[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 18, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44616-44639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17614]



[[Page 44615]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Metal Coil 
Coating; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 18, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 44616]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6734-3]
RIN 2060-AG97


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Metal 
Coil Coating

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for facilities that coat metal coil. The EPA 
has identified metal coil coating as a major source of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions such as methyl ethyl ketone, glycol ethers, 
xylenes (isomers and mixtures), toluene, and isophorone. These proposed 
standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
Act) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards 
reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT). The proposed standards would eliminate approximately 55 percent 
of nationwide HAP emissions from these major sources.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before September 18, 2000.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by August 7, 2000, a public hearing will be held on 
August 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate 
if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 
(6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-47, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 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 (MD-13), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 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-97-47 contains supporting information used in 
developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 
in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected 
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rhea Jones, Coatings and Consumer 
Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone number (919) 541-2940, facsimile number (919) 541-5689; 
electronic mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted 
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. 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 version 5.1, 6.1, or Corel 8 file format. All 
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket 
number: A-97-47. 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: Rhea Jones, c/o OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 411 
W. Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. 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 (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-7946 at 
least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in 
attending the public hearing should also call Ms. Eck to verify the 
time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing would 
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 Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. 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 is also available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page 
for newly proposed or promulgated rules 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.
    Plain Language. In compliance with President Clinton's June 1, 1998 
Executive Memorandum on plain language in government writing, this 
preamble is written using plain language, thus, the use of ``we'' and 
``us'' in this document refers to the EPA. The use of ``you'' refers to 
the reader, and may include industry; State, local, and tribal 
governments; environmental groups; and other interested individuals.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

[[Page 44617]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
          Category                  SIC codes            potentially
                                                     regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal coil coating industry.  3479 a, 2591, 2796,   Those facilities
                               3053, 3081, 3083,     that perform
                               3086, 3316, 3312,     surface coating of
                               3313, 3317, 3334,     metal coil.
                               3341, 3352, 3353,
                               3355, 3441, 3444,
                               3446, 3448, 3465,
                               3471, 3490, 3499,
                               3555, 3699, 3714,
                               3861, 5051, 5084,
                               7389, 8731, 8734.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The majority of facilities are included in SIC 3479.

    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 facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in section II of this 
preamble and in Sec. 63.5090 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.
    Background Information Document. The Background Information 
Document (BID) for the proposed standard may be obtained from the 
TTNWWW; the metal coil coating docket (A-97-47); the U.S. EPA Library 
(MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number 
(919) 541-2777; or the National Technical Information Service, 5285 
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650. 
Please refer to ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Metal Coil Coating NESHAP--Background Information for 
Proposed Standards'' (EPA 453/P-00-001).
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. What are the subject and purpose of this proposed rule?
II. Does this proposed rule apply to me?
III. What is the proposed emission standard?
IV. When do I show initial compliance with the proposed rule?
V. What testing and monitoring must I do?
VI. What notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 
must I follow?
VII. What are the environmental, energy, and economic impacts of 
this proposed rule?
VIII. What is the basis for selecting the level of the proposed 
standards?
IX. What is the basis for selecting the format of the proposed 
standards?
X. Why did we select the proposed monitoring requirements?
XI. Why did we select the proposed test methods?
XII. Why did we select the proposed notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements?
XIII. Administrative Requirements

I. What Are the Subject and Purpose of This Proposed Rule?

    The CAA requires us to establish standards to control HAP emissions 
from source categories identified under section 112(c). An initial 
source category list was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 
1992 (57 FR 31576). The source category list identifies ``Metal Coil 
Coating (Surface Coating)'' as a source category because it contains 
major sources. Under the CAA, a major source is defined as ``. . . 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 considering controls, in the aggregate, at least 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination 
of HAP.'' Sources that emit or have the potential to emit less than 
these amounts are considered area sources. We have estimated that there 
are over 90 existing facilities in the source category; all are 
believed to be major sources.
    The purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce emissions of HAP from 
major sources that coat metal coil. We estimate that annual baseline 
HAP emissions from this source category are approximately 2,258 
megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (2,484 tpy). The proposed rule would 
eliminate approximately 1,241 Mg/yr (1,366 tpy) or 55 percent of the 
major source organic HAP emissions.
    The major HAP emitted from the metal coil coating process include 
methyl ethyl ketone and gycol ethers. These compounds account for over 
50 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category. 
Other HAP identified in emissions include xylenes (isomers and 
mixtures), toluene, and isophorone. Each of these major HAP can cause 
reversible or irreversible toxic effects following sufficient exposure. 
The potential toxic effects include eye, nose, throat, and skin 
irritation, and blood cell, heart, liver, and kidney damage.
    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 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. Does This Proposed Rule Apply to Me?

A. What Facilities Are Subject to This Proposed Rule?

    Metal coil surface coating is a process-specific rather than a 
product-specific operation. Accordingly, the proposed rule applies to 
you if you own or operate any metal coil coating operation at a 
facility that is a major source of HAP emissions. We have defined a 
coil coating operation as the application system used to apply an 
organic coating to the surface of any continuous metal strip at least 
0.006 inch thick that is packaged in a roll or coil, which includes the 
web unwind or feed station; the series of one or more coating stations 
and any associated curing ovens; the wet section/pretreatment 
operations; equipment and parts cleaning operations; the quenching 
operations; the mixing/thinning operations; and the storage and 
wastewater operations.
    A major source would also be subject to all other applicable NESHAP 
for the various source categories, other than metal coil coating, that 
may be present at the facility. This means your facility may be subject 
to multiple NESHAP, and you would be responsible for complying with the 
standards set for each NESHAP. Coating equipment that is dedicated to 
research and development is not covered by the proposed NESHAP.

B. How Is the Affected Source Defined?

    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. Within a source category, we select the 
specific emission sources (emission points or groupings of emission 
points) that will make up the affected source for that category. To 
select these emission sources, we mainly consider the constituent HAP 
and quantity emitted from individual or groups of emission points.

[[Page 44618]]

    For the proposed metal coil NESHAP, the floor level of control on 
which the emission standard is based is 98 percent overall control 
efficiency of the capture and control system. The affected source 
subject to the emission standard is proposed to be the collection of 
coil coating lines at a facility. Specific emission sources that will 
be subject to the proposed emission limitations include the coating 
application stations and associated curing ovens. Wet section/
pretreatment and quench operations are part of the metal coil coating 
line, but are not subject to the proposed emission limitations.
    We are not proposing requirements for the storage, wastewater, 
mixing/thinning, and parts and equipment cleaning operations. The 
proposed standard would apply to emissions of all organic HAP listed in 
section 112(b) of the CAA and apply to HAP present in coatings applied 
to the metal coil.
    Some facilities may perform both foil and coil coating operations 
on the same equipment. Where this situation occurs, both coating 
operations will be subject to the proposed metal coil coating NESHAP.

III. What Is the Proposed Emission Standard?

A. What Are the Emission Limits?

    In the proposed rule, you have two options to limit HAP emissions: 
(1) Reduce emissions of the organic HAP applied for the month by 98 
percent; or (2) limit HAP emissions to no more than 0.029 kilograms per 
liter (kg/l) of solids applied (0.24 pounds per gallon (lbs/gal)) for 
the month. The second option can be met through a combination of 
coating formulation and add-on capture and control devices, or by 
limiting the amount of HAP in your coatings to no more than 0.029 kg/l 
of solids (0.24 lbs/gal) on average for the month.
    Before your initial compliance demonstration, you would choose one 
of these emission limit options for your coating lines. In your initial 
compliance certification, you would notify the Administrator of your 
choice, and after that you would monitor and report compliance results 
accordingly. If you decide to change to the other emission limit 
option, you are required to notify the Administrator, as with other 
changes at the facility discussed in section VI of this preamble.
    In submitting comments, please specify whether the comment pertains 
to one or all of the emission limitation and compliance options. We 
will further evaluate the standard based on our review of public 
comments and other information we may receive. The final rule may 
reflect either or both of the proposed options to limit HAP emissions.
    The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) would also apply 
to you, as outlined in table 1 of the proposed rule. The General 
Provisions codify procedures and criteria we use to carry out all part 
63 NESHAP promulgated under the CAA. The General Provisions contain 
administrative procedures, preconstruction review procedures, and 
procedures for conducting compliance-related activities such as 
notifications, recordkeeping and reporting, performance testing, and 
monitoring. The proposed subpart SSSS refers to individual sections of 
the General Provisions to highlight key sections that we believe will 
be of particular interest to you. However, unless specifically 
overridden in table 1 of subpart SSSS, all of the applicable General 
Provisions requirements would apply to you.
    You may be subject to the proposed metal coil NESHAP and other 
future or existing rules, such as State rules requiring reasonably 
available control technology limits on volatile organic compounds (VOC) 
emissions or the new source performance standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 
60, subpart TT. You must comply with all rules that apply to you. 
Compliance with different numerical standards should be resolved 
through your title V permit.

B. What Pollutants Are Limited by This Proposed Rule?

    We propose to limit total organic HAP emissions from coating lines. 
Inorganic HAP are present in pigments and film-forming components of 
some coatings. These components remain on the substrate for the life of 
the product and are not expected to be emitted into the air. Therefore, 
inorganic HAP are not covered by the proposed NESHAP. In section 112, 
the CAA lists the HAP to be regulated.

IV. When Do I Show Initial Compliance With the Proposed Rule?

    Existing sources would have to comply with the final rule no later 
than 3 years after the effective date of the final rule. The effective 
date is the date on which the final rule is published in the Federal 
Register. New or reconstructed sources would have to comply upon start-
up of the affected source or the effective date of the final rule, 
whichever is later. Details of compliance demonstrations can be found 
in the General Provisions, as outlined in table 1 of subpart SSSS.

V. What Testing and Monitoring Must I Do?

    In addition to the testing and monitoring requirements specified 
below for the affected source, the proposed rule adopts the testing 
requirements specified in Sec. 63.7.

A. Test Methods and Procedures

    You may comply with the proposed standards by applying materials 
meeting the organic HAP emission rate limit, by using capture and 
control equipment to reduce organic HAP emissions by 98 percent, or by 
using a combination of low organic HAP materials and capture and 
control equipment to meet the organic HAP emission rate limit.
    If you demonstrate compliance based on the materials applied on 
your coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP content or the 
volatile matter content, and the solids content of materials applied. 
To determine organic HAP content, you may either use EPA Method 311 of 
appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, use an alternative method for determining 
the organic HAP content (but only after obtaining EPA approval), or use 
the volatile matter content of the materials applied as a surrogate for 
the organic HAP content. The volatile matter content must be determined 
by EPA Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, or an EPA approved 
alternative method. The volume solids content of the material must be 
determined using ASTM D2697-86, or ASTM D6093-97. You may rely on 
manufacturer's data to determine the organic HAP content or volatile 
matter and solids content when these data are equivalent to those 
obtained from Method 311, Method 24, ASTM D2697-86, or ASTM D6093-97 
(or an EPA approved alternative method), respectively. You must 
determine the mass of each coating material applied using company 
records. If diluent solvents or other ingredients are added to a 
material prior to application, then the total organic HAP fractions and 
mass must be adjusted appropriately to account for such additions. You 
must calculate the organic HAP content and mass of all materials 
applied on the coating lines for each monthly period. However, only 
changes in a material formulation would require a re-determination of 
total organic HAP weight fraction for that material. To demonstrate 
compliance, you must calculate the average mass of organic HAP in 
materials applied and show that it is less than the organic HAP 
emission limit.
    If you use an emission capture and control system to comply with 
the

[[Page 44619]]

standard, you must demonstrate that the overall control efficiency 
reduces total organic HAP by at least 98 percent. Alternatively, you 
may use capture and control equipment in combination with low organic 
HAP materials and demonstrate you meet the organic HAP emission 
limitation specified. To comply using the combined approach, you must 
determine the overall control efficiency of the equipment and the 
organic HAP and solids content of the materials applied. These values 
must be determined for each monthly period.
    The overall control efficiency for a capture and control system 
would be demonstrated based on capture and reduction efficiency. You 
must determine the capture efficiency or verify the presence of a total 
enclosure using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M. The EPA 
Method 204A through F of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, is used to 
determine the capture efficiency of enclosures that do not meet the 
criteria for total enclosures. You must determine the emission 
reduction efficiency of a control device by conducting a performance 
test or using a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS). If you 
use CEMS, you must determine the inlet and outlet concentration to 
calculate the control efficiency. The CEMS must comply with performance 
specification 8 or 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    If you conduct a performance test, we are proposing that the 
removal efficiency of a control device be determined based on three 
runs, each run lasting 1 hour. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A is used for selection of the sampling sites. Method 2, 2A, 
2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine 
the gas volumetric flow rate. Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, is used for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. 
Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine stack 
moisture. Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used 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, may 
be used upon obtaining EPA approval.
    If you use a solvent recovery system, you may alternatively 
determine the overall control efficiency using a liquid-liquid material 
balance. If you demonstrate compliance with the material balance, you 
must measure the amount of all materials applied during each month and 
determine the volatile matter content of these materials. You must also 
measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery 
system during the month and calculate the overall solvent recovery 
efficiency.

