[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28547]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 18, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[IL12-10-5171; FRL-5107-8]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 29, 1990, the USEPA promulgated Federal stationary 
source volatile organic compound (VOC) control measures representing 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for emission sources 
located in six northeastern Illinois (Chicago area) counties: Cook, 
DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will. The USEPA also approved and 
disapproved certain VOC RACT rules previously adopted and submitted by 
the State of Illinois for inclusion in its State Implementation Plan 
(SIP). Among the State rules that USEPA disapproved was Illinois' VOC 
rule for ``Power driven fastener coating'' operations, which applied to 
the Duo-Fast Corporation's (Duo-Fast) staple manufacturing operations 
in Franklin Park, Illinois. As a result, Duo-Fast became subject to the 
federally promulgated miscellaneous metal parts and products coating 
rule, with more stringent emission limits, because its coating 
operations belong to that source category. Subsequently, Duo-Fast 
requested that USEPA reconsider its rules as they apply to Duo-Fast. 
The USEPA has considered Duo-Fast's contentions concerning its coating 
operations and is presenting in this document a discussion and analysis 
of the principal issues and USEPA's basis for not exempting Duo-Fast 
from the miscellaneous metal parts and products coating rule. USEPA 
solicits public comment on this proposed rulemaking action.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by December 19, 1994. 
A public hearing, if requested, will be held in Chicago, Illinois. 
Requests for a public hearing should be submitted to J. Elmer Bortzer 
by December 19, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed action should be addressed 
to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Comments should be strictly limited to the subject matter of this 
proposal.
    Docket: Pursuant to sections 307(d)(1) (B) and (N) of the Clean Air 
Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1) (B) and (N), this action is subject to 
the procedural requirements of section 307(d). Therefore, USEPA has 
established a public docket for this action, A-94-06, which is 
available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, at the following addresses. We recommend that 
you contact Randolph O. Cano before visiting the Chicago location and 
Rachel Romine before visiting the Washington, DC location. A reasonable 
fee may be charged for copying.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Regulation 
Development Branch, Eighteenth Floor, Southeast, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6036.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. A-94-06, Air 
Docket (LE-131), room M1500, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 245-3639.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Regulation 
Development Branch, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, (312) 886-6052, at the Chicago address indicated above. 
Interested persons may call Ms. Hattie Geisler at (312) 886-3199 to see 
if a hearing will be held and the date and location of the hearing.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 30, 1982, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) 
adopted VOC rules for a number of source categories that are covered by 
the second group (Group II) of Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) 
documents.1 This includes the ``miscellaneous metal parts and 
products'' (MMPP) category to which Duo-Fast's operations belong. The 
MMPP coating limits2 in Illinois' rule, which are consistent with 
the miscellaneous metal parts and products CTG, are:

    \1\CTG documents have been prepared by USEPA to assist States in 
defining RACT for the control of VOC emissions from existing 
stationary sources. The Group II CTGs are those that were issued 
between January 1978 and January 1979. RACT is defined as the lowest 
emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting 
by the application of control technology that is reasonably 
available, considering technological and economic feasibility.
    \2\Coating limits are expressed in terms of pounds of VOC per 
gallon of coating (minus water and any compounds which are 
specifically exempted from the definition of VOC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Clear Coating--4.3 pounds VOC/gallon of coating
(2) Air-dried coating--3.5 pounds VOC/gallon of coating
(3) Extreme performance coating--3.5 pounds VOC/gallon of coating
(4) All other coatings--3.0 pounds VOC/gallon of coating.
    On December 22, 1987, the IPCB amended Section 215.204 to require 
that exempt (non-VOC) material be treated like water, that is, 
subtracted from the volume of coating in calculating the VOC content. 
On the same date, the IPCB adopted a revision to Illinois' MMPP coating 
limits. This revision to Section 215.204(j) established less stringent 
coating limits for certain power driven fastener coatings. These limits 
are:

(a) Nail coating......................  MMPP limits apply.              
(b) Staple, brad and finish nail unit   5.3 pounds VOC/gallon of        
 fabrication bonding coating.            coating.                       
(c) Staple, brad and finish nail        5.3 pounds VOC/gallon of        
 incremental fabrication lubricity       coating.                       
 coating.                                                               
(d) Staple, brad and finish nail        5.0 pounds VOC/gallon of        
 incremental fabrication withdrawal      coating.                       
 resistance coating.                                                    
(e) Staple, brad, and finish nail unit  5.3 pounds VOC/gallon of        
 fabrication coating.                    coating.                       
                                                                        

