[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78612-78663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31420]



[[Page 78611]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 63, 264, and 265



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 
Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 78612]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63, 264, and 265

[FRL-7418-4]
RIN 2060-AG99


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 
Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

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

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 7, 2003.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing, they should do so by January 3, 2003. If requested, a 
public hearing will be held approximately 15 days after the date of 
publication of this document in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, written comments should be 
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Office of Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center (6102T), Attention Docket Number A-2001-
22, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. In 
person or by courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: 
Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102T), 
Attention Docket Number A-2001-22, U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Room B102, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy 
also be sent to the contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at our 
Office of Administration auditorium in Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina. You should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer 
Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539-03), U.S. EPA, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 
541-7946 to request to speak at a public hearing or to find out if a 
hearing will be held.
    Docket. Docket No. A-2001-22 contains supporting information used 
in developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S. 
EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460 in Room B108, 
and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Salman, Coatings and 
Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539-03), U.S. 
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-0859; 
facsimile number (919) 541-5689; electronic mail (e-mail) address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted 
by 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[reg] file format. All comments and data submitted in 
electronic form must note the docket number: A-2001-22. No confidential 
business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic 
comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Mr. David Salman, c/o OAQPS 
Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 
NC 27711. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to 
the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no 
claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received 
by the EPA, the information may be made available to the public without 
further notice to the commenter.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. 
Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards 
Division (C539-03), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number (919) 541-7946. Persons interested in attending 
the public hearing should also contact Ms. Eck to verify the time, 
date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide 
interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments 
concerning these proposed emission standards.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the 
information considered by the EPA in the development of this 
rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added 
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to 
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify 
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the 
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards 
and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the 
record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the 
CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this 
rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be 
mailed on request from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center by calling (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying docket materials.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this proposed rule will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature 
by the EPA Administrator, a copy of the proposed rule will be posted on 
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated 
rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more 
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at 
(919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are listed in Table 1.

[[Page 78613]]



                Table 1.--Categories and Entities Potentially Regulated by the Proposed Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                         NAICS         Examples of potentially regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................................       336111  Automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants,
                                                       336112   producers of automobile and light-duty truck
                                                       336211   bodies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Background
    A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. What are the health effects associated with HAP emissions 
from automobile and light-duty truck surface coating?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. What source categories are affected by this proposed rule?
    B. What is the relationship to other rules?
    C. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the 
emissions?
    D. What is the affected source?
    E. What are the emission limits, operating limits, and other 
standards?
    F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
    G. What are the continuous compliance provisions?
    H. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
    A. How did we select the source category?
    B. How did we select the regulated pollutants?
    C. How did we select the affected source?
    D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed 
standards for existing and new sources?
    E. How did we select the format of the proposed standards?
    F. How did we select the testing and initial compliance 
requirements?
    G. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
    H. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements?
    I. How did we select the compliance date?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy 
impacts?
    E. Can we achieve the goals of the proposed rule in a less 
costly manner?
V. How will the proposed amendments to 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, 
subparts BB of the hazardous waste regulations be implemented in the 
States?
    A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States
    B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposed Amendments
VI. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601, et seq.
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

A. What is the Source of Authority For Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The Surface 
Coating of Automobiles and Light-duty Trucks category of major sources 
was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are 
those that emit or have the potential to emit equal to, or greater 
than, 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year (tpy)) of any 
one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

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

C. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP Emissions From 
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating?

    The major HAP emitted from the automobile and light-duty truck 
surface coating source category are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, 
MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. These compounds account for over 
95 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category. 
These pollutants can cause toxic effects following sufficient exposure. 
Some of the potential toxic effects include effects to the central 
nervous system, such as fatigue, nausea, tremors, and lack of 
coordination; adverse effects on the liver, kidneys, and blood; 
respiratory effects; and developmental effects.
    The degree of adverse effects to human health from exposure to HAP 
can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the human 
health effects may be experienced are

[[Page 78614]]

dependent upon (1) the ambient concentration observed in the area (as 
influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); 
(2) the frequency and duration of exposures; (3) characteristics of 
exposed individuals (genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and 
lifestyle), which vary significantly with the population; and (4) 
pollutant-specific characteristics (toxicity, half-life in the 
environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence).

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. What Source Categories Are Affected by This Proposed Rule?

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

B. What Is the Relationship to Other Rules?

    Affected sources subject to the proposed rule may also be subject 
to other rules. Automobile and light-duty truck surface coating 
operations that began construction, reconstruction, or modification 
after October 5, 1979 are subject to new source performance standards 
(NSPS) under 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM. That rule limits emissions of 
volatile organic compounds (VOC). The EPA has also published control 
techniques guidelines which establish reasonably available control 
technologies for limiting VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty 
truck surface coating operations. Additional VOC emission limitations 
may also apply to these facilities through conditions incorporated in 
State operating permits and permits issued under authority of title V 
of the CAA. Facilities in this subcategory may also be subject to 
various emission limitations pursuant to State air toxics rules.
    An automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facility may be 
subject to other NESHAP. Rules are presently under development which 
will limit emissions from coating operations conducted on separate, 
non-body miscellaneous metal parts and separate, non-body plastic parts 
and products. Coating of parts (such as automobile bumpers, fascias, 
brackets, etc.) for subsequent attachment to vehicle bodies would be 
subject to one or more of these rules, as would collocated aftermarket 
replacement part coating operations. Facilities may also be subject to 
other rules relating to collocated equipment such as foundries and 
boilers.
    The capture, transmission, and storage of purge materials from 
coating equipment may also be subject to the RCRA Air Emission 
Standards for Equipment Leaks under subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 
265. Those regulations apply to equipment that contains or contacts 
RCRA hazardous waste with organic concentrations of at least 10 percent 
by weight. To avoid such possible duplication, we are proposing to 
exempt such equipment from subparts BB if it is located at a

[[Page 78615]]

facility subject to this proposed NESHAP.

C. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the 
Emissions?

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

D. What Is the Affected Source?

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

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

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

   Table 2.--Emission Limits for New or Reconstructed Affected Sources
                            (monthly average)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Operation                              Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined electrodeposition primer,       0.036 kilogram (kg) (0.30 pound
 primer-surfacer, topcoat, final          (lb)) organic HAP/liter (HAP/
 repair, glass bonding primer, and        gallon (gal)) of coating
 glass bonding adhesive operation.        solids deposited).
Combined primer-surfacer, topcoat,       0.060 kg (0.50 lb organic HAP/
 final repair, glass bonding primer,      1iter (HAP/gal) of coating
 and glass bonding adhesive operation     solids deposited).
 (for sources meeting the operating
 limits of Sec.   63.3092(a) and (b)).
Adhesives and sealers, other than glass  0.010 kg/kg (lb/lb) of material
 bonding adhesive.                        used.
Deadener...............................  0.010 kg/kg (lb/lb) of material
                                          used.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Table 3.--Emission Limits for Existing Affected Sources (monthly
                                average)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Operation                              Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined electrodeposition primer,       0.072 kg (0.60 lb) organic HAP/
 primer-surfacer, topcoat, final          liter (HAP/gal) of coating
 repair, glass bonding primer, and        deposited.
 glass bonding adhesive operation.
Combined primer-surfacer, topcoat,       0.132 kg (1.10 lb) organic HAP/
 final repair, glass bonding primer,      liter (HAP/gal) of coating
 and glass bonding adhesive operation     solids deposited.
 (for sources meeting the operating
 limits of Sec.   63.3092(a) and (b)).
Adhesives and sealers other than glass   0.010 kg/kg (lb/lb) of material
 bonding adhesive.                        used.
Deadener...............................   0.010 lb/lb (kg/kg) of
                                          material used.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You would calculate emissions from combined electrodeposition 
primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, 
and glass bonding adhesive operations, or from combined primer-
surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass 
bonding adhesive operations using the procedures in the proposed rule, 
which account for variable organic HAP contents of the materials 
applied in each month, as well as transfer efficiency and overall 
efficiencies of any capture systems and control devices in use. You 
would average organic HAP contents of other materials used on a monthly 
basis to determine separately those emissions from sealers and 
adhesives (other than glass bonding adhesive), and deadeners.
    Operating limits. If you use an emission capture and control system 
to reduce emissions, the proposed operating limits would apply to you. 
These proposed operating limits are site-specific parameter limits you 
determine during the initial performance test of the system. For 
capture systems, you would identify the parameter(s) to monitor and 
establish the limits and monitoring procedures. For thermal and 
catalytic oxidizers, you would establish temperature limits. For 
solvent recovery systems, you would