B. Monitoring Requirements

    Monitoring is required by the proposed standards to ensure that the 
affected source is in continuous compliance. Monitoring requirements 
apply if you comply with the proposed rule using emission capture and 
control devices to meet the standards expressed as a percent control or 
as an organic HAP emission rate limit.
    Monitoring to demonstrate compliance is accomplished by measuring 
site-specific operating parameters, the values of which you establish 
during the performance test described in section V.A of this preamble. 
You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate all monitoring 
equipment according to manufacturer's specifications. If you use 
control devices other than those identified in the proposed standards 
you must submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the 
Administrator for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to 
be monitored is retained by the Administrator and is not delegated.
    The operating parameter value is defined as the minimum or maximum 
(as applicable) value established for a control device or process 
parameter achieved during the most recent performance test that 
demonstrated compliance with the emission standard.
    If you use a capture and control system to meet the proposed 
standards and you do not use liquid-liquid material balances to 
demonstrate compliance, you are required to submit a plan identifying 
the operating limit and monitoring procedures for the capture 
efficiency. You must monitor in accordance with your plan unless we 
require an alternate monitoring procedure.
    If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you must monitor 
temperature using a continuous recorder. If you use a thermal oxidizer, 
you must establish the minimum combustion temperature recorded during 
the performance test as the operating limit. If you use a catalytic 
oxidizer, you must establish as the operating parameters the minimum 
gas temperatures both upstream and downstream of the catalyst bed. 
These minimum temperatures are the operating parameters used to 
demonstrate continuous compliance. The time weighted average of the 
values recorded during the performance test shall be computed to 
establish the parameter value(s). For catalytic oxidizers, temperature 
monitors are placed immediately before and after the catalyst bed. 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.
    If you operate metal coil coating lines with intermittently-
controllable work stations, you must demonstrate that HAP emissions 
from each curing oven associated with these work stations are being 
routed to the control device by monitoring for potential bypass of the 
control device. You may choose from the following four 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 operation of the metal coil 
coating line when flow is diverted from the control device when the 
control device is operating.
    If you use a solvent recovery system, you must conduct monthly 
liquid-liquid mass balances or operate CEMS as described above in the 
test methods and procedures section of this preamble.
    If you use a combination of capture and control devices and low-HAP 
materials, you are required to monitor the parameter of the capture and 
control device as indicated above. In addition, you must record data on 
the HAP and solids content of the materials applied to determine the 
HAP emission rate as described in the performance test section.

VI. What Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements 
Must I Follow?

A. Initial Notification

    If the NESHAP apply to you, you must send notification to the 
appropriate EPA Regional Office, and to your State or local agency, at 
least 1 year before the compliance date for existing sources and within 
120 days after the date of initial start-up for new and reconstructed 
sources, or 120 days after publication of the final rule, whichever is 
later. New major affected sources must submit an application for 
approval of construction or reconstruction according to 
Sec. 63.5(d)(1). This application satisfies the initial notification 
requirement. The initial notification informs us and your State

[[Page 44620]]

agency that you have an existing facility that is subject to the 
proposed NESHAP or that you have constructed a new facility. Thus, it 
allows you and the enforcement agency to plan for compliance 
activities.

B. Notification of Performance Test

    If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture and control system 
to reduce emissions of HAP, you must conduct a performance test as 
described above. Prior to conducting the performance test, 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.

C. Notification of Compliance Status

    Your compliance procedures will depend on which compliance option 
you choose. You are required to send a notification of compliance 
status within 180 days after the compliance date. The notification of 
compliance status should specifically identify whether low-HAP 
materials, emission capture and control systems, or a combination of 
the two were used to demonstrate compliance, and, for capture and 
control systems, the results of performance tests and monitoring, and a 
description of how you will determine continuing compliance. Your 
notice must also specify what operating limits were established during 
the performance test, the range of each monitored parameter for your 
affected source, information verifying that this range shows compliance 
with the emission standard, and information showing that the source has 
operated within its designated operating parameters. To comply with the 
proposed NESHAP, your compliance report must contain at least 5 months 
of coating content data where low-HAP materials are used and monitoring 
data where capture and control systems are used to demonstrate that you 
have been in compliance since the compliance date.

D. Recordkeeping Requirements

    Depending on the compliance approach you choose, you may have to 
keep records of one or more of the following:
     Organic HAP, volatile matter, and solids content of the 
coatings, as applied.
     Monthly usage of all coatings and other materials applied.
     Equipment monitoring parameter measurements.
    Deviations from the proposed standard, as calculated from these 
records, need to be reported as described in the section below.

E. 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 compliance. The following semiannual reports would be 
required under this proposal when deviations occur:
     If you are complying by using oxidizers, report all times 
when a 3-hour average temperature was below the average temperature 
established during the most recent performance test when compliance was 
demonstrated.
     If you are complying with the HAP percent reduction 
limitation by using solvent recovery systems and you choose to show 
compliance by means of a liquid-liquid mass balance, report information 
on all months when the material balances did not meet the standard.
     If you are complying by using oxidizers or solvent 
recovery systems where liquid-liquid material balances are not 
conducted, report all days when, for any 3-hour period, the average 
value of the site-specific operating parameter used to monitor the 
capture system performance was greater than or less than (as 
appropriate) the operating parameter value established for the capture 
system.
     If you are complying by using low-HAP materials, report 
each deviation from the emission limit.
     If you are complying by using a combination of capture and 
control systems and low-HAP materials, report information on control 
device parameter deviations as described above. In addition, you would 
be required to submit semiannual reports of deviations of monthly 
calculated HAP emission limitations.
    You would also have to send us reports for each semiannual 
reporting period in which the following occur:
     A change occurs at your facility or within your process 
that might affect its compliance status.
     A change occurs at your facility or within your process 
that you must normally report in the initial notice.
     You decide to change to another emission limitation 
option.

F. Other Reports

    You are required to submit other reports, including those you must 
do for periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction. For example, if 
you use a capture and control system to reduce HAP emissions, you must 
develop a start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan. You would have to 
make the 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 standard. If the 
procedures you follow during any start-up, shutdown, or malfunction are 
inconsistent with your plan, you must report those procedures with your 
semiannual reports.

VII. What Are the Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of 
This Proposed Rule?

    As explained below, we do not expect any significant adverse 
environmental or energy impacts resulting from the proposed rule. Any 
negative economic impacts are also expected to be small. Actual 
compliance costs will depend on each source's existing equipment and 
the modifications made to comply with the standard. We have estimated 
that the installation of permanent total enclosures and the 
installation of, or improvement to, thermal oxidizers at existing 
facilities could require nationwide capital costs of approximately 
$11.6 million and annual operating costs of about $6.2 million. Costs 
could be much lower if facilities choose to use low-HAP coatings.

A. Emission Reductions

    For existing sources in the metal coil coating industry, the 
nationwide baseline HAP emissions are estimated to be 2,258 Mg/yr 
(2,484 tpy). We estimate that implementation of the final rule would 
reduce emissions from these sources by 1,241 Mg/yr (1,366 tpy), or 
approximately 55 percent.
    Since the emission limits for new and existing sources are the 
same, emission reductions for new sources are expected to be similar to 
the 55 percent emission reduction estimated for existing sources.

B. Secondary Environmental Impacts

    Secondary environmental impacts are considered to be any air, 
water, or solid waste impacts, positive or negative, associated with 
the implementation of the final standards. These impacts are exclusive 
of the direct organic HAP air emission reductions discussed in the 
previous section.
    Most of the organic HAPs are VOC. Capture and control of HAP that 
are presently emitted will result in a decrease in VOC emissions. In 
addition, the proposed emission control systems used to reduce HAP 
emissions will reduce non-HAP VOC emissions as well. We do not have 
information on non-HAP VOC emissions from metal coil coating 
operations; consequently,

[[Page 44621]]

we cannot quantify the reduction of VOC emissions. However, the percent 
reduction should be similar to the percent reduction in HAP emissions 
(i.e., about 55 percent). Emissions of VOC have been associated with a 
variety of health and welfare impacts. The VOC emissions, together with 
nitrogen oxides, are precursors to the formation of ground level ozone, 
or smog. Exposure to ambient ozone is responsible for a series of 
public health impacts, such as alterations in lung capacity and 
aggravation of existing respiratory disease. Ozone exposure can also 
damage forests and crops.
    The use of newly installed or upgraded control devices will result 
in greater electricity consumption. Increases in emissions of nitrogen 
oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as well as 
certain HAP, from electric utilities could result. In the metal coil 
coating industry, some plants will comply by installing or upgrading 
oxidizers. Supplemental fuel, typically natural gas, will be used, 
particularly for thermal oxidizers. Combustion of this fuel will result 
in additional carbon dioxide emissions and may result in additional 
emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide.
    A small number of facilities using waterborne coatings may install 
condenser systems to comply with the proposed standard. This will 
result in the generation of wastewater streams that may require 
treatment to remove the HAP. It also is expected that some metal coil 
coating facilities will comply with the proposed standard by 
substituting non-HAP materials for HAP presently in use. In some cases, 
the non-HAP materials may be VOC, however, in other cases, non-VOC 
(e.g., water) materials may be used. Facilities converting to 
waterborne materials as a means or partial means of compliance may have 
reduced Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste disposal 
if the status of the waste material changes from hazardous to 
nonhazardous. An increase in wastewater discharge may occur if waste 
material and waterborne wash-up materials are discharged to publicly 
owned treatment works. There is no assurance that facilities converting 
to low-HAP formulations will adopt waterborne rather than non-HAP VOC-
based materials.
    New and upgraded catalytic oxidizers will require catalysts. 
Catalyst life is estimated to be more than 10 years. Spent catalysts 
will represent a small amount of solid waste, and sometimes the spent 
catalyst will be regenerated by the manufacturer for reuse. Activated 
carbon used in solvent recovery systems is returned to the manufacturer 
at the end of its useful life and converted to other salable products. 
Little solid waste impact is expected from this source.

C. Energy Impacts

    The operation of new and upgraded control devices will require 
additional energy. Capture of previously uncontrolled solvent-laden air 
will require fan horsepower. Operation of oxidizers, particularly 
thermal oxidizers, may require supplemental fuel (typically natural 
gas).
    The total additional electrical energy required to meet the 
standard is estimated to be 14.6 million kilowatt-hours per year. 
Nationwide incremental natural gas usage is expected to increase by 
110.6 million standard cubic feet per year.

D. Cost Impacts

    The total nationwide capital and annualized costs (1997 dollars) 
attributable to compliance with the proposed standards have been 
estimated for existing sources. These costs are based on model plant 
analysis of the least-cost measure needed for facilities to attain one 
of the compliance options. For existing facilities, with the exception 
of facilities applying waterborne coatings that do not meet the 
emission rate limit, the compliance costs represent the incremental 
costs associated with upgrading existing HAP emission controls.
    Compliance Costs for New Sources. Since the proposed HAP emission 
limits for existing and new sources are the same, the incremental costs 
required to upgrade existing HAP emission controls are an indication of 
the incremental costs that will be incurred by new sources to install 
and operate the level of HAP emission controls required to achieve the 
proposed emission limits. For example, for a small coating line with 
one application station enclosed by a permanent total enclosure and a 
thermal oxidizer to control HAP emissions, the incremental capital 
costs are estimated to be about $213,000, and the annual costs 
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs approximately 
$78,000. Similarly, for a large coating line with two application 
stations enclosed by permanent total enclosures and two thermal 
oxidizers, the incremental capital costs are estimated to be about 
$406,000, and the annual costs around $182,000, including monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting costs. A coating line applying waterborne 
coatings is estimated to incur capital costs of around $780,000 and 
annual costs of approximately $277,000, including monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting to install and operate a condenser system 
to control HAP emissions.
    The incremental costs incurred for coating lines controlled by 
thermal incinerators include retrofit factors, and, thus for new 
sources, the incremental costs are probably overstated. Nonetheless, 
the estimated costs should not deter the construction of new metal coil 
coating lines or the entry of new companies into the industry.
    Capital Costs for Existing Sources. Capital costs would be incurred 
by installing capture and control systems at those facilities presently 
without controls and upgrading capture and control systems at existing 
facilities that do not meet the proposed standard. Additionally, the 
purchase of monitoring equipment may be needed as a capital investment 
to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 
the proposed rule. Total nationwide capital costs are estimated at 
$11.6 million, based on the use of permanent total enclosures, thermal 
oxidizers, solvent recovery systems, and monitoring equipment. The 
total nationwide capital costs with other methods of control are 
expected to be lower.
    Annual Costs at Existing Sources. Total nationwide annual costs of 
the proposed standard have been estimated at approximately $6.0 million 
per year with the use of permanent total enclosures and new or upgraded 
thermal oxidizers or solvent recovery systems. These costs include 
capital recovery over a 15-year period, operating costs for the newly 
installed and upgraded capture and control systems, and costs for 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. These are net costs after 
taking into account the costs presently being incurred for the baseline 
control level. The total nationwide annual costs with methods of 
control other than thermal oxidizers are expected to be lower.