On March 28, 1988, Illinois submitted these rule revisions to USEPA. 
Although USEPA found the treatment of exempt solvents to be acceptable, 
it determined that the power driven fastener coating limitations, which 
apply only to Duo-Fast, do not constitute RACT. USEPA, therefore, 
proposed to disapprove the State's power driven fastener coating rule 
(Section 215.204(j)(4)) on December 27, 1989 (54 FR 53080); and, after 
a January 17, 1990, public hearing at which Duo-Fast provided comments, 
took final action to disapprove the rule on June 29, 1990 (55 FR 26814 
at 26847). On the same date, USEPA promulgated Federal RACT rules that 
included coating limitations for MMPP, which it determined were RACT 
for Duo-Fast. 40 CFR 52.741(e)(1)(i)(J), 55 FR at 26868.
    In taking these final actions to disapprove the State rule and 
establish Federal RACT limits for Duo-Fast, USEPA reviewed the State 
record in detail. This included an examination of the efforts made by 
Duo-Fast to attempt to comply with the MMPP coating limitations as 
described in the State record. USEPA nonetheless concluded that, for 
the most part, the State record arguments were conclusory and 
technically unsupported. See July 19, 1988, Technical Support Document 
(TSD) and 55 FR 26839-40 (June 29, 1990).
    In its June 29, 1990, promulgation, USEPA required (just as the 
IPCB did in its December 22, 1987, amendment to Section 215.204) that 
for VOC emission limitations which are in terms of pounds of VOC per 
gallon of coating, water and exempt compounds must be subtracted from 
the volume of coating. USEPA's rationale for requiring that exempt 
solvents be excluded from the calculation of the VOC content of 
coatings is contained in a May 21, 1991, memorandum, prepared for USEPA 
by Phil Norwood and Elizabeth Bowen of Pacific Environmental Services, 
titled ``The Exclusion of Exempt Solvents from the Calculation of the 
VOC Content of Coatings.'' As discussed in the RACT analysis below, 
compliance with the MMPP limits is feasible without counting exempt 
solvents as part of the coating (in calculating the pounds of VOC per 
gallon of coating).
    On November 27, 1990, Duo-Fast requested that USEPA convene a 
proceeding for reconsideration of the Federal rules pursuant to Section 
307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B). Duo-Fast's basis for 
this request is USEPA's failure to respond to Duo-Fast's (apparently 
misfiled) March 2, 1990, comments on the December 27, 1989, proposed 
promulgation. USEPA agreed to reconsider the RACT rules for Duo-Fast, 
and on July 23, 1991, it published a final rule in the Federal Register 
staying the rules applicable to Duo-Fast for three months, pending 
USEPA's reconsideration of those rules (56 FR 33712), and a proposed 
rule to extend that three-month period, but only if and as long as 
necessary to complete reconsideration (56 FR 37738). USEPA's notice of 
final rulemaking to extend the stay was published in the Federal 
Register on March 3, 1992 (57 FR 7549). This proposed rule presents the 
results of the USEPA's reconsideration of the Federal RACT rules as 
they apply to Duo-Fast, and proposes rulemaking based on these results.

II. Duo-Fast Ract Analysis

    Duo-Fast operates a manufacturing facility in Franklin Park, 
Illinois for the manufacture of ``power driven fasteners'' such as 
nails, staples and brads. Its coating operations are carried out on a 
large number of conventional staple-making machines and five newer 
multi-wire staple-making machines. The five machines in Duo-Fast's 
multi-wire staple-making operations utilize an organic solvent-based 
combination cement. Depending upon the staple type, between 50 to 80 
separate wires are brought together continuously and simultaneously to 
be bonded into a single band with the combination cement material being 
applied from a single reservoir. The conventional type machines use a 
cement and up to two separate coating materials supplied from three 
reservoirs per machine. Two wires are cyclically fed into the machine 
in a typical operation.
    As stated previously, Duo-Fast's operations fall under the general 
category of MMPP coating. The USEPA had previously established that the 
presumptive norms for RACT as provided in the MMPP coating CTG are 
feasible for facilities in this category. These limits have been 
subsequently incorporated in State VOC rules. However, to establish 
RACT for Duo-Fast, USEPA has gone even further than comparing Duo-Fast 
to other MMPP facilities by identifying and comparing Duo-Fast to those 
MMPP facilities most similar to it. The USEPA believes that if control 
technology is available to a comparable facility and no unique 
conditions are identified which would prevent this technology from 
being feasible at the subject facility, then RACT for the two companies 
is the same.
    A June 1992 ``RACT ANALYSIS FOR DUO-FAST CORPORATION'' was prepared 
to determine RACT for Duo-Fast's power driven fastener coating 
operations. This RACT analysis contains a comparison of other similar 
companies with Duo-Fast and an evaluation of control equipment costs 
for Duo-Fast.