[[Page 78616]]

monitor the outlet concentration or carbon bed temperature and the 
amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed. All operating 
limits must reflect operation of the capture and control system during 
a performance test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limit 
during representative operating conditions.
    Work practice standards. You would have to develop and implement a 
work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, 
mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials 
used in and waste materials generated by all coating operations for 
which emission limits are proposed. The plan would have to specify 
practices and procedures to ensure that, at a minimum, the following 
elements are implemented:
    [sbull] All organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning 
materials, and waste materials must be stored in closed containers.
    [sbull] The risk of spills of organic-HAP-containing coatings, 
thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized.
    [sbull] Organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning 
materials, and waste materials must be conveyed from one location to 
another in closed containers or pipes.
    [sbull] Mixing vessels, other than day tanks equipped with 
continuous agitation systems, which contain organic-HAP-containing 
coatings and other materials must be closed except when adding to, 
removing, or mixing the contents.
    [sbull] Emissions of organic HAP must be minimized during cleaning 
of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment.
    You would also have to develop and implement a work practice plan 
to minimize organic HAP emissions from cleaning and from purging of 
equipment associated with all coating operations for which emission 
limits are proposed. The plan would have to specify practices and 
procedures to ensure that emissions of HAP from the following 
operations are minimized:
    [sbull] Vehicle body wiping;
    [sbull] Coating line purging;
    [sbull] Flushing of coating systems;
    [sbull] Cleaning of spray booth grates;
    [sbull] Cleaning of spray booth walls;
    [sbull] Cleaning of spray booth equipment;
    [sbull] Cleaning external spray booth areas; and
    [sbull] Other housekeeping measures (e.g., keeping solvent-laden 
rags in closed containers.)
    General Provisions. The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A) also would apply to you as outlined in table 2 of the proposed rule. 
The General Provisions codify certain procedures and criteria for all 
40 CFR part 63 NESHAP. The General Provisions contain administrative 
procedures, preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and 
procedures for conducting compliance-related activities such as 
notifications, recordkeeping and reporting, performance testing, and 
monitoring. The proposed rule refers to individual sections of the 
General Provisions to emphasize key sections that you should be aware 
of. However, unless specifically overridden in table 2 of the proposed 
rule, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements would apply 
to you.

F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

    Compliance dates. Existing affected sources would have to be in 
compliance with the final standards no later than 3 years after the 
effective date. The effective date is the date on which the final rule 
is published in the Federal Register. New and reconstructed sources 
would have to be in compliance upon startup of the affected source or 
by the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later.
    Compliance with the emission limits is based on a monthly organic 
HAP emission rate. The initial compliance period, therefore, is the 1-
month period beginning on the compliance date. If the compliance date 
occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial 
compliance period begins on the compliance date and extends through the 
end of that month plus the following month. We have defined ``month'' 
as a calendar month or a pre-specified period of 28 to 35 days to allow 
for flexibility at sources where data are based on a business 
accounting period.
    Being ``in compliance'' means that the owner or operator of the 
affected source meets all the requirements of the proposed rule to 
achieve the emission limit(s) and operating limits by the end of the 
initial compliance period, and that the facility is operated in 
accordance with the approved work practice plans. At the end of the 
initial compliance period, the owner or operator would use the data and 
records generated to determine whether or not the affected source is in 
compliance for that period. If it does not meet the applicable 
limit(s), then it is out of compliance for the entire initial 
compliance period.
    Emission limits. Compliance with the emission limit for combined 
electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass 
bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive, or the emission limit for 
combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, 
and glass bonding adhesive would be based on mass organic HAP emissions 
per volume of applied coating solids as calculated monthly using the 
procedures in the proposed rule. Compliance with the emission limits 
for adhesives and sealers (other than glass bonding adhesive) and 
deadener would be based on mass average organic HAP content of 
materials used each month.
    Electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, 
glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. Compliance with this 
emission limit, or if eligible, with the emission limit for combined 
primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass 
bonding adhesive, is based on the calculations in the proposed rule. 
You may also use the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for Determining 
Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (docket A-2001-22).
    To determine the organic HAP content, the volume solids, and the 
density of the coatings and thinners, you could rely on manufacturer's 
data, results from the test methods listed below, or alternative test 
methods for which you get EPA approval on a case-by-case basis 
according to the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR 63.7(f). However, 
if there is any inconsistency between the test results and 
manufacturer's data, the test results would prevail for compliance and 
enforcement purposes.
    [sbull] For organic HAP content, use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, 
appendix A.
    [sbull] The proposed rule allows you to use nonaqueous volatile 
matter as a surrogate for organic HAP. If you choose this option, then 
use Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    [sbull] For volume fraction of coating solids, use either ASTM 
Method D2697-86 (1968) or ASTM Method D6093-97.
    [sbull] For density, use ASTM Method D1475-98 or information from 
the supplier or manufacturer of the material. For each emission capture 
and control system that you use, you would:
    [sbull] Conduct an initial performance test to determine the 
overall control efficiency of the equipment (described below) and to 
establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis (also 
described below). The performance test would have to be completed no 
later than the compliance date. You would also need to schedule it in 
time to

[[Page 78617]]

obtain the results for use in completing your initial compliance 
determination for the initial compliance period.
    The overall control efficiency for a capture and control system 
would be demonstrated based on emission capture and reduction 
efficiency. To determine the capture efficiency, you would either 
verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204 
of 40 CFR part 51; measure the capture efficiency using either EPA 
Method 204A through F of 40 CFR part 51 or appendix A of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart KK; or use the panel test procedures in ASTM Method D5087-
91 (1994), ASTM Method D6266-00a, or the guidelines presented in 
``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission 
Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/
3-88-018 (docket A-2001-22). If you have a permanent total enclosure 
and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device, 
then you would assume 100 percent capture. For panel testing, the 
coatings used may be grouped based on similar appearance 
characteristics (e.g., solid color or metallic), processing sequences, 
and dry film thicknesses. One coating from each group can be tested to 
represent all of the coatings in that group.
    To determine the emission reduction efficiency of the control 
device, you would conduct measurements of the inlet and outlet gas 
streams. The test would consist of three runs, each run lasting 1 hour, 
using the following EPA Methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A:
    [sbull] Method 1 or 1A for selection of the sampling sites.
    [sbull] Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the gas 
volumetric flow rate.
    [sbull] Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis to determine dry 
molecular weight.
    [sbull] Method 4 to determine stack moisture.
    [sbull] Method 25 or 25A to determine organic volatile matter 
concentration. Alternatively, any other test method or data that have 
been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 
40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and approved by the Administrator, could be 
used.
    You would be required to determine the transfer efficiency for 
primer-surfacer and topcoat materials using ASTM Method D5066-91 (2001) 
or the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for Determining Daily 
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty 
Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (docket A-2001-22). These 
guidelines include provisions for testing representative coatings 
instead of testing every coating. You may assume 100 percent transfer 
efficiency for electrodeposition primer coatings, glass bonding 
primers, and glass bonding adhesives. For final repair coatings, you 
may assume 40 percent transfer efficiency for air atomized spray and 55 
percent transfer efficiency for electrostatic spray and high volume, 
low pressure spray.
    The monthly emission rate, in terms of mass of organic HAP emitted 
per volume of coating solids deposited, is determined in accordance 
with the procedures in the proposed rule. These procedures incorporate 
the volume, organic HAP content, and volume solids content of each 
coating applied, as well as the transfer efficiency for the coatings 
and spray equipment used, and the overall control efficiency for 
controlled booths or bake ovens and other controlled emission points.
    Adhesives and sealers, and deadener. Compliance with emissions 
limits for adhesives and sealers (other than windshield materials) 
would be based on the monthly mass average organic HAP content of all 
materials of this type used during the compliance period. Compliance 
with emission limits for deadener would be based on the monthly mass 
average organic HAP content of all materials of this type used during 
the compliance period.
    Operating limits. As mentioned above, you would establish operating 
limits during the initial performance test of an emission capture and 
control system. The operating limit is defined as the minimum or 
maximum (as applicable) value achieved for a control device or process 
parameter during the most recent performance test that demonstrated 
compliance with the emission limit.
    The proposed rule specifies the parameters to monitor for the types 
of control systems commonly used in the industry. You would be required 
to install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all 
monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and 
ensure that the continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) meet the 
requirements in Sec.  63.3168 of the proposed rule. If you use control 
devices other than those identified in the proposed rule, you would 
submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator 
for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored 
is retained by EPA and is not delegated to States.
    If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you would continuously 
monitor temperature and record it at least every 15 minutes. For 
thermal oxidizers, the temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or 
in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any 
substantial heat exchange occurs. The operating limit would be the 
average temperature measured during the performance test and for each 
3-hour period, the average temperature would have to be at or above 
this limit. For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed 
immediately before and after the catalyst bed. The operating limit 
would be the average temperature increase across the catalyst bed 
during the performance test and for each 3-hour period, the average 
temperature increase would have to be at or above this limit. As an 
alternative for catalytic oxidizers, you may monitor the temperature 
immediately before the catalyst bed and develop and implement an 
inspection and maintenance plan.
    If you use a solvent recovery system, then you would either: (1) 
Continuously monitor the outlet concentration of organic compounds, and 
the operating limit would be the average organic compound outlet 
concentration during the performance test (for each 3-hour period, the 
average concentration would have to be below this limit); or (2) 
monitor the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and the 
total amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed for each 
regeneration, in which case the operating limits would be the carbon 
bed temperature (not to be exceeded) and the amount of steam or 
nitrogen used for desorption (to be met as a minimum).
    If you use a capture and control system to meet the proposed 
standards, you would have to meet operating limits for the capture 
system. If the emission capture system is a permanent total enclosure, 
you would be required to establish that the direction of flow was into 
the enclosure at all times. In addition, you would have to meet an 
operating limit of either an average facial velocity of at least 61 
meters per minute (200 feet per minute) through all natural draft 
openings in the enclosure, or a minimum pressure drop across the 
enclosure of at least 0.018 millimeter water (0.007 inch water), as 
established by Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51.
    If the emission capture system was not a permanent total enclosure, 
you would have to establish either the average volumetric flow rate or 
the duct static pressure in each duct between the capture device and 
the add-on control device inlet during the performance test. Either the 
average volumetric flow rate would have to be maintained above the 
operating limit for each 3-hour period or the average duct static 
pressure would