E. Economic Impacts

    The Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) (included in the BID, EPA 453/P-
00-001) shows that the expected price increase for coated metal coils 
would be approximately 0.2 percent as a result of the proposed 
standards. Therefore, no adverse impact is expected to occur for those 
industries that consume coated metal coils such as building and 
construction, appliances, automotive parts, and other consumer 
products.
    The distribution of costs across metal coil coating facilities is 
slanted toward the lower impact levels with many

[[Page 44622]]

facilities incurring no costs or only those related to initial 
performance testing and annually recurring monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting. The EIA indicates that these regulatory costs are 
expected to represent less than 1 percent of the value of coating 
services, which should not cause producers to cease or alter their 
current operations. Hence, no firms or facilities are at risk of 
closure because of the proposed standards. For more information, 
consult the docket for this project.

VIII. What Is the Basis for Selecting the Level of the Proposed 
Standards?

A. Source of Authority for Standards Development

    Section 112(c) of the CAA directs us to develop a list of all 
categories of major sources and appropriate area sources that emit one 
or more of the 188 HAP listed under section 112(b). Metal coil coating 
is a listed source category because of its HAP emissions that include, 
but are not limited to, toluene, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, 
xylenes, phenol, methylene chloride, ethylene glycol and glycol ethers, 
hexane, methyl isobutyl ketone, cresols and cresylic acid, 
dimethylformamide, vinyl acetate, formaldehyde, and ethyl benzene.

B. What Is the Basis for Defining the Affected Source?

    In defining the affected source for the proposed metal coil coating 
NESHAP, we considered available information on HAP emissions, control 
configurations, industry practices, and products produced.
    A metal coil coating operation is the application system used to 
apply an organic coating to the surface of any continuous metal strip 
at least 0.006 inch thick or more that is packaged in a roll or coil. 
It includes the affected source and associated operations that support 
the coating process.
    In general, metal coil-coating facilities are covered by the SIC 
codes listed in the Regulated Entities table. However, facilities 
classified under other SIC codes may be subject to the proposed 
standards if the facility meets the definition of a major source and 
conducts metal coil coating.
    Although the coil coated metal is used in an extensive list of 
products, the coating processes used by the different segments of the 
coil coating industry are very similar. Typically, the coil (or roll) 
of bare sheet metal strip is unwound, cleaned and treated in a wet 
section, air-dried, and coated on one or both sides. A prime coat is 
applied, cured in an oven and quenched (i.e., cooled by an air or water 
spray), followed by application of a top or finish coat. Curing and 
quenching are repeated, and the finished strip is cut or rewound and 
packaged for shipment or additional processing. The coating line may 
include one coating station or multiple coating stations. A variety of 
coatings may be applied. These may be decorative or protective, 
adhesives, or printed patterns.
    The primary HAP emission source in metal coil coating is the 
solvent used in the coatings. The solvent basically acts as a vehicle 
for the material that is used to coat the coil; this solvent is usually 
evaporated in curing ovens, with HAP emissions occurring from both 
application and curing of the coating. Most, if not all, of the solvent 
emitted can be collected if capture equipment is installed to collect 
solvent vapors. Solvents are also contained in cleaning solutions that 
are used to clean residual coating material from the coating equipment. 
If a facility mixes coatings on site, this process can also be a source 
of HAP solvent emissions.
    In the various segments of the metal coil coating industry, the 
same primary HAP emission sources can be found. On average, coating 
application and curing oven HAP emissions represent about 90 percent of 
the total HAP emissions from metal coil surface coating operations.
    We have identified one facility that coats metal coil by 
electrodeposition. This method of coating application is different than 
the roll coating method used by most coil coaters. The company which 
operates this facility has expressed concern about the appropriateness 
of having the electrodeposition coil coating line subject to the same 
emission limits as other coil coaters. We have not determined that 
electrodeposition coating of metal coil warrants a different emission 
limit. Therefore, in this proposed rule, the electrodeposition coating 
of metal coil is subject to the same emission limits as all other coil 
coating. We welcome specific comments on the appropriateness of the 
proposed emission limits to electrodeposition coating of metal coil.
    The affected source is broadly defined as the collection of all 
coil coating lines at a facility. This definition allows for 
flexibility with compliance demonstrations, i.e., averaging emissions 
from all coil coating lines rather than demonstrating compliance for 
each individual line. The proposed rule limits would apply to only the 
coating application and curing sections of the affected source.

C. What Is the MACT Floor That Is the Basis for the Proposed Standards?

    Quantitative data on HAP use and emission control were obtained 
from a total of over 90 metal coil coating facilities. Qualitative data 
providing descriptions of metal coil coating processes, HAP control 
technologies, and process and control technology concerns also were 
obtained from site visits and industry trade groups, such as the 
National Coil Coaters Association. These data verified that the metal 
coil coating processes and HAP emission sources are similar across all 
industry segments, and that HAP control technologies also are the same.
    The most common approach is capture/control of emissions. At many 
facilities, coating application stations are enclosed in rooms, and the 
ventilation air is directed to the control device. This type of capture 
system can achieve 100 percent capture of emissions when designed to 
meet the criteria specified in EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix M. This capture system is called a permanent total enclosure 
(PTE). Of the surveyed facilities, 45 reported the use of PTE. Oven 
emissions typically are controlled by a thermal or catalytic 
incinerator (also known as an oxidizer). Of the surveyed facilities, 72 
facilities reported they operate incinerators. Of 105 controlled lines, 
79 were controlled with thermal incinerators, and 24 with catalytic 
oxidizers. Two lines had condenser/scrubber systems. All of the top 12 
percent of existing facilities use thermal oxidizers, and eight of the 
facilities report achieving 100 percent capture of application station 
emissions through the use of permanent total enclosures. This is, 
therefore, the control technology that reflects the MACT floor for 
existing sources.
    Reported values show that control systems may be capable of 
achieving greater than 99 percent HAP destruction, based on 100 percent 
capture and greater than 99 percent destruction efficiencies. The 
average reported overall control efficiency (OCE) of the MACT floor 
facilities is 99.4 percent. However, to determine the level of emission 
control achievable with this technology, it is important to consider 
not only the level of control reported, but also the control levels 
that EPA has generally found to be achievable for this type of control 
technology. This approach ensures that factors that affect control 
levels, such as variations in source operating conditions and inlet 
loadings to the control device, are accommodated in the selection of 
the MACT floor.

[[Page 44623]]

    A study conducted by EPA indicated that a 98 percent reduction is 
the control efficiency achievable by all new oxidizers. Information 
from vendor guarantees supports the determination of a destruction 
efficiency of 98 percent for thermal incinerators. Therefore, a 98 
percent facilitywide coating line OCE, based on 100 percent capture 
efficiency of PTE and 98 percent destruction efficiency of thermal 
oxidizers, was determined to be the MACT floor for existing sources.
    A 98 percent facilitywide coating line OCE also was determined to 
be the MACT floor for new sources. No technology was identified that 
could achieve a better OCE, that would be applicable for all segments 
of the industry, than the use of PTE to capture emissions from coating 
application stations, and a thermal incinerator to destroy emissions 
from application stations and curing ovens.
    Data from the surveyed facilities were used to calculate an 
alternative facility emission rate limit. This rate was calculated by 
applying the 98 percent OCE to a pre-controlled facility HAP emission 
rate representative for this industry. This calculation process, 
described in the BID (EPA 453/P-00-01), resulted in a facility HAP 
emission rate of 0.029 kg/l (0.24 lb/gal) of solids applied.

IX. What Is the Basis for Selecting the Format of the Proposed 
Standards?

    Where control devices are or can be used, the proposed format for 
the emission standards is an overall percent reduction of emissions, 
taking into account both capture and control device efficiencies.
    To encourage the use of low and non-HAP materials, alternative 
standards based on HAP content are also proposed that will achieve HAP 
reductions comparable to the overall percent reduction limit. Sources 
applying materials containing 0.029 kg organic HAP or less per l of 
solids applied on coating lines will not be required to operate a 
control device to comply with the standard because we believe that this 
HAP level is equivalent to an overall HAP control efficiency of 98 
percent. Facilities may use a combination of capture and control 
systems and reduced HAP content in coatings to meet the 0.029 kg per kg 
of solids (0.24 lb/gal) applied emission limit.

X. Why Did We Select the Proposed Monitoring Requirements?

    According to paragraph (a)(3) of section 114 of the CAA, monitoring 
of stationary sources is required to determine the compliance status of 
the sources, and whether compliance is continuous or intermittent. For 
affected sources complying with the proposed standards with capture and 
control systems, initial compliance is determined through the initial 
compliance test, and ongoing compliance through continuous monitoring. 
We are proposing the parameters to be monitored for certain types of 
control devices now used in the industry. The values of these 
parameters that correspond to compliance with the proposed standards 
are set by the owner or operator during the initial compliance test. 
These values are your operating limits. If future monitoring shows that 
control equipment is operating outside operating limits, then you are 
deviating from the operating limits, except as specified for 
malfunctions.
    We believe that the selected monitoring parameters will adequately 
establish that the facility is limiting HAP emissions to the same level 
as the proposed MACT standards. The rationale for selecting the control 
device parameters for thermal and catalytic oxidizers in this proposed 
rule is long standing. The same monitoring parameters have also been 
required for previous standards. For more information, see the proposal 
notice for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry 
reactor processes NSPS (55 FR 26966, June 29, 1990).

XI. Why Did We Select the Proposed Test Methods?

    The proposed rule requires emissions tests for cases in which a 
source uses an add-on control device to reduce emissions. For the case 
in which no add-on control device is used, the proposed rule would 
require determination of the HAP content of each material applied. The 
test methods we propose to require are existing EPA methods that are 
familiar to the industry, readily available, and appropriate to the 
device or the parameter being measured. The tests selected are expected 
to adequately establish whether the facility is complying with the 
standard.

XII. Why Did We Select the Proposed Notification, Recordkeeping, 
and Reporting Requirements?

    The proposed rule requires you to comply with notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, generally as described in 
the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) (see table 1 of 
subpart SSSS) and specifically as designed to support demonstration of 
compliance with this proposed rule. We believe that these requirements 
are necessary and sufficient to ensure that you comply with the 
requirements in proposed subpart SSSS.

XIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we 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 obligations 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 that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, 
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 
12866.

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

[[Page 44624]]

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.
    This proposed rule 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. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to this proposed rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to this proposed rule, the EPA did consult with State and 
local officials to enable them to provide timely input in the 
development of this proposed rule.

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of 
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
communities.''
    Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments own or 
operate metal coil coating operations. Accordingly, the requirements of 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposed 
rule.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (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, the 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. This proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology 
performance and not on health or safety risks and because it is not 
``economically significant.''