(A) Comparison of Other Similar Companies With Duo-Fast

    Senco Products (Senco), located in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Stanley 
Bostitch (Bostitch), located in East Greenwhich, Rhode Island, are 
similar to Duo-Fast (as indicated in the comparison below) and are 
complying with more stringent emission limitations. A comparison of 
these facilities and the emission limits with which these facilities 
are complying follows.
    (1) Products
    The three companies compete directly in the power driven fastener 
industry and their fasteners have the same end use. Their products can 
be considered comparable.
    (2) Processes
    The companies all have multiwire-type machines that band numerous 
wires together which are stamped into strips of staples. The 
conventional type staple machines appear to be very similar at all 
three facilities.
    (3) Coatings and Adhesives
    All three companies use coatings which have the same functions. 
These functions are as an adhesive, as a lubricant to aid in 
penetration, and as a retention coating to retard removal.
    (4) Applicable Emission Limits

             Duo-Fast                                                   
Bonding coating (adhesive).......  5.3 lbs/gallon--water, exempt        
                                    compounds.                          
Lubricity coating................  5.3 lbs/gallon--water, exempt        
                                    compounds.                          
Withdrawal resistance coating....  5.0 lbs/gallon--water, exempt        
                                    compounds.                          
Unit fabrication coating.........  5.3 lbs/gallon--water, exempt        
                                    compounds.                          
         Stanley Bostitch                                               
Multiple wire winders:                                                  
  Post-incinerator rating........  2.9 lbs/gallon--water.               
  Maximum adhesive VOC content...  39.4 lbs VOC/gallon solids applied-- 
                                    water.                              
              Senco                                                     
Incinerator on bandlines.........  85% overall reduction with 97%       
                                    destruction.                        
                                                                        


    Both Bostitch and Senco have entered into consent agreements with 
environmental agencies and are subject to more stringent regulations 
than the power driven fastener coating limits adopted by the IPCB.
    (5) Methods of Compliance
    Stanley Bostitch
    The multiple wire winders control VOC emissions by the use of an 
incinerator. Bostitch has demonstrated compliance with a stack test 
which demonstrated that the incinerator achieves 95 percent destruction 
efficiency, which meets the 2.9 lbs/gallon post-incinerator rating. 
This incinerator controls emissions generated by the application of 
adhesives and the application of withdrawal resistance/penetration 
coatings.
    Senco
    Senco has a thermal incinerator on its bandlines which demonstrated 
compliance (by stack testing) with its control efficiency limits (85 
percent overall efficiency and 97 percent destruction efficiency).

Conclusions of Company Comparisons

    Both Bostitch and Senco use add-on control devices to comply with 
VOC control requirements. These facilities share similarities with Duo 
Fast, including the products manufactured by these companies, the 
processes used to make these products, and the types of coatings and 
adhesives used by them. No difference in the process at Duo-Fast was 
identified which would cause add-on control to be considered 
technologically or economically infeasible. Due to the similarities 
between Duo-Fast's operations and those of Bostitch and Senco, RACT for 
Duo-Fast should include the use of add-on controls.