[[Page 78618]]

have to be maintained above the operating limit for each 3-hour period.
    Work practice standards. You would have to develop and implement 
two site-specific work practice plans. One plan would address practices 
to minimize organic HAP emissions from storage, mixing, and conveying 
of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in operations for 
which emission limits are established, as well as the waste materials 
generated from these operations. A second site-specific work practice 
plan would address practices to minimize emissions from cleaning 
operations and purging of coating equipment.
    The plans would have to address specific types of potential organic 
HAP emission points and are subject to approval of the Administrator. 
Deviations from approved work practice plans would be reported 
semiannually.

G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?

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

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

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

[[Page 78619]]

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

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. How Did We Select the Source Category?

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

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

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

[[Page 78620]]

B. How Did We Select the Regulated Pollutants?

    Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the 
development of the proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP 
emitted from automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations 
are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene and 
methanol. These compounds account for over 95 percent of this 
category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. Because coatings used in 
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating contain many 
combinations of these and other organic HAP, it is not practical to 
regulate them individually. Therefore, the proposed standards would 
regulate emissions of all organic HAP.
    Inorganic HAP. Based on information reported during the development 
of the proposed NESHAP, inorganic HAP contained in the coatings used by 
this source category include lead, manganese, and chromium compounds. 
There is limited opportunity for these HAP to be emitted into the 
ambient air. The lead compounds are present in the electrodeposition 
primers. This technique would not typically generate air emissions of 
these compounds which are in the coating solids. Once the coating 
solids are deposited on the substrate, they remain on the substrate and 
are not emitted during cure of the coating. Therefore, we conclude that 
there are limited or no air emissions of lead compounds. Based on 
information reported during the development of the proposed NESHAP, a 
small amount of chromium compounds are contained in a few of the 
coatings used by this source category. Because these inorganic 
compounds are in the coating solids, they are retained on the substrate 
to which they are applied, and the only opportunity for them to enter 
the ambient air is if they are spray-applied. Because of the 
atomization of the coating during spray application, inorganic 
compounds become airborne, and they are either deposited on the 
substrate, collected by the circulating water under the spray booth 
floor grates, adhere to the surrounding walls and other surfaces in the 
area, or enter the air and become susceptible to transport to other 
areas in the building or outside into the ambient air. The data 
available to EPA indicate that the facilities in this source category 
that use spray application techniques sometimes apply coatings that 
contain inorganic HAP compounds, including small quantities of chromium 
oxide. Overspray, including that containing inorganic HAP, is 
controlled to an extremely high level by down-draft impingement in 
circulating sub-grate water systems.

C. How Did We Select the Affected Source?

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

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

    After we identify the specific source categories or subcategories 
of sources to regulate under section 112 of the CAA, we must develop 
MACT standards for each category or subcategory. Section 112 
establishes a minimum baseline or ``floor'' for standards. For new 
sources in a category or subcategory, the standards cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the 
best-controlled similar source (section 112(d)(3)). The standards for 
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, 
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources for 
which the Administrator has emissions information (or the best-
performing five sources for categories or

[[Page 78621]]

subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
    Electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, 
glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. All 59 facilities in 
the source category that were in operation in 1997 or 1998 responded to 
an information collection request (ICR). (Several facilities did not 
have operating paint shops during this period, but submitted 
information pertaining to their applications of sealers and adhesives 
in the assembly process.) Two facilities that presently track their 
usage and emissions on a line-by-line basis submitted two sets of data 
each. The responses contained data on the mass of organic HAP emissions 
per volume of coating solids deposited for each month of a calendar 
year for electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, and topcoat 
operations; and additional information on final repair, glass bonding 
primer, and glass bonding adhesive. Final repair and glass bonding 
materials are functionally tied to the electrodeposition primer, 
primer-surfacer, and topcoat materials. Final repair materials must be 
compatible with these other coatings and must provide an exact color 
and appearance match. Glass bonding materials also must be compatible 
with these other coatings. The choice of glass bonding materials is 
highly dependent on the performance characteristics of and interaction 
with these other coatings. Glass bonds must meet safety requirements 
issued by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. 
Therefore, we have included final repair, glass bonding primer, and 
glass bonding adhesive with electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, 
and topcoat.
    In most cases, facilities calculated their monthly emissions from 
primer-surfacer and topcoat operations using a procedure that closely 
matched the procedure in ``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile 
Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck 
Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (docket A-2001-22). The 
calculations took into account the overall efficiency of capture 
systems and control devices, as well as the transfer efficiency of 
spray equipment used to apply coatings. In addition, the responses 
included the mass organic HAP content and the volume solids content of 
all materials added to the electrodeposition system on a monthly basis. 
Using the data, we ranked the facilities on the basis of mass of 
organic HAP emissions per volume of coating solids deposited on an 
annual basis. Several of the lowest emitting facilities did not apply 
full body primer-surfacer during the ICR reporting year (although these 
facilities as well as all other presently operating facilities do so 
currently). Since the data from these facilities did not represent the 
current and anticipated industry practices, we eliminated them from the 
ranking. We then identified the eight facilities with the lowest-
organic-HAP emissions (from electrodeposition, primer-surfacer, and 
topcoat combined) per volume coating solids deposited. As four of the 
eight lowest emitting plants used a powder primer-surfacer application 
system which results in a much thicker film than a liquid application 
system, we adjusted the solids deposited volumes for the powder systems 
to reflect liquid primer surfacer thicknesses.
    We then identified the month of the reporting year with the peak 
organic HAP emission rate for the eight facilities with the lowest 
annual emission rates. Since the proposed rule requires compliance each 
and every month, an emission limit based on the annual emissions would 
be unachievable by even the lowest emitting plants approximately 6 
months of the year. Variations in colors or vehicles produced and the 
organic HAP contents of different basecoats and color-keyed primer-
surfacers leads to unavoidable fluctuations in organic HAP emission 
rates, even with the same application equipment and capture and control 
devices in use. The average organic HAP emission rate for the peak 
month for the eight lowest emitting plants (as determined on an annual 
basis) was determined to be the MACT floor for a monthly compliance 
standard for combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, 
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive 
operations at existing plants.
    We have also proposed a compliance demonstration option based on 
emissions from combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass 
bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations for those plants 
with well controlled electrodeposition operations, or that use very 
low-organic-HAP materials in their electrodeposition primer operation. 
This was based on the emission rate from primer-surfacer and topcoat 
application at the eight lowest emitting plants. (The same plants as 
those with the lowest emission rates from electrodeposition, primer-
surfacer, and topcoat combined.) The emission rate without 
electrodeposition is comparable to the proposed emission rate with 
electrodeposition when the lower-organic-HAP emissions per volume of 
coating solids deposited which result from including electrodeposition 
primer are considered.
    The floor for new sources was based on the performance of the plant 
with the lowest annual emission rate. The peak monthly emission rate 
for this plant for the reporting year would represent the best 
consistently achievable emission rate for new sources.
    Both the existing source MACT floor and the new source MACT floor 
are based on monthly compliance. All or nearly all automobile and 
light-duty truck surface coating facilities are subject to compliance 
with existing rules demonstrated by calculations based on monthly 
coating use. The ICR responses upon which the MACT determination was 
made provided data on a monthly basis. A 1-month time period is the 
shortest compliance period for which data are available to reliably 
determine MACT.
    Adhesives and sealers (other than glass binding adhesive), and 
deadeners. All facilities in the source category submitted responses to 
an ICR. The responses contained data on the mass used, and the mass 
fraction of organic HAP in each of the materials used during the 
reporting year. The average mass organic HAP content of the materials 
used throughout the reporting year was determined for each facility. 
The eight facilities with the lowest-average-organic-HAP content in 
each group (i.e., adhesives and sealers were considered separately from 
deadeners) were determined. These facilities used materials with an 
average mass fraction of organic HAP of less than 0.01 kilogram (kg)/kg 
(pound (lb)/lb. Because of imprecision in analytical methods at this 
level, and because the organic HAP reported as zero for some materials 
at some facilities may have contained traces of organic HAP that were 
not reported to the facility by the material supplier, the MACT floor 
mass organic HAP content was determined to be 0.01 kg/kg (lb/lb). This 
is the lowest level for both new and existing facilities for which 
compliance could be reliably demonstrated. The proposed rule would 
require compliance to be demonstrated monthly on the basis of a mass 
average organic HAP content of the materials used. A shorter compliance 
time interval would result in excessive recordkeeping with little or no 
additional reduction in organic HAP emissions. If each and every 
material used within a particular group of materials meets the monthly 
average emission limit on an individual basis, then no calculations are 
required to demonstrate compliance.
    Storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning