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the 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 cost-effective, 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.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The rule does not impose any enforceable 
duties on State, local, or tribal governments, i.e., they own or 
operate no sources subject to this proposed rule and, therefore, are 
not required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of 
this proposed rule. Regarding the private sector, EPA believes the 
proposed rule will affect approximately 90 existing facilities 
nationwide. The EPA projects that annual economic effects will be $6.2 
million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements 
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Nevertheless, in developing this 
proposed rule, EPA consulted with States to enable them to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of this proposed rule.
    In addition, the EPA has determined that this proposed rule 
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements 
that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. 
Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), As Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (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

[[Page 44625]]

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule 
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 
according to Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards by 4-
digit SIC code of the owning entity (in this case, ranging from 100-
1,000 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-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    In accordance with the RFA and SBREFA, EPA conducted an assessment 
of the proposed standard on small businesses within the metal coil 
coating industry. Based on SBA size definitions and reported sales and 
employment data, EPA identified 19 of the 49 companies owning metal 
coil coating facilities as small businesses. Although small businesses 
represent almost 39 percent of the companies within the source 
category, they are expected to incur only 8.5 percent of the total 
industry compliance costs of approximately $6.0 million. Under the 
proposed standards, the average annual compliance cost share of sales 
for small businesses is less than 0.2 percent with 7 of the 19 small 
businesses not expected to incur any additional costs because they are 
permitted as synthetic minor HAP emission sources. After considering 
the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I 
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to limit the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. For 
example, the requirements of the proposed rule only apply to major 
sources as defined in 40 CFR part 63 and a title V or part 70 permit 
application can be used in lieu of an initial notification under 
certain conditions. Also, during the background information development 
phase of the rulemaking, numerous stakeholder meetings were held at 
which input was solicited from small entities. We continue to be 
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will 
be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1957.01) and a copy may be obtained 
from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Collection Strategies Division (2822), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, by email at [email protected], or by calling 
(202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at 
http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective 
until OMB approves them.
    The information 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 public burden of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for 
this collection is estimated to average 281 hours per year per coil 
coating facility for each year after the date of promulgation of the 
rule including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting costs also include the startup costs associated with initial 
performance tests and associated notifications and reports required to 
demonstrate initial compliance; emission rate limit monthly compliance 
determinations; semiannual reports when someone does not follow a plan 
for start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions; quarterly and semiannual 
reports on excess emissions; maintenance inspections; notices; and 
recordkeeping. The total annualized costs associated with monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting have been estimated at $784,179, which 
include the estimated annualized capital costs of $232,076.
    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 in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the 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. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, 
and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, 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 July 18, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of 
having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 17, 2000. The final 
rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards (VCS) in their regulatory and procurement activities unless 
to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e.g., material 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, 
etc.) that are developed or adopted by one or

[[Page 44626]]

more VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
annual reports to OMB, with explanations when EPA does not use 
available and applicable VCS.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS 
for use in emissions monitoring. The search for emissions monitoring 
procedures identified 20 VCS that appeared to have possible use in lieu 
of EPA standard reference methods. However, after reviewing the 
available standards, EPA determined that ten of the candidate consensus 
standards (ASTM D3154-91, ASTM D3271-87, ASTM D3464-96, ASTM D3796-90, 
ASTM D3960-98, ASTM D6053-96, ASTM E337-84, ISO 9096: 1992, PTC 19-10-
1981, and EN 1093-4:1996) identified for measuring emissions of the HAP 
or surrogates subject to emission standards in the proposed rule would 
not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, and 
validation data (Docket A-97-47). Seven of the remaining candidate 
consensus standards (BSR/ASME MFC 13m, ASTM Z6871Z, ISO/DIS 14164, ISO 
PWI 17895, ISO/DIS 11890-1, ISO/DIS 11890-2, and PREN 12619) are under 
development. The EPA plans to follow, review, and consider adopting 
these standards after their development is completed.
    The ASTM 2369-95 is practical for EPA use as an acceptable 
alternative in measuring the volatile matter content of surface 
coatings. This VCS uses the same techniques, equipment, and procedures 
as Method 24. The EPA will incorporated by reference (IBR) ASTM D2369-
95 into 40 CFR 63.14 in the near future.
    The ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 98) and ASTM D6093-97 are acceptable 
procedures for use in determining the volume fraction of solids for a 
variety of coatings. The EPA will IBR ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 98) and 
ASTM D6093-97 into 40 CFR 63.14 in the near future.
    Six consensus standards: ASTM D1475-90, ASTM D2369-95, ASTM D3792-
91, ASTM D4017-96a, ASTM D4457-85 (Reapproved 91), and ASTM D5403-93 
are already IBR in EPA Method 24; and five consensus standards: ASTM 
D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS 9-94 
are IBR in EPA Method 311.
    The EPA takes comment on proposed compliance demonstration 
requirements proposed in this rule and specifically invites the public 
to identify potentially-applicable VCS. Commentors should also explain 
why this proposed rule should adopt these VCS in lieu of EPA's 
standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications 
submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the 
recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used 
to validate the candidate method (if method other than Method 301, 40 
CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
    Section 63.5160 of the proposed standards lists EPA testing methods 
and performance standards included in the proposed rule. Most of the 
standards have been used by States and industry for more than 10 years. 
Nevertheless, Sec. 63.5160 allows any State or source to apply to EPA 
for permission to use alternative methods in place of any of the EPA 
testing methods or performance standards listed in Sec. 63.5160.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 5, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart SSSS to read as follows:

Subpart SSSS--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Metal Coil Coating

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.5080   What is in this subpart?
63.5090   Does this subpart apply to me?
63.5100   Which of my emissions sources are affected by this 
subpart?
63.5110   What special definitions are used in this subpart?

Emission Standards and Compliance Dates

63.5120   What emission standards must I meet?
63.5130   When must I comply?

General Requirements for Compliance with the Emission Standards and for 
Monitoring and Performance Tests

63.5140   What general requirements must I meet to comply with the 
standards?
63.5150   What monitoring must I do?
63.5160   What performance tests must I complete?

Requirements for Showing Compliance

63.5170   How do I demonstrate compliance with the standards?

Reporting and Recordkeeping

63.5180   What reports must I submit?
63.5190   What records must I maintain?

Delegation of Authority

63.5200   What authorities may be delegated to the States?
63.5201--63.5209   [Reserved.]

Tables

Table 1 to Subpart SSSS. Applicability of General Provisions to 
Subpart SSSS

What This Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.5080  What is in this subpart?

    This subpart describes the actions you must take to reduce 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) if you own or operate a 
facility that performs metal coil coating operations and is a major 
source of HAP. This subpart establishes emission standards and states 
what you must do to comply. Certain requirements apply to all who must 
comply with the subpart; others depend on the means you use to comply 
with an emission standard.


Sec. 63.5090  Does this subpart apply to me?

    The provisions of this subpart apply to each facility that is a 
major source of HAP, as defined in Sec. 63.2, at which a coil coating 
line is operated.


Sec. 63.5100  Which of my emissions sources are affected by this 
subpart?

    The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of 
all of the coil coating lines at your facility except any coil coating 
line that is part of a research or laboratory facility.


Sec. 63.5110  What special definitions are used in this subpart?

    (a) All terms used in this subpart that are not defined in this 
section have the meaning given to them in the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
Act) and in subpart A of this part.
    Always-controlled work station means a work station associated with 
a curing oven from which the exhaust is delivered to a control device 
with no provision for the dryer exhaust to bypass the control device. 
Sampling lines for analyzers and relief valves needed for safety 
purposes are not considered bypass lines.
    Capture efficiency means the fraction of all organic HAP emissions 
generated by a process that is delivered to a control device, expressed 
as a percentage.
    Capture system means a hood, enclosed room, or other means of 
collecting organic HAP emissions and conveying them to a control 
device.

[[Page 44627]]

    Car-seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is used to 
change the position of a valve or damper (e.g., from open to closed) in 
such a way that the position of the valve or damper cannot be changed 
without breaking the seal.
    Coating means material applied onto or impregnated into a substrate 
for decorative, protective, or functional purposes. Such materials 
include, but are not limited to, paints, varnishes, sealants, inks, 
adhesives, maskants, and temporary coatings. Decorative, protective, or 
functional materials that consist only of solvents, protective oils, 
acids, bases, or any combination of these substances are not considered 
coatings for the purposes of this subpart.
    Coil coating line means a process for metal coil coating that 
includes a web unwind or feed section, a series of one or more coating 
stations, any associated curing oven, wet section, and quench station. 
A coil coating line does not include ancillary operations such as 
mixing/thinning, cleaning, wastewater treatment, and storage of coating 
material.
    Coil coating operation means the collection of equipment used to 
apply an organic coating to the surface of any continuous metal strip 
at least 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) thick or more that is packaged in 
a roll or coil.
    Coil coating station means a work station on which a coil coating 
operation is conducted.
    Coating materials means all coatings and products that are combined 
at the coating facility to create a coating (e.g., a catalyst and resin 
in multi-component coatings) that are applied to a metal roll or coil. 
For the purposes of this subpart, an organic solvent that is used to 
thin coating material prior to application to the metal roll or coil is 
considered a coating material.
    Control device means a device such as a solvent recovery device or 
oxidizer which reduces the organic HAP in an exhaust gas by recovery or 
by destruction.
    Control device efficiency means the ratio of organic HAP emissions 
recovered or destroyed by a control device to the total HAP emissions 
that are introduced into the control device, expressed as a percentage.
    Curing oven means the device that uses heat or radiation to dry or 
cure the coating applied to the metal coil.
    Day means a 24-consecutive-hour period.
    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 limitation 
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
    (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 limitation (including any operating 
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during start-up, 
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is 
permitted by this subpart.
    Facility means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under 
common ownership or control, including properties that are separated 
only by a road or other public right-of-way.
    HAP applied means the organic HAP content of all coating materials 
applied to a substrate by a coil coating line.
    Intermittently-controllable coil coating work station means a work 
station associated with a curing oven with provisions for the curing 
oven exhaust to be delivered to or diverted from a control device 
depending on the position of a valve or damper. Sampling lines for 
analyzers and relief valves needed for safety purposes are not 
considered bypass lines.
    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.
    Never-controlled coil coating work station means a work station 
which is not equipped with provisions by which any emissions, including 
those in the exhaust from any associated curing oven, may be delivered 
to a control device.
    New source means any affected source the construction or 
reconstruction of which is commenced after July 18, 2000.
    Overall organic HAP control efficiency means the total efficiency 
of a control system, determined either by:
    (1) The product of the capture efficiency as determined in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.5160(e) or (f) and the 
control device efficiency as determined in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec. 63.5160(a)(1) (i) and (ii) or Sec. 63.5160(d); or
    (2) A liquid-liquid material balance in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec. 63.5160(a)(3).
    Permanent total enclosure (PTE) means a permanently installed 
enclosure that completely surrounds a source of emissions such that all 
emissions are captured and discharged through a control device, as 
defined in Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M.
    Research or laboratory equipment means any equipment for which the 
primary purpose is to conduct research and development into new 
processes and products, where such equipment is operated under the 
close supervision of technically trained personnel and is not engaged 
in the manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except 
in a de minimis manner.
    Temporary total enclosure (TTE) 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 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix M.
    Work station means a unit on a coil coating line where material is 
deposited onto a substrate.
    (b) The symbols used in equations in this subpart are defined as 
follows:
    (1) Cahi=the monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP 
content of solids-containing coating material, i, expressed as a weight 
fraction, kilogram (kg)/kg.
    (2) Casi=the monthly average, as applied, solids 
content, of solids-containing coating material, i, expressed as, liter 
of solids applied/kg of material applied.
    (3) Chi=the organic HAP content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
    (4) Chij=the organic HAP content of solvent, j, added to 
coating material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
    (5) Chj=the organic HAP content of solvent, j, expressed 
as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
    (6) Ci=the organic volatile matter concentration in 
parts per million (ppm), dry basis, of compound, i, in the vent gas, as 
determined by Method 25 or Method 25A.
    (7) Csi=the solids content of coating material, i, 
expressed as, liter of solids/kg of material.
    (8) Cvi=the volatile matter content of coating material, 
i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
    (9) Di=the density of coating material, i, kg/l.
    (10) Dj=the density of solvent, j, kg/l.
    (11) Ek=the organic volatile matter control efficiency 
of control device, k, percent.
    (12) FA=the organic volatile matter capture efficiency 
of the capture system for coil coating station, A, percent.
    (13) He=the total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
    (14) Hm=the facility total monthly organic HAP applied 
on uncontrolled coil coating stations, kg.
    (15) Hs=the monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP to 
solids ratio, kg organic HAP/liter solids applied.

