
32
 
4
0
None.
13.
Lactol
spirits
..............................................................
64742
 
89
 
6
0.15
Toluene.
14.
Low
aromatic
white
spirit
..........................................
64742
 
82
 
1
0
None.
15.
Mineral
spirits
...........................................................
64742
 
88
 
7
0.01
Xylenes.
16.
Hydrotreated
naphtha
...............................................
64742
 
48
 
9
0
None.
17.
Hydrotreated
light
distillate
.......................................
64742
 
47
 
8
0.001
Toluene.
18.
Stoddard
solvent
.......................................................
8052
 
41
 
3
0.01
Xylenes.
19.
Super
high­
flash
naphtha
.........................................
64742
 
95
 
6
0.05
Xylenes.
20.
Varsol
 
solvent
........................................................
8052
 
49
 
3
0.01
0.5%
xylenes,
0.5%
ethylbenzene.
21.
VM
&
P
naphtha
.......................................................
64742
 
89
 
8
0.06
3%
toluene,
3%
xylene.
22.
Petroleum
distillate
mixture
......................................
68477
 
31
 
6
0.08
4%
naphthalene,
4%
biphenyl.

TABLE
4
TO
SUBPART
IIII
OF
PART
63.
 
DEFAULT
ORGANIC
HAP
MASS
FRACTION
FOR
PETROLEUM
SOLVENT
GROUPS
a
[
You
may
use
the
mass
fraction
values
in
the
following
table
for
solvent
blends
for
which
you
do
not
have
test
data
or
manufacturer's
formulation
data]

Solvent
type
Average
organic
HAP
mass
fraction
Typical
organic
HAP,
percent
by
mass
Aliphatic
b
.....................................
0.03
1%
Xylene,
1%
Toluene,
and
1%
Ethylbenzene.
Aromatic
c
.....................................
0.06
4%
Xylene,
1%
Toluene,
and
1%
Ethylbenzene.

a
Use
this
table
only
if
the
solvent
blend
does
not
match
any
of
the
solvent
blends
in
Table
3
to
this
subpart,
and
you
only
know
whether
the
blend
is
aliphatic
or
aromatic.
b
e.
g.,
Mineral
Spirits
135,
Mineral
Spirits
150
EC,
Naphtha,
Mixed
Hydrocarbon,
Aliphatic
Hydrocarbon,
Aliphatic
Naphtha,
Naphthol
Spirits,
Petroleum
Spirits,
Petroleum
Oil,
Petroleum
Naphtha,
Solvent
Naphtha,
Solvent
Blend.
c
e.
g.,
Medium­
flash
Naphtha,
High­
flash
Naphtha,
Aromatic
Naphtha,
Light
Aromatic
Naphtha,
Light
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons,
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Light
Aromatic
Solvent.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00052
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2
78663
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
247
/
Tuesday,
December
24,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
PART
264
 
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
264
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6912(
a),
6924,
6925,
6927,
6928(
h),
and
6974.

2.
Section
264.1050
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(
h)
to
read
as
follows:

§
264.1050
Applicability.

*
*
*
*
*
(
h)
Purged
coatings
and
solvents
from
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck,
separate
non­
body
plastic
parts,
and
separate
non­
body
metal
parts
surface
coating
operations
at
facilities
subject
to
the
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
at
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
IIII,
are
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*

PART
265
 
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
265
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
6905,
6906,
6912,
6922,
6923,
6924,
6925,
6935,
6936,
and
6937,
unless
otherwise
noted.

2.
Section
265.1050
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(
g)
to
read
as
follows:
§
265.1050
Applicability.

*
*
*
*
*
(
g)
Purged
coatings
and
solvents
from
automobile
and
light­
duty
truck,
separate
non­
body
plastic
parts,
and
separate
non­
body
metal
parts
surface
coating
operations
at
facilities
subject
to
the
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
at
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
IIII,
are
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.

[
FR
Doc.
02
 
31420
Filed
12
 
23
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
20:
02
Dec
23,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
24DEP2.
SGM
24DEP2