[[Page 78622]]

materials. The proposed rule would regulate these operations in 
accordance with a site-specific work practice plan to be developed 
subject to approval by the Administrator and implemented by each new 
and existing source. We have no reliable data on the extent of 
emissions from these operations but believe them to be low.
    Cleaning and equipment purging emissions. While the responses to 
the ICR contain extensive (though in some cases inconsistent) data 
pertaining to the volumetric use and organic HAP content of cleaning 
and purging materials, a substantial but unknown fraction of the 
organic HAP emissions from cleaning and purging operations are captured 
and controlled. We have no reliable data that would enable us to 
determine an emission limit for these operations that would represent 
MACT level control. The proposed rule would regulate these operations 
in accordance with a site-specific work practice plan to be developed 
subject to approval by the Administrator and implemented by each new 
and existing source.
    After the floors have been determined for new and existing sources 
in a source category or subcategory, we must set MACT standards that 
are technically achievable and no less stringent than the floors. Such 
standards must then be met by all sources within the category or 
subcategory. We identify and consider any reasonable regulatory 
alternatives that are ``beyond-the-floor,'' taking into account 
emission reduction, cost, non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements. These alternatives may be different 
for new and existing sources because different MACT floors and separate 
standards may be established for new and existing sources.
    The eight facilities with the lowest-organic-HAP emission rates 
from electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, and topcoat application 
employed a combination of various organic HAP emission limitation 
techniques, including the use of lower-organic-HAP electrodeposition 
primer materials, powder primer-surfacer, waterborne basecoats, lower-
organic-HAP solvent based primer-surfacers, lower-organic-HAP solvent 
based basecoats and clearcoats, and improved capture and control 
systems. However, no single technology or combination of technologies 
representing a beyond-the-floor MACT was identified, nor did we 
identify any other available technologies which are not presently in 
use with the potential to decrease organic HAP emissions beyond-the-
floor for either new or existing sources.
    We expect that many existing plants will improve capture and 
control device efficiency as a means of compliance. Control options 
beyond-the-floor could involve even higher overall efficiencies. 
Because of the dilute nature of the organic HAP-containing streams 
available for capture, the cost of such a beyond-the-floor limit would 
exceed $40,000 per ton of incremental organic HAP controlled. We are 
not proposing beyond-the-floor limits at this time. Following a future 
analysis of residual risk, EPA may propose a beyond-the-floor emission 
limit, if it is found to be justified.
    The facilities which presently use adhesives and sealers, and 
deadeners with the lowest-mass-organic-HAP contents would not be able 
to reliably demonstrate compliance with a standard more stringent than 
the floor level emission limit for these materials due to uncertainty 
in the analytical methods available and the expected inability or 
unwillingness of the suppliers of the materials to certify lower-
organic-HAP contents.
    A wide variety of techniques exist for reducing organic HAP 
emissions from mixing, storage, and conveying of coatings, thinners, 
and cleaning materials, and from cleaning and purging of equipment. 
Because we have no data upon which to establish a numerical organic HAP 
emission limit for these operations, we have proposed to regulate them 
through the development and implementation of site-specific work 
practice plans. The proposed rule identifies a number of potential 
emission control practices which must be considered, as applicable, in 
these work plans. Alternative practices which achieve equivalent or 
improved emission limitations are also permitted under the proposed 
rule. Because we are unable to reliably estimate the emissions 
reductions that will be achieved beyond the present baseline emissions 
from these operations, the work practices requirements may represent 
beyond-the-floor standards. We believe that the costs of implementing 
these work practices will be reasonable, as many of the same or 
equivalent practices would be required for control of VOC emissions 
under title V air permits.
    In lieu of emission standards, section 112(h) of the CAA allows 
work practice standards or other requirements to be established if: (1) 
A pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance or capture system, 
or (2) measurement is not practicable due to technological and economic 
limitations. All automobile and light-duty truck surface coating 
facilities use some type of work practice measures to reduce HAP 
emissions from mixing, storage, conveying, and cleaning and purging as 
part of their standard operating procedures. They use these measures to 
decrease solvent usage and minimize exposure to workers. However, data 
to quantify accurately the emissions reductions achievable by the work 
practice measures are unavailable, and it is not feasible to measure 
emissions or enforce a numerical standard for emissions from these 
operations.
    We selected MACT floor level standards for electrodeposition 
primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, 
glass bonding adhesive, sealer, and adhesive application, and deadener 
because we were unable to identify any specific technologies that would 
result in a lower level of emissions. We have proposed a more stringent 
emission limit for electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, and 
topcoat application for new sources. This more stringent limit is not 
appropriate for existing sources because of the difficulty, 
uncertainty, and in some cases, impossibility of retrofitting the best 
combination of emission limitation techniques to existing facilities, 
as well as the high cost associated with what would be a beyond-the-
floor limit for existing facilities.
    We believe the proposed standards for existing sources are 
achievable because they are presently being achieved by at least six 
existing sources. We believe the proposed standards for new sources are 
achievable because they are presently being achieved by the best 
performing facility in the source category.
    We have proposed standards for which compliance would be 
demonstrated on a monthly basis. The data used to determine MACT for 
electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, and topcoat were based on 
organic HAP emission limits that were achieved by the best performing 
plants each month (during which production occurred) during the 
reporting year for the ICR responses. We used annual data to determine 
MACT for adhesives and sealers, and deadeners, but believe that monthly 
compliance is achievable because the standards are based on organic HAP 
per mass of material, or organic HAP per volume of material and we have 
no reason to believe that different materials are used at different 
times throughout the year.

E. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Standards?

    Numerical emission standards are required by section 112 of the CAA 
unless we can justify that it is not

[[Page 78623]]

feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard, in which case a 
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard can be set 
(section 112(h) of the CAA).
    Formats considered. We considered the following formats for 
allowable organic HAP emissions from the affected source: (1) Mass of 
organic HAP per unit weight or volume of coating, coating solids, or 
coating solids deposited; (2) mass of organic HAP per unit of 
production; (3) organic HAP concentration exiting a control device; (4) 
organic HAP emissions per unit surface area coated; and (5) percent 
reduction achieved by a capture system and control device. Each format 
is defined, and the major advantages and disadvantages are discussed 
below.
    The first type of format considered would express the emission 
limitation as mass of organic HAP emissions per volume of coating, mass 
of coating solids, volume of coating solids, or volume of coating 
solids deposited. An advantage of this type of format is that it 
relates emissions to production levels, but in a more equitable way 
than one based on units of production. Also, an affected source would 
have flexibility in choosing among several compliance options to 
achieve a standard based on this type of format. This type of standard, 
when based on mass or volume of coating solids deposited, takes into 
account the transfer efficiency, i.e., the fraction of coating solids 
used that actually adhere to the substrate.
    A mass of HAP per volume of coating format (i.e., kg HAP/liter (lb 
HAP/gallon (gal)) of coating) either for each coating or as an average 
across all coatings could be used. While this format is simple to 
understand and use, its main disadvantage is that it would not credit 
sources that switch to lower-emitting, higher-solids coatings. For 
example, a facility using a coating with a solids content of 40 percent 
and a HAP content of 3 lb/gal will use fewer pounds of HAP than a 
facility using a coating with a solids content of 20 percent and a HAP 
content of 2 lb/gal because the first facility will use 50 percent less 
coating than the second. A comparison of the emission potential of two 
coatings using a mass HAP per volume coating format cannot be made.
    An alternative format is a mass HAP per volume of coating solids 
(i.e., kg HAP/liter (lb HAP/gal) of coating solids). This format would 
adequately credit sources that converted conventional higher-HAP-
solvent coatings to higher-solids coatings. The same is true for a 
format of mass HAP/mass of solids (i.e., kg HAP/kg (lb HAP/lb) solids). 
For example, if a source were to increase the solids content of a 
coating and thereby decrease the quantity of coating used, either of 
these formats would properly credit the affected source's emissions 
reductions. However, there are potential drawbacks to the mass HAP/mass 
solids format. Such a standard does not take into account the sometimes 
considerable differences in coating solids densities. Either the mass 
HAP/mass solid or the mass HAP/volume solid formats can be restated to 
consider applied solids rather than solids contained in the coating to 
provide credit for application techniques with higher transfer 
efficiencies.
    The second format considered is mass of organic HAP emissions per 
unit of production (e.g., kg HAP per vehicle coated). Its major 
disadvantage is that the surface area of automobiles and light-duty 
trucks varies greatly.
    The third format considered, a limit on the concentration of 
organic HAP in the exhaust from the control device would only apply to 
sources that use add-on control devices. This format for a standard is 
the easiest to enforce because direct emissions measurements can be 
made using Method 25 or 25A. However, the concentration of organic HAP 
emitted from the control device does not reflect total emissions 
because of the possibility of uncaptured emissions from the coating 
operation, nor does it limit total emissions because of the effect of 
varying the exhaust flow rates (i.e., increasing dilution air). For 
example, two similar coating operations could produce the same amount 
of organic HAP yet have different inlet concentrations to the control 
device because of variations in capture of emissions from the coating 
operation and because of varying oven airflow rates. A standard based 
on outlet concentration would require the line with the higher 
concentration (lower airflow rate) to control more organic HAP 
emissions than the line with the lower inlet concentration. Because 
management of airflow rates is generally under the control of the 
operator, this format would not reflect the application of MACT for the 
coating operation. Furthermore, this format would limit the compliance 
options available to sources because it would not accommodate the use 
of either low-HAP content coatings and other materials, or the use of a 
combination of capture and control systems in conjunction with reduced-
HAP coatings and other materials.
    The fourth format, organic HAP emissions per unit surface area 
coated, provides flexibility in the selection of coating materials, the 
streams to be controlled, and the approach to capture and control. We 
requested surface area data for vehicles produced during the ICR 
reporting year and received data of this type from a number of 
respondents. The data that we received were incomplete, and the methods 
of estimating vehicle surface areas varied widely. In many cases, 
computer generated design drawings were analyzed to estimate surface 
areas. The algorithms used to make the estimates are unlikely to be 
consistent from manufacturer to manufacturer. While a standard in this 
format has some advantages, it would be difficult to establish MACT 
because of the inconsistent basis of the estimates.
    The fifth format, percent reduction, would only apply to sources 
that use add-on control devices. This format is often the best choice 
when capture and control systems are widely used in the source 
category, and the achievable percent reduction over a wide range of 
operating conditions is predictable. The advantages of this format are 
that it would reflect MACT at all facilities, and the facilities would 
be allowed flexibility in the method selected for achieving the percent 
reduction. A disadvantage of the percent reduction format is that it 
does not credit improvements in the materials or processes. For 
example, reduction in the organic HAP content of a coating or in the 
amount of coating applied per unit of substrate manufactured would not 
be credited toward compliance. This might discourage development of 
low- or non-HAP coatings. Similar to the concentration format for a 
standard, this format also would not accommodate the use of either low-
HAP content coatings and other materials or a combination of capture 
and control systems in conjunction with reduced-HAP coatings and other 
materials as a means of compliance.
    Format selected. We selected mass of HAP emitted per volume of 
coating solids deposited as the format for the proposed emission limit 
for electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, 
glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. All automobile and 
light-duty truck surface coating facilities presently calculate VOC 
emissions from primer-surfacer and topcoat application in this format 
and have recordkeeping systems in place to track coating usage, mass 
fraction of VOC, volume fraction of solids, and transfer efficiencies. 
Responses to the ICR were, for the most part, based on adaptions of 
these systems to calculate organic HAP emissions from both topcoat and 
primer

[[Page 78624]]

surfacer application. Only minor adjustments would be necessary to 
include electrodeposition coatings, as only two to four different 
materials are used for this process, and the transfer efficiency is 
essentially 100 percent. Such a format would be consistent with the 
information upon which MACT determination was based. This format gives 
credit for the use of low- or zero-organic-HAP coatings or high solids 
coatings in one or more application processes, as well as improved 
application techniques which result in higher transfer efficiencies for 
primer-surfacer and topcoat. This format would allow sources 
flexibility to use a combination of emission capture and control 
systems as well as low-HAP content coatings and other materials.
    We selected mass of organic HAP per mass of coating as the format 
for the proposed standards for adhesives and sealers, and deadeners. 
These materials are applied with nearly 100 percent transfer efficiency 
in most cases and emissions from these materials are rarely, if ever, 
directed to add-on control devices.

F. How Did We Select the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

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

G. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

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

H. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

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

I. How Did We Select the Compliance Date?

    The proposed rule allows existing sources 3 years from the 
effective date of the final standards to demonstrate

[[Page 78625]]

compliance. This is the maximum compliance period permitted by the CAA. 
We believe that 3 years may be necessary for some affected sources to 
design, install, and test improved capture systems and control devices. 
Sources that adopt reformulated lower HAP coatings or powder coatings 
may also need 3 years to specify, adjust application equipment, and 
modify existing coating processes. New or reconstructed affected 
sources must comply immediately upon startup or the effective date of 
the proposed rule, whichever is later as required by the CAA.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

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

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

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

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

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

D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

    Solid waste and water impacts of the proposed rule are expected to 
be negligible. Capture of additional organic HAP-laden streams and 
control of these streams with regenerative thermal oxidizers is 
expected to require an additional 180 million kilowatt hours per year 
and an additional 4.9 billion standard cubic feet per year of natural 
gas.

E. Can We Achieve the Goals of the Proposed Rule in a Less Costly 
Manner?

    We have made every effort in developing this proposal to minimize 
the cost to the regulated community and allow maximum flexibility in 
compliance options consistent with our statutory obligations. We 
recognize, however, that the proposal may still require some facilities 
to take costly steps to further control emissions even though those 
emissions may not result in exposures which could pose an excess 
individual lifetime cancer risk greater than 1 in 1 million or exceed 
thresholds determined to provide an ample margin of safety for 
protecting public health and the environment from the effects of HAP. 
We are, therefore, specifically soliciting comment on whether there are 
further ways to structure the proposed rule to focus on the facilities 
which pose significant risks and avoid the imposition of high costs on 
facilities that pose little risk to public health and the environment.
    During the rulemaking process on a separate proposed NESHAP, 
representatives of the plywood and composite wood products industry 
provided EPA with descriptions of three approaches that they believed 
could be used to implement more cost-effective reductions in risk. 
These approaches could be effective in focusing regulatory controls on 
facilities that pose significant risks and avoiding the

[[Page 78626]]

imposition of high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public 
health or the environment, and we are seeking public comment on the 
utility of each of these approaches with respect to this rule. The 
docket for today's proposed rule contains ``white papers'' prepared by 
the plywood and composite wood products industry that outline their 
proposed approaches (see docket number A-2001-22).
    One of the approaches, an applicability cutoff for threshold 
pollutants, would be implemented under the authority of CAA section 
112(d)(4); the second approach, subcategorization and delisting, would 
be implemented under the authority of CAA section 112(c)(1) and (c)(9); 
and the third approach would involve the use of a concentration-based 
applicability threshold. We are seeking comment on whether these 
approaches are legally justified and, if so, we ask for information 
that could be used to support such approaches.
    The MACT program outlined in CAA section 112(d) is intended to 
reduce emissions of HAP through the application of MACT to major 
sources of toxic air pollutants. Section 112(c)(9) is intended to allow 
EPA to avoid setting MACT standards for categories or subcategories of 
sources that pose less than a specified level of risk to public health 
and the environment. The EPA requests comment on whether the proposals 
described here appropriately rely on these provisions of CAA section 
112. The two health-based approaches focus on assessing inhalation 
exposures or accounting for adverse environmental impacts. In addition 
to the specific requests for comment noted in this section, we are also 
interested in any information or comment concerning technical 
limitations, environmental and cost impacts, compliance assurance, 
legal rationale, and implementation relevant to the identified 
approaches. We also request comment on appropriate practicable and 
verifiable methods to ensure that sources' emissions remain below 
levels that protect public health and the environment. We will evaluate 
all comments before determining whether to include an approach in the 
final rule.
1. Industry HAP emissions and potential health effects
    For the automobile and light-duty truck surface coating source 
category, seven HAP account for over 95 percent of the total HAP 
emitted. Those seven HAP are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers (including 
ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE)), MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and 
methanol. Additional HAP which may be emitted by some automobile and 
light-duty truck surface coating operations are: Ethylene glycol, 
hexane, formaldehyde, chromium compounds, diisocyanates, manganese 
compounds, methyl methacrylate, methylene chloride, and nickel 
compounds.
    Of the seven HAP emitted in the largest quantities by this source 
category, all can cause toxic effects following sufficient exposure. 
The potential toxic effects of these seven HAP include effects to the 
central nervous system, such as fatigue, nausea, tremors, and loss of 
motor coordination; adverse effects on the liver, kidneys, and blood; 
respiratory effects; and developmental effects. In addition, one of the 
seven predominant HAP, EGBE, is a possible carcinogen, although 
information on this compound is not currently sufficient to allow us to 
quantify its potency.
    In accordance with CAA section 112(k), EPA developed a list of 33 
HAP which present the greatest threat to public health in the largest 
number of urban areas. None of the predominant seven HAP is included on 
this list for EPA's Urban Air Toxics Program, although three of the 
other emitted HAP (formaldehyde, manganese compounds, and nickel 
compounds) appear on the list. In November 1998, EPA published ``A 
Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic 
(PBT) Pollutants.'' None of the predominant seven HAP emitted by 
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations appears on 
the published list of compounds referred to in EPA's PBT strategy.
    To estimate the potential baseline risks posed by the source 
category and the potential impact of applicability cutoffs, EPA 
performed a ``rough'' risk assessment for 56 of the approximately 60 
facilities in the source category by using a model plant placed at the 
actual location of each plant and simulating impacts using air 
emissions data from the 1999 EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). In 
addition to the seven predominant HAP, the following additional HAP 
were included in this rough risk assessment because they were reported 
in TRI as being emitted by facilities in the source category: ethylene 
glycol, hexane, formaldehyde, diisocyanates, manganese compounds, 
nickel compounds, and benzene. The benzene emissions and some of the 
nickel emissions are from non-surface coating activities which are not 
part of the source category. Of the HAP reported in TRI which are 
emitted from automobile and light-duty truck surface coating 
operations, three (formaldehyde, nickel compounds, and EGBE) are 
carcinogens that, at present, are not considered to have thresholds for 
cancer effects. Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, however, may be a 
threshold carcinogen, as suggested by some recent evidence from animal 
studies, though EPA, at present, considers it to be a non-threshold 
carcinogen without sufficient information to quantify its cancer 
potency. Likewise, formaldehyde is a potential threshold carcinogen, 
and EPA is currently revising the dose-response assessment for 
formaldehyde. Most facilities in this source category emit some small 
quantity of formaldehyde. In the 1999 TRI, however, only two facilities 
in this source category reported formaldehyde emissions. No other 
facilities exceeded the TRI reporting threshold for formaldehyde in 
1999.
    The baseline cancer risk and subsequent cancer risk reductions were 
estimated to be minimal for this source category. Of the three 
carcinogens included in the assessment, emissions reductions 
attributable to the proposed standards could be estimated for only 
EGBE. However, since EGBE risks cannot currently be quantified, the 
cancer risk reductions associated with the proposed rule are estimated 
by this rough assessment to be minimal. However, noncancer risks are 
projected to be significantly reduced by the proposed rule. (Details of 
this assessment are available in the docket.)
2. Applicability Cutoffs for Threshold Pollutants Under CAA Section 
112(d)(4)
    The first approach is an ``applicability cutoff'' for threshold 
pollutants that is based on EPA's authority under CAA section 112(d)(4) 
to establish standards for HAP which are ``threshold pollutants.'' A 
``threshold pollutant'' is one for which there is a concentration or 
dose below which adverse effects are not expected to occur over a 
lifetime of exposure. For such pollutants, section 112(d)(4) allows EPA 
to consider the threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, when 
establishing emission standards. Specifically, section 112(d)(4) allows 
EPA to establish emission standards that are not based upon the MACT 
specified under section 112(d)(2) for pollutants for which a health 
threshold has been established. Such standards may be less stringent 
than MACT. Historically, EPA has interpreted section 112(d)(4) to allow 
categories of sources that emit only threshold pollutants to avoid 
further regulation if those emissions result in ambient levels that do 
not exceed the