[[Page 44628]]

    (16) Hsi=the as-applied, organic HAP to solids ratio of 
material, i, kg organic HAP/liter solids applied.
    (17) L=the mass organic HAP emitted per volume of solids applied, 
kg/liter.
    (18) MAi=the mass of coating material, i, applied on 
coil coating station, A, in a month, kg.
    (19) MAij=the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, 
diluent, or other non-solids-containing coating material, j, added to 
solids-containing coating material, i, applied on coil coating station, 
A, in a month, kg.
    (20) MAj=the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, 
or other non-solids-containing coating material (including 
H2O), j, applied on coil coating station, A, in a month, kg.
    (21) MBi=the sum of the mass of solids-containing 
coating material, i, applied on intermittently-controllable work 
stations operating in bypass mode and the mass of solids-containing 
coating material, i, applied on never-controlled work stations, in a 
month, kg.
    (22) MBj=the sum of the mass of solvent, thinner, 
reducer, diluent, or other non-solids-containing coating material, j, 
applied on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in 
bypass mode and the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or 
other non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied on never-
controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
    (23) Mci=the sum of the mass of solids-containing 
coating material, i, applied on intermittently-controllable work 
stations operating in controlled mode and the mass of solids-containing 
coating material, i, applied on always-controlled work stations, in a 
month, kg.
    (24) Mcj=the sum of the mass of solvent, thinner, 
reducer, diluent, or other non-solids-containing coating material, j, 
applied on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in 
controlled mode and the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or 
other non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied on always-
controlled work stations in a month, kg.
    (25) Mf=the total organic volatile matter mass flow 
rate, kg/per hour (h).
    (26) Mfi=the organic volatile matter mass flow rate at 
the inlet to the control device, kg/h.
    (27) Mfo=the organic volatile matter mass flow rate at 
the outlet of the control device, kg/h.
    (28) Mi=the mass of coating material, i, applied in a 
month, kg.
    (29) Mij=the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, 
or other non-solids-containing coating material, j, added to solids-
containing coating material, i, in a month, kg.
    (30) Mj=the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, 
or other non-solids-containing coating material (including H2O), j, 
applied in a month, kg.
    (31) Mkvr=the mass of volatile matter recovered in a 
month by solvent recovery device, k, kg.
    (32) MWi=the molecular weight of compound, i, in the 
vent gas, kg/kg-moles (mol).
    (33) Vi=the volume of coating material, i, l.
    (34) Vj=the volume of solvent, j, l.
    (35) Vsi=the volume fraction of solids in coating, i, l/
l.
    (36) n=the number of organic compounds in the vent gas.
    (37) p=the number of different coating materials applied in a 
month.
    (38) q=the number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, 
diluents, or other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a 
month.
    (39) s=the number of solvent recovery devices used to comply with 
the standard of Sec. 63.5120 of this subpart, in the facility.
    (40) w=the number of always-controlled coil coating stations in the 
facility.
    (41) wi=the number of intermittently-controllable coil 
coating stations in the facility.
    (42) x=the number of uncontrolled coil coating stations in the 
facility.
    (43) Qsd=the volumetric flow rate of gases entering or 
exiting the control device, as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 
or 2G, dry standard cubic meters (dscm)/h.
    (44) R=the overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
    (45) Rv=the organic volatile matter collection and 
recovery efficiency, percent.
    (46) 0.0416=conversion factor for molar volume, kg-moles per cubic 
meter (mol/m\3\) (@ 293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury 
(mmHg)).

Emission Standards and Compliance Dates


Sec. 63.5120  What emission standards must I meet?

    (a) Each coil coating affected source must limit emissions to:
    (1) No more than 2 percent of the organic HAP applied for the 
month; or
    (2) No more than 0.029 kg of HAP per liter of solids applied for 
the month.
    (b) You must demonstrate compliance with one of these standards by 
following one of the procedures in Sec. 63.5170.


Sec. 63.5130  When must I comply?

    (a) Your compliance date is 3 years after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (b) If you own or operate a new affected source subject to the 
provisions of this subpart, you must comply immediately upon start-up 
of the affected source, or by [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later.
    (c) Affected sources which have undergone reconstruction are 
subject to the requirements for new affected sources.

General Requirements for Compliance With the Emission Standards and 
for Monitoring and Performance Tests


Sec. 63.5140  What general requirements must I meet to comply with the 
standards?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the standards in this subpart at 
all times, except during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction 
of any capture system and control device used to comply with this 
subpart. If you are complying with the emission standards of this 
subpart without the use of a capture system and control device, you 
must be in compliance with the standards at all times, including 
periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (b) Table 1 of this subpart provides cross references to subpart A 
of this part, indicating the applicability of the General Provisions 
requirements to this subpart.


Sec. 63.5150  What monitoring must I do?

    (a) To demonstrate continuing compliance with the standards, you 
must monitor and inspect each capture system and each control device 
required to comply with Sec. 63.5120 following the date on which the 
initial performance test of a control device is completed. You must 
install and operate the monitoring equipment as specified in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Bypass monitoring. If you operate coil coating lines with 
intermittently-controllable work stations, you must follow at least one 
of the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section 
for each curing oven associated with these work stations to monitor for 
potential bypass of the control device:
    (i) Flow control position indicator. Install, calibrate, maintain, 
and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications a flow 
control position indicator that provides a record indicating whether 
the exhaust stream from the curing oven is directed to the control 
device or is diverted from the control device. The time and flow 
control position must be recorded at least once per hour, as well as 
every time the flow direction is changed. The flow control position 
indicator must be

[[Page 44629]]

installed at the entrance to any bypass line that could divert the 
exhaust stream away from the 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 when the control device is in operation; a visual 
inspection of the seal or closure mechanism will be performed at least 
once every month to ensure that the valve or damper is maintained in 
the closed position, and the exhaust stream is not diverted through the 
bypass line.
    (iii) Valve closure continuous monitoring. Ensure that any bypass 
line valve or damper is in the closed position through continuous 
monitoring of valve position when the control device is in operation. 
The monitoring system must be inspected 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 coil coating line is stopped when flow is diverted away from 
the control device to any bypass line when the control device is in 
operation. The automatic shutdown system must be inspected at least 
once every month to verify that it will detect diversions of flow and 
shut down operations.
    (2) Continuous emission monitoring. If you are demonstrating 
continuous compliance with the standards in Sec. 63.5120 through 
continuous emission monitoring of a control device, you must install, 
calibrate, operate, and maintain continuous emission monitors to 
measure the total organic volatile matter concentration at both the 
control device inlet and the outlet, and you must continuously monitor 
flow rate.
    (i) All continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) must comply 
with performance specification 8 or 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as 
appropriate for the detection principle you choose. The requirements of 
40 CFR part 60, procedure 1, appendix F must also be followed. In 
conducting the quarterly audits of the monitors as required by 
procedure 1, appendix F, you must use compounds representative of the 
gaseous emission stream being controlled.
    (ii) As specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii), each CEMS and each flow 
rate monitor must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation 
(sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15-minute 
period. Information which must be determined for recordkeeping 
purposes, as required by Sec. 63.5190(a)(1)(i) includes:
    (A) The hourly average of all recorded readings;
    (B) The daily average of all recorded readings for each operating 
day; and
    (C) The 30-day average for each 30-day period during the semiannual 
reporting period.
    (3) Temperature monitoring of oxidizers. If you are complying with 
the requirements of the standards in Sec. 63.5120 through the use of an 
oxidizer and demonstrating continuous compliance through monitoring of 
an oxidizer operating parameter, you must:
    (i) Determine the value of the oxidizer operating parameter during 
the initial performance test as specified in Sec. 63.5160(d)(3).
    (ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate temperature 
monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications. The 
calibration of the chart recorder, data logger, or temperature 
indicator must be verified every 3 months; or the chart recorder, data 
logger, or temperature indicator must be replaced. You must replace the 
equipment either if you choose not to perform the calibration, or if 
the equipment cannot be calibrated properly.
    (iii) For an oxidizer other than a catalytic oxidizer, install, 
calibrate, operate, and maintain a temperature monitoring device 
equipped with a continuous recorder. The device must have an accuracy 
of 1 percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees 
Celsius, or 1  deg.Celsius, whichever is greater. The 
thermocouple or temperature sensor must be installed in the combustion 
chamber at a location in the combustion zone.
    (iv) For a catalytic oxidizer, install, calibrate, operate, and 
maintain a temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous 
recorder. The device must be capable of monitoring temperature with an 
accuracy of 1 percent of the temperature being monitored in 
degrees Celsius, or 1 degree Celsius, whichever is greater. 
The thermocouple or temperature sensor must be installed in the vent 
stream at the nearest feasible point to the inlet and outlet of the 
catalyst bed. Calculate the temperature rise across the catalyst.
    (4) Capture system monitoring. If you are complying with the 
requirements of the standards in Sec. 63.5120 through the use of a 
capture system and control device, you must submit a monitoring plan 
containing the information specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (ii) 
of this section. You must monitor the capture system in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section. You must submit the monitoring 
plan to the Administrator with the compliance status report required by 
Sec. 63.9(h).
    (i) The monitoring plan must identify the operating parameter to be 
monitored to ensure that the capture efficiency measured during the 
initial compliance test is maintained, explain why this parameter is 
appropriate for demonstrating ongoing compliance, and identify the 
specific monitoring procedures.
    (ii) The plan also must set the operating parameter value, or range 
of values, that demonstrate compliance with the standards in 
Sec. 63.5120. The specified operating parameter and the specified range 
must represent the conditions indicative of proper operation and 
maintenance of the capture system.
    (iii) You must conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan 
submitted to the Administrator unless comments received from the 
Administrator require an alternate monitoring scheme.
    (b) Any deviation from the required operating parameters which are 
monitored in accordance with paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section, 
unless otherwise excused, will be considered a deviation from the 
operating limit.

 Table 1 to Sec.  63.5150.--Control Device Monitoring Requirements Index
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If you operate a coil coating line and
          have the following:                     Then you must:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Intermittently controlled work       Monitor parameters related to
 station.                                 possible exhaust flow through
                                          any bypass to a control device
                                          (Sec.  63.5150(a)(1)).
(2) Continuous emission monitor........  Operate continuous emission
                                          monitors and perform a
                                          quarterly audit (Sec.
                                          63.5150(a)(2)).
(3) Oxidizer...........................  Monitor oxidizer operating
                                          parameters and calibrate
                                          oxidizer temperature sensors
                                          quarterly (Sec.
                                          63.5150(a)(3)).
(4) Capture system.....................  Monitor capture system
                                          operating parameters (Sec.
                                          63.5150(a)(4)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 63.5160  What performance tests must I complete?

    (a) If you use a control device to comply with the requirements of 
Sec. 63.5120, you are not required to conduct a performance test to 
demonstrate compliance if one or more of the criteria in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (3) of this section are met:
    (1) A control device that is in operation prior to July 18, 2000 
does not need to be tested if:

[[Page 44630]]