(B) Evaluation of Economic Feasibility of Add-On Control

    In 1990, Duo-Fast contracted with Yates & Auberle, a consultant, to 
determine the cost of add-on controls. Its study was submitted with 
Duo-Fast's March 2, 1990, comments on the December 27, 1989, proposed 
Federal RACT rules. This investigation examined the costs of the 
installation and operation of a thermal oxidizer with a 95 percent 
effective regenerative heat exchanger. This section includes an 
evaluation of Duo-Fast's analysis in order to correctly determine the 
cost-effectiveness of the control system that was investigated, and 
whether such a control system constitutes RACT.
    Duo-Fast obtained cost estimates from Smith Environmental 
Engineering (Smith) and Reeco. The total capital investment was 
$2,195,550 for a Smith system and $2,832,060 for a Reeco system. 
However, Duo-Fast incorrectly based its annual reductions on a seven-
month basis. Although USEPA does not require gas-fired incinerators to 
be used in the colder months of the non-ozone season, cost-
effectiveness3 must still be based on the reductions that would 
occur over 12 months. Cost-effectiveness serves chiefly as a means of 
comparing control strategies and, therefore, the bases must be 
consistent to provide for a proper comparison. USEPA has based its 
cost-effectiveness values, e.g., in the CTGs and support documents for 
New Source Performance Standards (Section 111 of the Act), on emission 
reductions resulting from year-round operation of control equipment. It 
is not meaningful to compare cost-effectiveness values based on control 
systems operating for only a portion of the year with cost-
effectiveness values based upon full year operation and correspondingly 
greater emission reductions. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of any 
control system must be based on costs and emission reductions for a 12-
month, and not a 7-month, period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Cost-effectiveness is the annualized cost of control divided 
by the annual reductions (resulting from the control). Cost-
effectiveness is typically expressed in dollars per ton ($/ton).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the unit costs for factors contributing to the 
annualized cost should be consistent with the values obtained from 
USEPA's guidance document ``OAQPS Control Cost Manual Fourth Edition'', 
EPA-450/3-90-006, January 1990 (OAQPS Manual), unless a different value 
has been documented to be more appropriate. USEPA has corrected Duo-
Fast's costs in two steps. The first step was to revise the costs from 
a seven to a twelve-month basis. The resulting annualized costs were 
$745,743 for the Smith system and $1,076,273 for the Reeco system. The 
second step was to compare the unit costs used by Duo-Fast to those 
obtained from the OAQPS Manual. The generally lower unit costs (which 
cover items such as interest, natural gas, electricity, and labor 
rates) obtained from the OAQPS Manual were used because Duo-Fast had 
not adequately justified its costs. Although the natural gas usage rate 
presented by Duo-Fast appears to be inflated (resulting in higher 
costs), its usage rates were used in determining annual costs.
    As stated previously, Duo-Fast's cost-effectiveness values were 
based on the emission reductions that would result from operating the 
control system for seven months. The emission reductions were revised, 
to reflect operating the control system for 12 months, by multiplying 
the total annual emissions (324 tons VOC) by an overall control 
requirement of 81 percent. This results in an annual emission reduction 
of 262.1 tons of VOC.
     The cost-effectiveness calculated by Duo-Fast, for seven months 
operation, is $4,146/ton for the Smith system and $5,785/ton for the 
Reeco system. The cost-effectiveness, based on Duo-Fast's unit costs 
and 12 months operation, is $2,845 for the Smith system and $4,106 for 
the Reeco system; and the cost-effectiveness, based on 12 months 
operation and unit costs obtained from the OAQPS Manual, is $2,370/ton 
for the Smith system and $3,222/ton for the Reeco system. Therefore, 
Duo-Fast should be able to comply with the MMPP requirements for 
$2,370/ton, which is consistent with RACT. A more detailed discussion 
of this analysis is contained in the June 1992 ``RACT Analysis for Duo-
Fast Corporation.''
    The CTGs developed by USEPA contain the presumptive norm for RACT 
for the corresponding source categories. In each CTG, USEPA evaluates 
various control technologies, including add-on control. These analyses 
include a determination of the cost-effectiveness of using add-on 
controls to achieve RACT. As stated previously, Duo-Fast's operations 
are covered by the MMPP CTG. Because Duo-Fast claims that the cost-
effectiveness of add-on controls is beyond (more costly than) what RACT 
requires, USEPA compared the cost-effectiveness values reported in the 
MMPP CTG with those determined for Duo-Fast. One of the control 
techniques considered in this CTG is incineration. The MMPP CTG 
specifies incineration cost-effectiveness values of greater than 
$6,000/ton. The cost-effectiveness value established by USEPA for 
control of Duo-Fast's power driven fastener coating operations is 
$2,370/ton. This is well below (that is, less costly than) values cited 
in the MMPP CTG for the application of incinerators and is therefore 
clearly consistent with RACT.