[[Page 78627]]

threshold, with an ample margin of safety.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 63 18754, 18765-66 (April 15, 1998) (Pulp and Paper 
Combustion Sources Proposed NESHAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A different interpretation would allow us to exempt individual 
facilities within a source category that meet the section 112(d)(4) 
requirements. There are three potential scenarios under this 
interpretation of the section 112(d)(4) provision. One scenario would 
allow an exemption for individual facilities that emit only threshold 
pollutants and can demonstrate that their emissions of threshold 
pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the threshold 
levels, with an ample margin of safety, even if the category is 
otherwise subject to MACT. A second scenario would allow the section 
112(d)(4) provision to be applied to both threshold and non-threshold 
pollutants, using the 1 in 1 million cancer risk level for 
decisionmaking for non-threshold pollutants.
    A third scenario would allow a section 112(d)(4) exemption at a 
facility that emits both threshold and non-threshold pollutants. For 
those emission points where only threshold pollutants are emitted and 
where emissions of the threshold pollutants would not result in air 
concentrations above the threshold levels, with an ample margin of 
safety, those emission points could be exempt from the MACT standards. 
The MACT standards would still apply to non-threshold emissions from 
other emission points at the source. For this third scenario, emission 
points that emit a combination of threshold and non-threshold 
pollutants that are co-controlled by MACT would still be subject to the 
MACT level of control. However, any threshold HAP eligible for 
exemption under section 112(d)(4) that are controlled by control 
devices different from those controlling non-threshold HAP would be 
able to use the exemption, and the facility would still be subject to 
the sections of the standards that control non-threshold pollutants or 
that control both threshold and non-threshold pollutants.
    Estimation of hazard quotients and hazard indices. Under the 
section 112(d)(4) approach, EPA would have to determine that emissions 
of each of the threshold pollutants emitted by automobile and light-
duty truck surface coating operations at the facility do not result in 
exposures which exceed the threshold levels, with an ample margin of 
safety.
    The common approach for evaluating the potential hazard of a 
threshold air pollutant is to calculate a ``hazard quotient'' by 
dividing the pollutant's inhalation exposure concentration (often 
assumed to be equivalent to its estimated concentration in air at a 
location where people could be exposed) by the pollutant's inhalation 
Reference Concentration (RfC). An RfC is an estimate (with uncertainty 
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation 
exposure that, over a lifetime, likely would not result in the 
occurrence of adverse health effects in humans, including sensitive 
individuals.
    The EPA typically establishes an RfC by applying uncertainty 
factors to the critical toxic effect derived from the lowest-or no-
observed-adverse-effect level of a pollutant \2\. A hazard quotient 
less than one means that the exposure concentration of the pollutant is 
less than the RfC and, therefore, presumed to be without appreciable 
risk of adverse health effects. A hazard quotient greater than one 
means that the exposure concentration of the pollutant is greater than 
the RfC. Further, EPA guidance for assessing exposures to mixtures of 
threshold pollutants recommends calculating a hazard index (HI) by 
summing the individual hazard quotients for those pollutants in the 
mixture that affect the same target organ or system by the same 
mechanism \3\. The HI values would be interpreted similarly to hazard 
quotients; values below one would generally be considered to be without 
appreciable risk of adverse health effects, and values above one would 
generally be cause for concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Methods for Derivation of Inhalation reference 
Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation Dosimetry.'' EPA-600/
8-90-066F, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, October 1994.
    \3\ ``Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk 
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum Technical 
Panel,'' EPA/630/R-00/002. USEPA, August 2000. http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/pdfs/chem_mix/chem_mix_08_2001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the determinations discussed herein, EPA would generally plan 
to use RfC values contained in EPA's toxicology database, the 
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). When a pollutant does not 
have an approved RfC in IRIS, or when a pollutant is a carcinogen, EPA 
would have to determine whether a threshold exists based upon the 
availability of specific data on the pollutant's mode or mechanism of 
action, potentially using a health threshold value from an alternative 
source, such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR) or the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 
Table 4 provides RfC, as well as unit risk estimates, for the HAP 
emitted by automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations. 
A unit risk estimate is defined as the upper-bound excess lifetime 
cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at 
a concentration of 1 ug/m \3\ in the air.

        Table 4.--Dose-Response Assessment Values for HAP Reported Emitted by the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Chemical name                    CAS No.           Reference concentration a (mg/m\3\)            Unit risk estimate b  (1/(ug/m\3\))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium (VI) compounds..................      18540-29-9  1.0E-04 (IRIS)                                  1.2E-02 (IRIS)
Chromium (VI) trioxide, chromic acid mist      11115-74-5  8.0E-06 (IRIS)                                  .............................................
Ethyl benzene............................        100-41-4  1.0E+00 (IRIS)                                  .............................................
Ethylene glycol..........................        107-21-1  4.0E-01 (CAL)                                   .............................................
Formaldehyde.............................         50-00-0  9.8E-03 (ATSDR)                                 1.3E-05 (IRIS)
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether........        112-34-5  2.0E-02 (HEAST)                                 .............................................
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether..........        111-76-2  1.3E+01 (IRIS)                                  .............................................
Hexamethylene-1, 6-diisocyanate..........        822-06-0  1.0E-05 (IRIS)                                  .............................................
n-Hexane.................................        110-54-3  2.0E-01 (IRIS)                                  .............................................
Manganese compounds......................       7439-96-5  5.0E-05 (IRIS)                                  .............................................
Methanol.................................         67-56-1  4.0E+00 (CAL)                                   .............................................
Methyl ethyl ketone......................         78-93-3  1.0E+00 (IRIS)                                  .............................................
Methyl isobutyl ketone...................        108-10-1  8.0E-02 (HEAST)                                 .............................................
Methyl methacrylate......................         80-62-6  7.0E-01 (IRIS)                                  .............................................
Methylene chloride.......................         75-09-2  1.0E+00 (ATSDR)                                 4.7E-07 (IRIS)

[[Page 78628]]

 
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate..........        101-68-8  6.0E-04 (IRIS)                                  .............................................
Nickel compounds.........................       7440-02-0  2.0E-04 (ATSDR)                                 .............................................
Nickel oxide.............................       1313-99-1  1.0E-04 (CAL)                                   .............................................
Toluene..................................        108-88-3  4.0E-01 (IRIS)                                  .............................................
2,4/2,6-Toluene diisocyanate mixture           26471-62-5  7.0E-05 (IRIS)                                  1.1E-05 (CAL)
 (TDI).
Xylenes (mixed)..........................       1330-20-7  4.3E-01 (ATSDR)                                 .............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Reference Concentration: An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human
  population (including sensitive subgroups which include children, asthmatics, and the elderly) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
  deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors generally applied to
  reflect limitations of the data used.
b Unit Risk Estimate: The upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 ug/
  m\3\ in air. The interpretation of the Unit Risk Estimate would be as follows: if the Unit Risk Estimate = 1.5 x 10 -6 per ug/m\3\, 1.5 excess tumors
  are expected to develop per 1,000,000 people if exposed daily for a lifetime to 1 ug of the chemical in 1 cubic meter of air. Unit Risk Estimates are
  considered upper bound estimates, meaning they represent a plausible upper limit to the true value. (Note that this is usually not a true statistical
  confidence limit.) The true risk is likely to be less, but could be greater.
 Sources: IRIS = EPA Integrated Risk Information System (http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html) ATSDR = U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
  Registry (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html) CAL = California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/index.html) HEAST = EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (PB(=97-921199, July 1997).