    (i) It is equipped with continuous emission monitors for 
determining inlet and outlet total organic volatile matter 
concentration, and capture efficiency has been determined in accordance 
with the requirements of this subpart, such that an overall HAP control 
efficiency can be calculated; and
    (ii) The continuous emission monitors are used to demonstrate 
continuous compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(2); or
    (2) You have received a waiver of performance testing; or
    (3) The control device is a solvent recovery system and you choose 
to comply by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance.
    (b) Organic HAP content. You must determine the organic HAP weight 
fraction of each coating material applied by following one of the 
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) Method 311. You may test the material in accordance with Method 
311 of appendix A of this part. The Method 311 determination may be 
performed by the manufacturer of the material and the results provided 
to you. The organic HAP content must be calculated according to the 
criteria and procedures in paragraph (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 
section. If these values cannot be determined using Method 311, you 
must submit an alternative technique for determining their values for 
approval by the Administrator. The recovery efficiency of the technique 
must be determined for all of the target organic HAP and a correction 
factor, if necessary, must be determined and applied.
    (i) Count only those organic HAP that are measured to be present at 
greater than or equal to 0.1 weight percent for carcinogens and greater 
than or equal to 1.0 weight percent for noncarcinogens. Do not count 
any organic HAP that is measured to be present at less than 0.1 weight 
percent for carcinogens and less than 1.0 weight percent for 
noncarcinogens.
    (ii) The weight fraction of each organic HAP measured to be present 
at greater than or equal to 0.1 weight percent for carcinogens and 
greater than or equal to 1.0 weight percent for noncarcinogens shall be 
expressed as a value truncated four places after the decimal point.
    (iii) Calculate the weight fraction of organic HAP in the tested 
material by summing the counted individual organic HAP weight 
fractions. The total HAP content shall be expressed as a value 
truncated three places after the decimal point.
    (2) Method 24. You must determine the volatile matter content of 
each coating material applied. You may determine the volatile matter 
weight fraction using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or an EPA 
approved alternative method, or you may use formulation data. The 
Method 24 determination may be performed by the manufacturer of the 
material and the results provided to you. Alternatively, you may rely 
on volatile matter content data provided by material suppliers. In the 
event of any inconsistency between the formulation data and the results 
of Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, the Method 24 results will 
govern.
    (3) Formulation data. You may use formulation data. Formulation 
data may be provided to you by the manufacturer of the coating 
material. In the event of any inconsistency between the Method 311 of 
appendix A of this part test data and a facility's formulation data, 
the Method 311 test data will govern. Formulation data may be used 
provided that the information represents all organic HAP present at a 
level greater than 0.1 percent for carcinogens and greater than 1.0 
percent for noncarcinogens in any raw material used, weighted by the 
mass fraction of each raw material used in the material.
    (c) Solids content. You must determine the solids content of each 
coating material applied. You may determine the volume solids content 
using ASTM D2697-86 or ASTM D6093-97, or an EPA approved alternative 
method. The ASTM D2697-86 or ASTM D6093-97 determination may be 
performed by the manufacturer of the material and the results provided 
to you. Alternatively, you may rely on formulation data provided by 
material providers for your volume solids determination.
    (d) Destruction efficiency of oxidizer. If you use an oxidizer to 
comply with the standard in Sec. 63.5120, you must conduct a 
performance test to establish the destruction efficiency of the 
oxidizer according to the methods and procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) 
and (2) of this section. Oxidizer inlet and outlet testing to determine 
control efficiency must be conducted simultaneously. You must establish 
the associated combustion zone temperature for a thermal oxidizer and 
the associated catalyst bed inlet temperature for a catalytic oxidizer 
according to the procedures in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (1) An initial performance test to establish the destruction 
efficiency of an oxidizer must be conducted and the data reduced in 
accordance with the following methods and procedures:
    (i) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used for 
sample and velocity traverses to determine sampling locations.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 
is used to determine gas volumetric flow rate.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, used for 
gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight.
    (iv) Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine 
stack gas moisture.
    (v) Methods for determining gas volumetric flow rate, dry molecular 
weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as applicable, during 
each test run, as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this section.
    (vi) Method 25 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine 
total gaseous non-methane organic matter concentration, except as 
provided in paragraphs (d)(1)(vi)(A) through (C) of this section. You 
must submit notification of the intended test method to the 
Administrator for approval along with notification of the performance 
test required under Sec. 63.7(c). You may use Method 25A of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A, if:
    (A) An exhaust gas volatile organic matter concentration of 50 
parts per million by volume (ppmv) or less is required to comply with 
the standards in Sec. 63.5120; or
    (B) The volatile organic matter concentration at the inlet to the 
control system and the required level of control are such that result 
in exhaust gas volatile organic matter concentrations of 50 ppmv or 
less; or
    (C) Because of the high efficiency of the control device, the 
anticipated volatile organic matter concentration at the control device 
exhaust is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of inlet concentration.
    (vii) Each performance test must consist of three separate runs, 
except as provided by Sec. 63.7(e)(3); each run must be conducted for 
at least 1 hour under the conditions that exist when the affected 
source is operating under normal operating conditions. For the purpose 
of determining volatile organic matter concentrations and mass flow 
rates, the average of the results of all runs will apply.
    (viii) For each run, determine the volatile organic matter mass 
flow rates using Equation 1:

[[Page 44631]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.033

    (ix) For each run, determine the emission control device efficiency 
using Equation 2. The control device efficiency is determined as the 
average, E, of the three runs:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.034

    (2) You must record such process information as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions during the performance test. Operations during 
periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction will not constitute 
representative conditions for the purpose of a performance test.
    (3) For the purpose of determining the value of the oxidizer 
operating parameter that will demonstrate continuing compliance, the 
time-weighted average of the values recorded during the performance 
test will be computed. For an oxidizer other than catalytic oxidizer, 
you must establish as the operating parameter the minimum combustion 
temperature in the combustion chamber at a location in the combustion 
zone. For a catalytic oxidizer, you must establish as the operating 
parameter the minimum gas temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed. 
These minimum temperatures are the operating parameter values that 
demonstrate continuing compliance with the requirements of 
Sec. 63.5120.
    (e) Capture efficiency. If you are required to determine capture 
efficiency to meet the requirements of Sec. 63.5170(e)(2), (f)(1) 
through (2), (h)(2) through (4), or (i)(2) through (3), you must 
determine capture efficiency using the procedures in paragraph (e)(1) 
or (2) of this section, as applicable.
    (1) For PTE and TTE that meet the criteria for total enclosures, 
capture efficiency will be assumed as 100 percent. Method 204 of 40 CFR 
part 51, appendix M (or an EPA approved alternative method), must be 
used to confirm that an enclosure meets the requirements for PTE.
    (2) For enclosures that do not meet the criteria for total 
enclosures, the capture efficiency will be determined according to the 
protocol specified in Method 204A through F of 40 CFR part 51, appendix 
M. You may exclude never-controlled work stations from such capture 
efficiency determinations.
    (3) As an alternative to the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(e)(1) and (2) of this section, if you are required to conduct a 
capture efficiency test, you may use any capture efficiency protocol 
and test methods that satisfy the criteria of either the Data Quality 
Objective or the Lower Confidence Limit approach as described in 
appendix A to subpart KK of this part. You may exclude never-controlled 
work stations from such capture efficiency determinations.

      Table 1 to Sec.  63.5160.--Required Performance Test Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you control HAP on your coil coating
                line by:                            You must:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limiting HAP or volatile matter content  Determine the HAP or volatile
 of coatings.                             matter and solids content of
                                          coating materials according to
                                          the procedures in Sec.
                                          63.5160(b) and (c).
Using an add-on control device.........  Conduct performance tests to
                                          determine: (1) the destruction
                                          efficiency of oxidizers
                                          according to Sec.  63.5160(d),
                                          and (2) capture efficiency of
                                          capture systems according to
                                          Sec.  63.5160(e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requirements for Showing Compliance


Sec. 63.5170  How do I demonstrate compliance with the standards?

    (a) As-purchased compliant coatings. If you elect to use coatings 
that individually meet the limits in Sec. 63.5120(a)(2) as-purchased, 
to which you will not add HAP during distribution or application, you 
must demonstrate that each coating material applied during the month 
contains no more than 0.029 kg HAP per liter of solids on an as-
purchased basis.
    (1) Determine the organic HAP content for each coating material in 
accordance with Sec. 63.5160(b) and the volume solids content in 
accordance with Sec. 63.5160(c).
    (2) Combine these results using Equation 3 and compare the result 
to the allowable limit to demonstrate that each coating material 
contains no more organic HAP than the allowable limit.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.035

    (b) As-applied compliant coatings. You must demonstrate that each 
coating material applied contains no more than 0.029 kg of organic HAP 
per liter of solids applied in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, or demonstrate that the monthly average of all coating 
materials applied contain no more than 0.029 kg of organic HAP per 
liter of solids applied in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) Demonstrate that the organic HAP content on the basis of solids 
applied for each coating material applied, HSi, 
is less than 0.029 kg HAP per liter solids applied as determined by 
Equation 4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.036

    (2) Demonstrate that the monthly average organic HAP content on the 
basis of solids applied, HS, of all coating materials is 
less than 0.029 kg HAP per liter solids applied as determined by 
Equation 5:

[[Page 44632]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.037

    (c) Capture and control to reduce emissions to no more than the 
allowable limit. If you use one or more capture systems and one or more 
control devices and demonstrate a facilitywide average overall organic 
HAP control efficiency of at least 98 percent for each month, you must 
follow one of the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) If the affected source uses one compliance procedure and has 
only always-controlled coil coating stations, then you must demonstrate 
compliance with the provisions of paragraph (e) of this section when 
emissions from the affected source are controlled by one or more 
solvent recovery device.
    (2) If the affected source uses one compliance procedure and has 
only always-controlled coil coating stations, then you must demonstrate 
compliance with the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section when 
emissions are controlled by one or more oxidizers.
    (3) If the affected source operates both solvent recovery and 
oxidizer control devices, one or more never-controlled coil coating 
stations, or one or more intermittently-controllable coil coating 
stations, or uses more than one compliance procedure, then you must 
demonstrate compliance with the provisions of paragraph (g) of this 
section.
    (d) Capture and control to achieve the emission rate limit. If you 
use one or more capture systems and one or more control devices and 
limit the facility organic HAP emission rate to no more than 0.029 kg 
organic HAP emitted per liter of solids applied on a monthly average 
as-applied basis, then you must follow one of the procedures in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) If you use one or more solvent recovery devices, you must 
demonstrate compliance with the provisions in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (2) If you use one or more oxidizers, you must demonstrate 
compliance with the provisions in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (3) You must demonstrate compliance with the provisions in 
paragraph (g) of this section if you use:
    (i) Both solvent recovery and oxidizer control devices.
    (ii) One or more never-controlled work stations.
    (iii) One or more intermittently controlled work stations.
    (e) Use of solvent recovery to demonstrate compliance. If you use 
one or more solvent recovery devices to control emissions from always-
controlled coil coating stations, you must show compliance by following 
the procedures in either paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section:
    (1) Liquid-liquid material balance. Perform a liquid-liquid 
material balance for each and every month as specified in paragraphs 
(e)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section and use the applicable equations 
in paragraphs (e)(1)(viii) and (ix) of this section to convert the data 
to units of this standard. All determinations of quantity of coating 
and composition of coating must be determined at a time and location in 
the process after all ingredients (including any dilution solvent) have 
been added to the coating, or appropriate adjustments must be made to 
account for any ingredients added after the amount of coating has been 
determined.
    (i) Measure the mass of each coating material applied on the coil 
coating station or group of coil coating stations controlled by one or 
more solvent recovery devices during the month.
    (ii) If demonstrating compliance with the facility organic HAP 
emission rate based on solids applied, determine the organic HAP 
content of each coating material applied during the month following the 
procedure in Sec. 63.5160(b).
    (iii) Determine the volatile matter content of each coating 
material applied during the month following the procedure in 
Sec. 63.5160(c).
    (iv) If demonstrating compliance with the facility organic HAP 
emission rate based on solids applied, determine the solids content of 
each coating material applied during the month following the procedure 
in Sec. 63.5160(c).
    (v) For each solvent recovery device used to comply with 
Sec. 63.5120(a), install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to 
the manufacturer's specifications, a device that indicates the 
cumulative amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery 
device on a monthly basis. The device must be initially certified by 
the manufacturer to be accurate to within 2.0 percent.
    (vi) For each solvent recovery device used to comply with 
Sec. 63.5120(a), measure the amount of volatile matter recovered for 
the month.
    (vii) Recovery efficiency, Rv. Calculate the 
facilitywide average volatile organic matter collection and recovery 
efficiency, Rv, using Equation 6:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.038

    (viii) Organic HAP emitted, He. Calculate the facility 
organic HAP emitted during the month, He, using Equation 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.039

    (ix) Facility organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L. 
Calculate the facility organic HAP emission rate based on solids 
applied, L, using Equation 8:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.040

    (x) Compare actual performance to performance required by 
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with 
Sec. 63.5120(a) if:
    (A) The facilitywide average volatile organic matter collection and 
recovery efficiency, Rv, is 98 percent or greater; or

[[Page 44633]]

    (B) The facility organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, 
L, is 0.029 kg organic HAP per liter solids applied or less.
    (2) Continuous emission monitoring of control device performance. 
Use continuous emission monitors to demonstrate recovery efficiency, 
conduct an initial performance test of capture efficiency and 
volumetric flow rate, and continuously monitor a site specific 
operating parameter to ensure that capture efficiency and volumetric 
flow rate are maintained following the procedures in paragraphs (e)(2) 
(i) through (xi) of this section:
    (i) Control device control efficiency, E. For each control device 
used to comply with Sec. 63.5120(a), continuously monitor the gas 
stream entering and exiting the control device to determine the total 
volatile organic matter mass flow rate (e.g., by determining the 
concentration of the vent gas in grams per cubic meter and the 
volumetric flow rate in cubic meters per second, such that the total 
volatile organic matter mass flow rate in grams per second can be 
calculated using Equation 1 of Sec. 63.5160, such that the percent 
control efficiency, E, of the control device can be calculated for each 
month using Equation 2 of Sec. 63.5160.
    (ii) Determine the percent capture efficiency, F, for each coil 
coating station in accordance with Sec. 63.5160(e).
    (iii) Capture efficiency monitoring. Whenever a coil coating 
station is operated, continuously monitor the operating parameter 
established in accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(4).
    (iv) Control efficiency, R. Calculate the facilitywide average 
overall organic HAP control efficiency, R, achieved for each month 
using Equation 9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.041