(C) Compliance Date

    USEPA is proposing a compliance period of one year from the date of 
final action on reconsideration, for Duo-Fast to comply with the MMPP 
coating limits in the federally promulgated RACT rules for the Chicago 
area. A one-year period is consistent with the amount of time allowed 
sources to comply with more stringent emission limits in the federally 
promulgated RACT rules.

III. Summary and Conclusions

    The USEPA is proposing that RACT for Duo-Fast's power driven 
fastener coating operations is the MMPP coating limits in the federally 
promulgated RACT rules for the Chicago area. USEPA is also proposing 
that Duo-Fast will have one year from publication of the notice of 
final rulemaking to comply with the MMPP emission limits. Finally, 
USEPA is proposing to withdraw the March 3, 1992, stay.
    Public comment is solicited on this proposal for Duo-Fast's 
facility. Public comments received by the date shown above will be 
considered in the development of USEPA's final rule. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be strictly limited to the subject of this proposal, 
the scope of which is discussed in the proposal.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000. This action involves only one source, Duo-Fast Corporation. 
Therefore, USEPA certifies that this RACT promulgation does not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

    Dated: November 10, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that part 
52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations be amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart O--Illinois

    2. Section 52.741 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(5), removing 
and reserving paragraph (z)(3), and adding paragraph (e)(11) to read as 
follows: Sec. 52.741 Control Strategy: Ozone control measures for Cook, 
DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) Compliance schedule. Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(7) 
and (e)(11) of this section, every owner or operator of a coating line 
(of a type included within paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section) shall 
comply with the requirements of paragraph (e)(1), (e)(2) or (e)(3) of 
this section and paragraph (e)(6) of this section in accordance with 
the appropriate compliance schedule as specified in paragraph 
(e)(5)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of this section.
    (i) No owner or operator of a coating line which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraph (e)(1) of this section because of the criteria 
in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section shall operate said coating line 
on or after July 1, 1991, unless the owner or operator has complied 
with, and continues to comply with, paragraph (e)(6)(i) of this 
section. Wood furniture coating lines are not subject to paragraph 
(e)(6)(i) of this section.
    (ii) No owner or operator of a coating line complying by means of 
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section shall operate said coating line on 
or after July 1, 1991, unless the owner or operator has complied with, 
and continues to comply with, paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(6)(ii) of 
this section.
    (iii) No owner or operator of a coating line complying by means of 
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section shall operate said coating line on 
or after July 1, 1991, unless the owner or operator has complied with, 
and continues to comply with, paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(6)(iii) of 
this section.
    (iv) No owner or operator of a coating line complying by means of 
paragraph (e)(2) of this section shall operate said coating line on or 
after July 1, 1991, unless the owner or operator has complied with, and 
continues to comply with, paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(6)(iv) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (11) Compliance schedule for Duo-Fast Corporation. Notwithstanding 
any other provision of this subpart, the date by which the coating 
operations at Duo-Fast Corporation's Franklin Park, Illinois, 
manufacturing facility must comply with the miscellaneous metal parts 
and products coating limits, codified at 40 CFR 52.741(e)(1)(i)(J), is 
specified in this paragraph (e)(11). Compliance with the requirements 
of paragraph (e)(1), (e)(2), or (e)(3) of this section and paragraph 
(e)(6) of this section must be in accordance with the appropriate 
compliance schedule as specified in paragraph (e)(11)(i), (ii), (iii), 
or (iv) of this section.
    (i) No owner or operator of a coating line which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraph (e)(1) of this section because of the criteria 
in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section shall operate said coating line 
on or after one year after date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register, unless the owner or operator has complied with, and 
continues to comply with, paragraph (e)(6)(i) of this section.
    (ii) No owner or operator of a coating line complying by means of 
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section shall operate said coating line on 
or after one year after date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register, unless the owner or operator has complied with, and 
continues to comply with, paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(6)(ii) of this 
section.
    (iii) No owner or operator of a coating line complying by means of 
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section shall operate said coating line on 
or after one year after date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register, unless the owner or operator has complied with, and 
continues to comply with, paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(6)(iii) of this 
section.
    (iv) No owner or operator of a coating line complying by means of 
paragraph (e)(2) of this section shall operate said coating line on or 
after one year after date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register, unless the owner or operator has complied with, and 
continues to comply with, paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(6)(iv) of this 
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-28547 Filed 11-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P