    To establish an applicability cutoff under section 112(d)(4), EPA 
would need to define ambient air exposure concentration limits for any 
threshold pollutants involved. There are several factors to consider 
when establishing such concentrations. First, we would need to ensure 
that the concentrations that would be established would protect public 
health with an ample margin of safety. As discussed above, the approach 
EPA commonly uses when evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold 
air pollutant is to calculate the pollutant's hazard quotient, which is 
the exposure concentration divided by the RfC.
    The EPA's ``Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk 
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures'' suggests that the noncancer health 
effects associated with a mixture of pollutants ideally are assessed by 
considering the pollutants' common mechanisms of toxicity.\4\ The 
guidance also suggests that when exposures to mixtures of pollutants 
are being evaluated, the risk assessor may calculate a HI. The 
recommended method is to calculate multiple hazard indices for each 
exposure route of interest and for a single specific toxic effect or 
toxicity to a single target organ. The default approach recommended by 
the guidance is to sum the hazard quotients for those pollutants that 
induce the same toxic effect or affect the same target organ. A mixture 
is then assessed by several HI, each representing one toxic effect or 
target organ. The guidance notes that the pollutants included in the HI 
calculation are any pollutants that show the effect being assessed, 
regardless of the critical effect upon which the RfC is based. The 
guidance cautions that if the target organ or toxic effect for which 
the HI is calculated is different from the RfC's critical effect, then 
the RfC for that chemical will be an overestimate, that is, the 
resultant HI potentially may be overprotective. Conversely, since the 
calculation of a HI does not account for the fact that the potency of a 
mixture of HAP can be more potent than the sum of the individual HAP 
potencies, a HI may potentially be underprotective in some situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Options for establishing a HI limit. One consideration in 
establishing a HI limit is whether the analysis considers the total 
ambient air concentrations of all the emitted HAP to which the public 
is exposed.\5\ There are several options for establishing a HI limit 
for the section 112(d)(4) analysis that reflect, to varying degrees, 
public exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Senate Debate on Conference Report (October 27, 1990), 
reprinted in ``A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments 
of 1990,'' Comm. Print S. Prt. 103-38 (1993) (``Legis. Hist.'') at 
868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One option is to allow the HI posed by all threshold HAP emitted 
from automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations at the 
facility to be no greater than one. This approach is protective if no 
additional threshold HAP exposures would be anticipated from other 
sources at, or in the vicinity of, the facility or through other routes 
of exposure (e.g., through dermal absorption).
    A second option is to adopt a ``default percentage'' approach, 
whereby the HI limit of the HAP emitted by the facility is set at some 
percentage or fraction of one (e.g., 20 percent or 0.2). This approach 
recognizes the fact that the facility in question is only one of many 
sources of threshold HAP to which people are typically exposed every 
day. Because noncancer risk assessment is predicated on total exposure 
or dose, and because risk assessments focus only on an individual 
source, establishing a HI limit of 0.2 would account for an assumption 
that 20 percent of an individual's total exposure is from that 
individual source. For the purposes of this discussion, we will call 
all sources of HAP, other than operations within the source category at 
the facility in question, ``background'' sources. If the affected 
source is allowed to emit HAP such that its own impacts could result in 
HI values of one, total exposures to threshold HAP in the vicinity of 
the facility could be substantially greater than one due to background 
sources, and this would not be protective of public health since only 
HI values below one are considered to be without appreciable risk of 
adverse health effects. Thus, setting the HI limit for the facility at 
some default percentage of one will provide a buffer which would help 
to ensure that total exposures to threshold HAP near the facility 
(i.e., in combination with exposures due to background sources) will 
generally not exceed one and can generally be considered to be without 
appreciable risk of adverse health effects.
    The EPA requests comment on using the ``default percentage'' 
approach and on setting the default HI limit at 0.2. The EPA is also 
requesting comment on whether an alternative HI limit, in some multiple 
of one, would be a more appropriate applicability cutoff.
    A third option is to use available data (from scientific literature 
or EPA studies, for example) to determine background concentrations of 
HAP,

[[Page 78629]]

possibly on a national or regional basis. These data would be used to 
estimate the exposures to HAP from activities other than automobile and 
light-duty truck surface coating operations. For example, EPA's 
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) \6\ and ATSDR's 
Toxicological Profiles \7\ contain information about background 
concentrations of some HAP in the atmosphere and other media. The 
combined exposures from an affected source and from background 
emissions (as determined from the literature or studies) would then not 
be allowed to exceed a HI limit of 1.0. The EPA requests comment on the 
appropriateness of setting the HI limit at one for such an analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata.
    \7\ See http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A fourth option is to allow facilities to estimate or measure their 
own facility-specific background HAP concentrations for use in their 
analysis. With regard to the third and fourth options, EPA requests 
comment on how these analyses could be structured. Specifically, EPA 
requests comment on how the analyses should take into account 
background exposure levels from air, water, food, and soil encountered 
by the individuals exposed to emissions from this source category. In 
addition, we request comment on how such analyses should account for 
potential increases in exposures due to the use of a new HAP or the 
increased use of a previously emitted HAP, or the effect of other 
nearby sources that release HAP.
    The EPA requests comment on the feasibility and scientific validity 
of each of these or other options. Finally, EPA requests comment on how 
we should implement the section 112(d)(4) applicability cutoffs, 
including appropriate mechanisms for applying cutoffs to individual 
facilities. For example, would the title V permit process provide an 
appropriate mechanism?
    Tiered analytical approach for predicting exposure. Establishing 
that a facility meets the cutoffs established under section 112(d)(4) 
will necessarily involve combining estimates of pollutant emissions 
with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. The EPA envisions 
that we would promote a tiered analysis for these determinations. A 
tiered analysis involves making successive refinements in modeling 
methodologies and input data to derive successively less conservative, 
more realistic estimates of pollutant concentrations in air and 
estimates of risk.
    As a first tier of analysis, EPA could develop a series of simple 
look-up tables based on the results of air dispersion modeling 
conducted using conservative input assumptions. By specifying a limited 
number of input parameters, such as stack height, distance to property 
line, and emission rate, a facility could use these look-up tables to 
determine easily whether the emissions from their sources might cause a 
HI limit to be exceeded.
    A facility that does not pass this initial conservative screening 
analysis could implement increasingly more site-specific and resource-
intensive tiers of analysis using EPA-approved modeling procedures in 
an attempt to demonstrate that exposure to emissions from the facility 
does not exceed the HI limit. Existing EPA guidance could provide the 
basis for conducting such a tiered analysis.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``A Tiered Modeling Approach for Assessing the Risks due to 
Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' EPA-450/4-92-001. David E. 
Guinnup, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, March 
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA requests comment on methods for constructing and 
implementing a tiered analysis for determining applicability of the 
section 112(d)(4) criteria to specific automobile and light-duty truck 
surface coating sources. Ambient monitoring data could possibly be used 
to supplement or supplant the tiered modeling analysis described above. 
We envision that the appropriate monitoring to support such a 
determination could be extensive. The EPA requests comment on the 
appropriate use of monitoring in the determinations described above.
    Accounting for dose-response relationships. In the past, EPA 
routinely treated carcinogens as non-threshold pollutants. The EPA 
recognizes that advances in risk assessment science and policy may 
affect the way EPA differentiates between threshold and non-threshold 
HAP. The EPA's draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment \9\ 
suggest that carcinogens be assigned non-linear dose-response 
relationships where data warrant. Moreover, it is possible that dose-
response curves for some pollutants may reach zero risk at a dose 
greater than zero, creating a threshold for carcinogenic effects. It is 
possible that future evaluations of the carcinogens emitted by this 
source category would determine that one or more of the carcinogens in 
the category is a threshold carcinogen or is a carcinogen that exhibits 
a non-linear dose-response relationship but does not have a threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.'' 
NCEA-F-0644. USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, July 1999. pp 3-9ff. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/pdfs/cancer_gls.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dose-response assessment for formaldehyde is currently 
undergoing revision by EPA. As part of this revision effort, EPA is 
evaluating formaldehyde as a potential non-linear carcinogen. The 
revised dose-response assessment will be subject to review by the EPA 
Science Advisory Board, followed by full consensus review, before 
adoption into the EPA's IRIS. At this time, EPA estimates that the 
consensus review will be completed by the end of 2003. The revision of 
the dose-response assessment could affect the potency factor of 
formaldehyde, as well as its status as a threshold or non-threshold 
pollutant. At this time, the outcome is not known. In addition to the 
current reassessment by EPA, there have been several reassessments of 
the toxicity and carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in recent years, 
including work by the World Health Organization and the Canadian 
Ministry of Health.
    The EPA requests comment on how we should consider the state of the 
science as it relates to the treatment of threshold pollutants when 
making determinations under section 112(d)(4). In addition, EPA 
requests comment on whether there is a level of emissions of a non-
threshold carcinogenic HAP at which it would be appropriate to allow a 
facility to use the scenarios discussed under the section 112(d)(4) 
approach.
    Risk assessment results. The results of the human health risk 
assessments described below are based on approaches for quantifying 
exposure, risk, and cancer incidence that carry significant 
assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations. For example, in conducting 
these types of analyses, there are typically many uncertainties 
regarding dose-response functions, levels of exposure, exposed 
populations, air quality modeling applications, emission levels, and 
control effectiveness. Because the estimates derived from the various 
scoping approaches are necessarily rough, we are concerned that they 
not convey a false sense of precision. Any point estimates of risk 
reduction or benefits generated by these approaches should be 
considered as part of a range of potential estimates.
    If the final rule is implemented as proposed at all automobile and 
light-duty truck surface coating facilities, the number of people 
exposed to HI values equal to, or greater than, one was estimated to be 
reduced from about 100 to about ten. The number of people exposed to HI 
values of 0.2 or greater was predicted to decrease from about