    (v) If demonstrating compliance with the facility organic HAP 
emission rate based on solids applied, measure the mass of each coating 
material applied on each coil coating station during the month.
    (vi) If demonstrating compliance with the facility organic HAP 
emission rate based on solids applied, determine the organic HAP 
content of each coating material applied during the month in accordance 
with Sec. 63.5160(b).
    (vii) If demonstrating compliance with the facility organic HAP 
emission rate based on solids applied, determine the solids content of 
each coating material applied during the month in accordance with 
Sec. 63.5160(c).
    (viii) If demonstrating compliance with the facility organic HAP 
emission rate based on solids applied, calculate the organic HAP 
emitted during the month, He, for each month using Equation 
10:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.042

    (ix) Facility organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L. 
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L, 
using Equation 8 of this section.
    (x) Compare actual performance to performance required by 
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with 
Sec. 63.5120(a) if each capture system operating parameter is operated 
at an average value greater than or less than (as appropriate) the 
operating parameter value established in accordance with Sec. 63.5150 
for each 3-hour period; and
    (A) The facilitywide average overall organic HAP control 
efficiency, R, is 98 percent or greater; or
    (B) The facility organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, 
L, is 0.029 kg organic HAP per liter solids applied or less.
    (f) Use of oxidation to demonstrate compliance. If you use one or 
more oxidizers to control emissions from always controlled coil coating 
stations, you must follow the procedures in either paragraph (f) (1) or 
(2) of this section:
    (1) Continuous monitoring of capture system and control device 
operating parameters. Demonstrate initial compliance through 
performance tests of capture efficiency and control device efficiency 
and continuing compliance through continuous monitoring of capture 
system and control device operating parameters as specified in 
paragraphs (f)(1) (i) through (xi) of this section:
    (i) For each oxidizer used to comply with Sec. 63.5120(a), 
determine the oxidizer control efficiency, E, using the procedure in 
Sec. 63.5160(d).
    (ii) Destruction efficiency monitoring. Whenever a coil coating 
station is operated, continuously monitor the operating parameter 
established in accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(3).
    (iii) Determine the capture system capture efficiency, F, for each 
coil coating station in accordance with Sec. 63.5160(e).
    (iv) Capture efficiency monitoring. Whenever a coil coating station 
is operated, continuously monitor the operating parameter established 
in accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(4).
    (v) Calculate the facilitywide average overall organic HAP control 
efficiency, R, achieved using Equation 9 of this section.
    (vi) If demonstrating compliance with the facility organic HAP 
emission rate based on solids applied, measure the mass of each coating 
material applied on each coil coating station during the month.
    (vii) If demonstrating compliance with the facility organic HAP 
emission rate based on solids applied, determine the organic HAP 
content of each coating material applied during the month following the 
procedure in Sec. 63.5160(b).
    (viii) If demonstrating compliance with the facility organic HAP 
emission rate based on solids applied, determine

[[Page 44634]]

the solids content of each coating material applied during the month 
following the procedure in Sec. 63.5160(c).
    (ix) Organic HAP emitted, He. Calculate the organic HAP 
emitted during the month, He, for each month:
    (A) For each coil coating station and its associated oxidizer 
(EK*FA/100) 98, use Equation 10 of 
this section.
    (B) For each coil coating station and its associated oxidizer 
(EK*FA/100) >98, and you have CEMS data to 
support this calculated efficiency, use Equation 10 of this section.
    (C) For each coil coating station and its associated oxidizer 
(EK*FA/100) >98, for which you do not have CEMS 
data to support this calculated efficiency but have operated within its 
established operating parameter value, use Equation 11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.043

    (D) For periods when the oxidizer has not operated within its 
established operating parameter value, your control device efficiency 
is determined to be zero.
    (x) Facility organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L. 
If demonstrating compliance with the facility organic HAP emission rate 
based on solids applied, calculate the organic HAP emission rate based 
on solids applied, L, for each month using Equation 8 of this section.
    (xi) Compare actual performance to performance required by 
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with 
Sec. 63.5120(a) if each oxidizer is operated such that the average 
operating parameter value is greater than the operating parameter value 
established in Sec. 63.5150(a)(3) for each 3-hour period, and each 
capture system operating parameter is operated at an average value 
greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter 
value established in Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) for each 3-hour period; and
    (A) The facilitywide average overall organic HAP control 
efficiency, R, is 98 percent or greater; or
    (B) The facility organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, 
L, is 0.029 kg organic HAP per liter solids applied or less.
    (2) Continuous emission monitoring of control device performance. 
Use continuous emission monitors, conduct an initial performance test 
of capture efficiency, and continuously monitor a site specific 
operating parameter to ensure that capture efficiency is maintained. 
Compliance will be demonstrated in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of 
this section.
    (g) Combination of capture and control. You must demonstrate 
compliance according to the procedures in paragraphs (g) (1) through 
(8) of this section if both solvent recovery and oxidizer control 
devices, one or more never-controlled coil coating stations, one or 
more intermittently-controllable coil coating stations are operated, or 
more than one compliance procedure is used.
    (1) Solvent recovery system using liquid-liquid material balance 
compliance demonstration. For each solvent recovery system used to 
control one or more coil coating stations for which you choose to 
comply by means of a liquid-liquid material balance, you must determine 
the organic HAP emissions for those coil coating stations controlled by 
that solvent recovery system either:
    (i) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(1) (i) through (iii) and 
(e)(1) (v) through (viii) of this section if the coil coating stations 
controlled by that solvent recovery system are only always-controlled 
coil coating stations; or
    (ii) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(1) (ii) through (iii), 
(e)(1) (v) through (vi), and (h) of this section if the coil coating 
stations controlled by that solvent recovery system include one or more 
never-controlled or intermittently-controllable coil coating stations.
    (2) Solvent recovery system using performance test and continuous 
monitoring compliance demonstration. For each solvent recovery system 
used to control one or more coil coating stations for which you choose 
to comply by means of an initial test of capture efficiency, continuous 
emission monitoring of the control device, and continuous monitoring of 
a capture system operating parameter, you must:
    (i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent 
recovery system, monitor an operating parameter established in 
Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) to ensure that capture system efficiency is 
maintained; and
    (ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those coil coating 
stations served by each capture system delivering emissions to that 
solvent recovery system either:
    (A) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(2) (i) through (iii) and 
(e)(2) (v) through (viii) of this section if the coil coating stations 
served by that capture system are only always-controlled coil coating 
stations; or
    (B) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(2) (i) through (iii), (e)(2) 
(v) through (vii), and (h) of this section if the coil coating stations 
served by that capture system include one or more never-controlled or 
intermittently-controllable coil coating stations.
    (3) Oxidizer using performance test and continuous monitoring of 
operating parameters compliance demonstration. For each oxidizer used 
to control emissions from one or more coil coating station for which 
you choose to demonstrate compliance through performance tests of 
capture efficiency, control device efficiency, and continuing 
compliance through continuous monitoring of capture system and control 
device operating parameters, you must:
    (i) Monitor an operating parameter established in 
Sec. 63.5150(a)(3) to ensure that control device efficiency is 
maintained; and
    (ii) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer, 
monitor an operating parameter established in Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) to 
ensure capture efficiency; and
    (iii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those coil coating 
stations served by each capture system delivering emissions to that 
oxidizer either:
    (A) In accordance with paragraphs (f)(1) (i) through (v) and (ix) 
of this section if the coil coating stations served by that capture 
system are only always-controlled coil coating stations; or
    (B) In accordance with paragraphs (f)(1) (i) through (v), (ix), and 
(h) of this section if the coil coating stations served by that capture 
system include one or more never-controlled or intermittently-
controllable coil coating station.
    (4) Oxidizer using continuous emission monitoring compliance 
demonstration. For each oxidizer used to control emissions from one or 
more coil coating station for which you choose to demonstrate 
compliance through an initial capture efficiency

[[Page 44635]]

test, continuous emission monitoring of the control device, and 
continuous monitoring of a capture system operating parameter, you 
must:
    (i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer, 
monitor an operating parameter established in Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) to 
ensure capture efficiency; and
    (ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those coil coating 
stations served by each capture system delivering emissions to that 
oxidizer either:
    (A) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(2) (i) through (iii) and 
(e)(2) (v) through (viii) of this section if the coil coating stations 
served by that capture system are only always-controlled work stations; 
or
    (B) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(2) (i) through (iii), (e)(2) 
(v) through (vii), and (h) of this section if the coil coating stations 
served by that capture system include one or more never-controlled or 
intermittently-controllable coil coating station.
    (5) Uncontrolled coil coating stations. For uncontrolled coil 
coating stations, you must determine the organic HAP applied on those 
coil coating stations using Equation 12 of this section. The organic 
HAP emitted from an uncontrolled coil coating station is equal to the 
organic HAP applied on that coil coating station:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.044

    (6) If demonstrating compliance with the facility organic HAP 
emission rate based on solids applied, you must determine the solids 
content of each coating material applied during the month following the 
procedure in Sec. 63.5160(c).
    (7) Organic HAP emitted. You must determine the organic HAP 
emissions for the affected source for the month by summing all organic 
HAP emissions calculated according to paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2)(ii), 
(g)(3)(iii), (g)(4)(ii), and (g)(5) of this section.
    (8) Compare actual performance to performance required by 
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with 
Sec. 63.5120(a) for the month if all operating parameters required to 
be monitored under paragraphs (g) (2) through (4) of this section were 
maintained at the values established in Sec. 63.5150; and
    (i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
was not more than 0.029 kg HAP per liter of solids applied; or
    (ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
was not more than 2 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied by 
the affected source. You must determine the total mass of organic HAP 
applied by the affected source in the month using Equation 12 of this 
section.
    (h) Organic HAP emissions from intermittently-controllable or 
never-controlled coil coating stations. If you have been expressly 
referenced to this paragraph by paragraphs (g)(1)(ii), (g)(2)(ii)(B), 
(g)(3)(iii)(B), or (g)(4)(ii)(B) of this section for calculation 
procedures to determine organic HAP emissions, you must for your 
intermittently-controllable or never-controlled coil coating stations:
    (1) Determine the sum of the mass of all solids-containing coating 
materials which are applied on intermittently-controllable coil coating 
stations in bypass mode, and the mass of all solids-containing coating 
materials which are applied on never-controlled coil coating stations 
during the month, MBi.
    (2) Determine the sum of the mass of all solvents, thinners, 
reducers, diluents, or other nonsolids-containing coating materials 
which are applied on intermittently-controllable coil coating stations 
in bypass mode, and the mass of all solvents, thinners, reducers, 
diluents or other nonsolids-containing coating materials which are 
applied on never-controlled coil coating stations during the month, 
MBj.
    (3) Determine the sum of the mass of all solids-containing coating 
materials which are applied on intermittently-controllable coil coating 
stations in controlled mode, and the mass of all solids-containing 
coating materials which are applied on always-controlled coil coating 
stations during the month, MCi.
    (4) Determine the sum of the mass of all solvents, thinners, 
reducers, diluents, or other nonsolids-containing coating materials 
which are applied on intermittently-controllable coil coating stations 
in controlled mode, and the mass of all solvents, thinners, reducers, 
diluents, or other nonsolids-containing coating materials which are 
applied on always-controlled coil coating stations during the month, 
MCj.
    (5) Liquid-liquid material balance calculation of HAP emitted. For 
each coil coating station or group of coil coating stations for which 
you use the provisions of paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, you 
must calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 
13:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.045

    (6) Control efficiency calculation of HAP emitted. For each coil 
coating station or group of coil coating stations for which you use the 
provisions of paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(B), (g)(3)(iii)(B), or 
(g)(4)(ii)(B) of this section, you must calculate the organic HAP 
emitted during the month, He, as follows:
    (i) For each coil coating station and its associated control device 
(EK*FA/100)  98, use Equation 14:

[[Page 44636]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.046

    (ii) For each coil coating station and its associated oxidizer 
(EK*FA/100) > 98, and you have CEMS data to 
support this calculated efficiency, use Equation 14 of this section.
    (iii) For each coil coating station and its associated oxidizer 
(EK*FA/100) > 98, and you do not have CEMS data 
to support this calculated efficiency, use Equation 15:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY00.047


 Table 1 to Sec.  63.5170.--Compliance Demonstration Requirements Index
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you choose to demonstrate compliance
                  by:                    Then you must demonstrate that:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Use of ``as purchased'' compliant    Each coating material used does
 coatings.                                not exceed 0.029 kg HAP per
                                          liter solids, as purchased.
                                          Paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Use of ``as applied'' compliant      (i) Each coating material used
 coatings.                                does not exceed 0.029 kg HAP
                                          per liter solids on a monthly
                                          average as applied basis.
                                          Paragraphs (b)(1) of this
                                          section; or
                                         (ii) Monthly average of all
                                          coating materials used does
                                          not exceed 0.029 kg HAP per
                                          liter solids on a monthly
                                          average as applied basis.
                                          Paragraph (b)(2) of this
                                          section.
(3) Use of a control device............  Overall organic HAP control
                                          efficiency is equal to 98
                                          percent on a monthly basis.
                                          Paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) Use of a combination of compliant    Average equivalent emission
 coatings and control devices and         rate does not exceed 0.029 kg
 maintaining an acceptable equivalent     HAP per liter solids on a
 emission rate.                           monthly average as applied
                                          basis. Paragraph (d) of this
                                          section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reporting and Recordkeeping


Sec. 63.5180  What reports must I submit?

    (a) Submit the reports specified in paragraphs (b) through (i) of 
this section to the EPA Regional Office that serves the State or 
territory in which the affected source is located and to the delegated 
State agency:
    (b) You must submit an initial notification required in 
Sec. 63.9(b).
    (1) Initial notification for existing sources will be submitted no 
later than 2 years after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (2) Initial notification for new and reconstructed sources will be 
submitted as required by Sec. 63.9(b).
    (3) For the purpose of this subpart, a title V permit application 
may be used in lieu of the initial notification required under 
Sec. 63.9(b), provided the same information is contained in the permit 
application as required by Sec. 63.9(b), and the State to which the 
permit application has been submitted has an approved operating permit 
program under part 70 of this chapter and has received delegation of 
authority from the EPA.
    (4) Permit applications used in lieu of the initial notification 
required under Sec. 63.9(b) will be submitted by the same due dates as 
those specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section for the 
initial notifications.
    (c) You must submit a Notification of Performance Tests specified 
in Secs. 63.7 and 63.9(e) if you are complying with the emission 
standard using a control device. This notification and the site-
specific test plan required under Sec. 63.7(c)(2) must identify the 
operating parameter to be monitored to ensure that the capture 
efficiency measured during the performance test is maintained. You may 
consider the operating parameter identified in the site-specific test 
plan to be approved unless explicitly disapproved, or unless comments 
received from the Administrator require monitoring of an alternate 
parameter.
    (d) You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as 
specified in Sec. 63.9(h). You must submit the Notification of 
Compliance Status by 180 days after the compliance date specified in 
Sec. 63.5130.
    (e) You must submit performance test reports as specified in 
Sec. 63.10(d)(2) if you are using a control device to comply with the 
emission standards and you have not obtained a waiver from the 
performance test requirement.
    (f) You must submit start-up, shutdown, and malfunction reports as 
specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(5). Unless a control device is used to 
comply with this subpart, the provisions in subpart A of this part 
pertaining to start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions do not apply.
    (1) If your actions during a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction of 
an affected source (including actions taken to correct a malfunction) 
are not completely consistent with the procedures specified in the 
source's start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan specified in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3), you must state such information in the report. The 
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction report will consist of a letter 
containing the name, title, and signature of the responsible official 
who is certifying its accuracy, that will be submitted to the 
Administrator.
    (2) Separate start-up, shutdown, or malfunction reports are not 
required if the information is included in the report specified in 
paragraph (g) of this section.
    (g) You must submit semi-annual compliance reports containing the 
information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Compliance report dates.
    (i) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec. 63.5130(a) and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is 
the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the 
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.5130(a).
    (ii) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the 
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for 
your affected source in Sec. 63.5130(a).
    (iii) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual

[[Page 44637]]

reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (iv) Each subsequent 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.
    (v) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or part 71, and the permitting 
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports 
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 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 dates in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (2) The semi-annual compliance report must contain the following 
information:
    (i) Company name and address.
    (ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the 
report.
    (iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the 
reporting period.
    (iv) A statement that there were no deviations from the standards 
during the reporting period, and that no CEMS were inoperative, 
inactive, malfunctioning, out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted.
    (h) You must submit, for each deviation occurring at an affected 
source where you are not using CEMS to comply with the standards in 
this subpart, the semi-annual compliance report containing the 
information in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section and 
the information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (3) Information on the number, duration, and cause for monitor 
downtime incidents (including unknown cause other than downtime 
associated with zero and span and other daily calibration checks, if 
applicable).
    (i) You must submit, for each deviation occurring at an affected 
source where you are using CEMS to comply with the standards in this 
subpart, the semi-annual compliance report containing the information 
in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, and the 
information in paragraphs (i)(1) through (12) of this section:
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (2) The date and time that each CEMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (3) The date and time that each CEMS was out-of-control, including 
the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
    (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of start-up, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period (recorded in minutes for opacity, hours for gases, and 
in the averaging period specified in the regulation for other types of 
standards), and the total duration as a percent of the total source 
operating time during that reporting period.
    (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to start-up, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of CEMS downtime during the 
reporting period (recorded in minutes for opacity, hours for gases, and 
in the averaging period specified in the regulation for other types of 
standards), and the total duration of CEMS downtime as a percent of the 
total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (8) A breakdown of the total duration of CEMS downtime during the 
reporting period into periods that are due to monitoring equipment 
malfunctions, nonmonitoring equipment malfunctions, quality assurance/
quality control calibrations, other known causes, and other unknown 
causes.
    (9) A brief description of the metal coil coating line.
    (10) The monitoring equipment manufacturer(s) and model number(s).
    (11) The date of the latest CEMS certification or audit.
    (12) A description of any changes in CEMS, processes, or controls 
since the last reporting period.


Sec. 63.5190  What records must I maintain?

    (a) You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (a) and 
(b) of this section in accordance with Sec. 63.10(b)(1):
    (1) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(2) of all measurements 
needed to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, including:
    (i) Continuous emission monitor data in accordance with 
Sec. 63.5150(a)(2);
    (ii) Control device and capture system operating parameter data in 
accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(1), (3), and (4);
    (iii) Organic HAP content data for the purpose of demonstrating 
compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.5160(b);
    (iv) Volatile matter and solids content data for the purpose of 
demonstrating compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.5160(c);
    (v) Overall control efficiency determination using capture 
efficiency tests and oxidizer destruction efficiency tests in 
accordance with Sec. 63.5160(d), (e), and (f); and
    (vi) Material usage, HAP usage, volatile matter usage, and solids 
usage and compliance demonstrations using these data in accordance with 
Sec. 63.5170(a), (b), and (d);
    (2) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(3); and
    (3) Additional records specified in Sec. 63.10(c) for each 
continuous monitoring system operated by the owner or operator in 
accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(2).
    (b) Maintain records of all liquid-liquid material balances that 
are performed in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.5170.

Delegation of Authority


Sec. 63.5200  What authorities may be delegated to the States?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the EPA, or 
a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If 
the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or 
tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and 
enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to 
find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal 
agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part 
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 
section are retained by the EPA Administrator and not transferred to 
the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) Authority which will not be delegated to States, local, or 
tribal agencies:
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limitations in 
Sec. 63.5120;
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.5160;
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.5150; and

[[Page 44638]]

    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Secs. 63.5180 and 63.5190.


Secs. 63.5201-63.5209  [Reserved.]

Table 1 to Subpart SSSS.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart
                                  SSSS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable to
 General provisions reference      subpart SSSS         Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1(a)(1)-(4)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.1(a)(5)..............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.1(a)(6)-(8)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.1(a)(9)..............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.1(a)(10)-(14)........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.1(b)(1)..............  No...............  Subpart SSSS
                                                    specifies
                                                    applicability.
Sec.  63.1(b)(2)-(3)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.1(c)(1)..............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.1(c)(2)..............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.1(c)(3)..............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.1(c)(4)..............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.1(c)(5)..............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.1(d).................  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.1(e).................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.2....................  Yes..............  Additional
                                                    definitions in
                                                    subpart SSSS.
Sec.  63.3(a)-(c).............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.4(a)(1)-(3)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.4(a)(4)..............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.4(a)(5)..............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.4(b)-(c).............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.5(a)(1)-(2)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.5(b)(1)..............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.5(b)(2)..............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.5(b)(3)-(6)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.5(c).................  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.5(d).................  Yes..............  Only total HAP
                                                    emissions in terms
                                                    of tons per year are
                                                    required for Sec.
                                                    63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H).
Sec.  63.5(e).................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.5(f).................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.6(a).................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.6(b)(1)-(5)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.6(b)(6)..............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.6(b)(7)..............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.6(c)(1)-(2)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.6(c)(3)-(4)..........  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.6(c)(5)..............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.6(d).................  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.6(e).................  Yes..............  Provisions in Sec.
                                                    63.6(e)(3)
                                                    pertaining to start-
                                                    ups, shutdowns,
                                                    malfunctions, and
                                                    CEMS only apply if
                                                    an add-on control
                                                    system is used.
Sec.  63.6(f).................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.6(g).................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.6(h).................  No...............  Subpart SSSS does not
                                                    require continuous
                                                    opacity monitoring
                                                    systems (COMS).
Sec.  63.6(i)(1)-(14).........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.6(i)(15).............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.6(i)(16).............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.6(j).................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.7....................  Yes..............  With the exception of
                                                    Sec.  63.7(a)(2)(vii
                                                    ) and (viii), which
                                                    are reserved.
Sec.  63.8(a)(1)-(2)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.8(a)(3)..............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.8(a)(4)..............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.8(b).................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)-(3)..........  Yes..............  Provisions only apply
                                                    if an add-on control
                                                    system is used.
Sec.  63.8(c)(4)..............  No.                .....................
Sec.  63.8(c)(5)..............  No...............  Subpart SSSS does not
                                                    require COMS.
Sec.  63.8(c)(6)..............  Yes..............  Provisions only apply
                                                    if CEMS are used.
Sec.  63.8(c)(7)-(8)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.8(d)-(e).............  Yes..............  Provisions only apply
                                                    if CEMS are used.
Sec.  63.8(f)(1)-(5)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.8(f)(6)..............  No...............  Section 63.8(f)(6)
                                                    provisions are not
                                                    applicable because
                                                    subpart SSSS does
                                                    not require CEMS.
Sec.  63.8(g)(1)-(4)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.8(g)(5)..............  No.                .....................
Sec.  63.9(a).................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.9(b)(1)..............  Yes.               .....................

[[Page 44639]]

 
Sec.  63.9(b)(2)..............  Yes..............  With the exception
                                                    that Sec.
                                                    63.5180(b)(1)
                                                    provides 2 years
                                                    after the proposal
                                                    date for submittal
                                                    of the initial
                                                    notification.
Sec.  63.9(b)(3)-(5)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.9(c)-(e).............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.9(f).................  No...............  Subpart SSSS does not
                                                    require opacity and
                                                    visible emissions
                                                    observations.
Sec.  63.9(g).................  No...............  Provisions for COMS
                                                    are not applicable.
Sec.  63.9(h)(1)-(3)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.9(h)(4)..............  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.9(h)(5)-(6)..........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.9(i).................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.9(j).................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.10(a)................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.10(b)(1)-(3).........  Yes..............  Provisions pertaining
                                                    to start-ups,
                                                    shutdowns,
                                                    malfunctions, and
                                                    maintenance of air
                                                    pollution control
                                                    equipment and to
                                                    CEMS do not apply
                                                    unless an add-on
                                                    control system is
                                                    used. Also,
                                                    paragraphs (b)(2)
                                                    (vi), (x), (xi), and
                                                    (xiii) do not apply.
Sec.  63.10(c)(1).............  No...............  .....................
Sec.  63.10(c)(2)-(4).........  No...............  Reserved.
Sec.  63.10(c)(5)-(8).........  No.                .....................
Sec.  63.10(c)(9).............  No.                Reserved.
Sec.  63.10(c)(10)-(15).......  No.                .....................
Sec.  63.10(d)(1)-(2).........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.10(d)(3).............  No...............  Subpart SSSS does not
                                                    require opacity and
                                                    visible emissions
                                                    observations.
Sec.  63.10(d)(4)-(5).........  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.10(e)................  No.                .....................
Sec.  63.10(f)................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.11...................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.12...................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.13...................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.14...................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.  63.15...................  Yes.               .....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 00-17614 Filed 7-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P