[[Page 78630]]

3,500 to about 1,200. (Details of these analyses are available in the 
docket.)
    Based on the results of this rough assessment, if the section 
112(d)(4) approach is applied only to threshold pollutants, EPA 
estimates that none of the facilities in this source category could 
obtain an exemption from regulation, since all, or nearly all, 
facilities emit some amount of one or more non-threshold pollutants. 
This application of the section 112(d)(4) approach is estimated to 
produce minimal potential cost savings. If formaldehyde and EGBE are 
determined to be threshold carcinogens, these estimates could change.
    The second scenario under the section 112(d)(4) provision would 
apply to both threshold and non-threshold pollutants. If this scenario 
is selected, EPA estimates, using a HI limit of one and treating 
10-6 as a cancer risk threshold, that as many as 54 of the 
facilities in the source category may be exempt from the proposed rule. 
The EPA estimates in this case that the annualized cost of the proposed 
rule would be about $9 million per year, resulting in cost savings of 
about $145 million per year (as compared to establishing a MACT 
standard for all plants in the industry). Using a HI limit of 0.2 and 
treating 10-6 as a cancer risk threshold, EPA estimates that 
as many as 41 facilities may be exempt from the proposed rule. The EPA 
estimates in this case that the annualized cost of the proposed rule 
would be about $66 million per year, resulting in cost savings of about 
$88 million per year (as compared to establishing a MACT standard for 
all plants in the industry).
    The EPA does not expect the third scenario, which would allow 
emission point exemptions, to be applicable for the automobile and 
light-duty truck surface coating source category because mixtures of 
threshold and non-threshold pollutants are co-emitted, and the same 
emission controls would apply to both.
    The risk estimates from this rough assessment are based on typical 
facility configurations (i.e., model plants) and, as such, they are 
subject to significant uncertainties, such that the actual risks at any 
one facility could be significantly higher or lower. Therefore, while 
these risk estimates assist in providing a broad picture of impacts 
across the source category, they should not be the basis for an 
exemption from the requirements of the proposed rule. Rather, any such 
exemption should be based on an estimate of the facility-specific risks 
which would require site-specific data and a more refined analysis.
    For either of the first two approaches described above, the actual 
number of facilities that would qualify for an exemption would depend 
upon site-specific risk assessments and the specified HI limit (see 
earlier discussion of HI limit). If the section 112(d)(4) approach were 
adopted, the requirements of the proposed rule would not apply to any 
source that demonstrates, based on a tiered analysis that includes EPA-
approved modeling of the affected source's emissions, that the 
anticipated HAP exposures do not exceed the specified HI limit.
3. Subcategory Delisting Under Section 112(c)(9)(B) of the CAA
    The EPA is authorized to establish categories and subcategories of 
sources, as appropriate, pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(1), in order to 
facilitate the development of MACT standards consistent with section 
112 of the CAA. Further, section 112(c)(9)(B) allows EPA to delete a 
category (or subcategory) from the list of major sources for which MACT 
standards are to be developed when the following can be demonstrated: 
(1) In the case of carcinogenic pollutants, that ``* * * no source in 
the category * * * emits (carcinogenic) air pollutants in quantities 
which may cause a lifetime risk of cancer greater than 1 in 1 million 
to the individual in the population who is most exposed to emissions of 
such pollutants from the source * * *''; (2) in the case of pollutants 
that cause adverse noncancer health effects, that ``* * * emissions 
from no source in the category or subcategory * * * exceed a level 
which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin of 
safety * * *''; and (3) in the case of pollutants that cause adverse 
environmental effects, that ``no adverse environmental effect will 
result from emissions from any source. * * *''
    Given these authorities and the suggestions from the white papers 
prepared by industry representatives and discussed previously (see 
docket A-2001-22), EPA is considering whether it would be possible to 
establish a subcategory of facilities within the larger source category 
that would meet the risk-based criteria for delisting. Such criteria 
would likely include the same requirements as described previously for 
the second scenario under the section 112(d)(4) approach, whereby a 
facility would be in the low-risk subcategory if its emissions of 
threshold pollutants do not result in exposures which exceed the HI 
limits, and if its emissions of non-threshold pollutants do not result 
in exposures which exceed a cancer risk level of 10-6. The 
EPA requests comment on what an appropriate HI limit would be for a 
determination that a facility be included in the low-risk subcategory.
    Since each facility in such a subcategory would be a low-risk 
facility (i.e., each would meet these criteria), the subcategory could 
be delisted in accordance with section 112(c)(9), thereby limiting the 
costs and impacts of the proposed MACT rule to only those facilities 
that do not qualify for subcategorization and delisting. The EPA 
estimates that the maximum potential of utilizing this approach would 
be the same as that of applying the section 112(d)(4) approach for 
threshold and non-threshold pollutants, though the actual impact is 
likely to be less. For example, with a HI value limit of one and 
treating 10-6 as a cancer risk threshold, as many as 54 of 
the facilities may be exempted under this approach. Alternatively, with 
a HI limit of 0.2 and treating 10-6 as a cancer risk 
threshold, as many as 41 facilities may be exempted under this 
approach.
    Facilities seeking to be included in the delisted subcategory would 
be responsible for providing all data required to determine whether 
they are eligible for inclusion. Facilities that could not demonstrate 
that they are eligible to be included in the low-risk subcategory would 
be subject to MACT and possible future residual risk standards. The EPA 
solicits comment on implementing a risk-based approach for establishing 
subcategories of automobile and light-duty truck surface coating 
facilities.
    Establishing that a facility qualifies for the low-risk subcategory 
under section 112(c)(9) will necessarily involve combining estimates of 
pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. 
The EPA envisions that we would employ the same tiered analysis 
described earlier in the section 112(d)(4) discussion for these 
determinations.
    One concern that EPA has with respect to the section 112(c)(9) 
approach is the effect that it could have on the MACT floors. If many 
of the facilities in the low-risk subcategory are well-controlled, that 
could make the MACT floor less stringent for the remaining facilities. 
One approach that has been suggested to mitigate this effect would be 
to establish the MACT floor now based on controls in place for the 
entire category and to allow facilities to become part of the low-risk 
subcategory in the future, after the MACT standards are established. 
This would allow low-risk facilities to use the section 112(c)(9) 
exemption without affecting the MACT

[[Page 78631]]

floor calculation. The EPA requests comment on this suggested approach.
    Another scenario under the section 112(c)(9) approach would be to 
define a subcategory of facilities within the source category based 
upon technological differences, such as differences in production rate, 
emission vent flow rates, overall facility size, emissions 
characteristics, processes, or air pollution control device viability. 
The EPA requests comment on how we might establish subcategories based 
on these, or other, source characteristics. If it could then be 
determined that each source in this technologically-defined subcategory 
presents a low risk to the surrounding community, the subcategory could 
then be delisted in accordance with section 112(c)(9). The EPA requests 
comment on the concept of identifying technologically-based 
subcategories that may include only low-risk facilities within the 
source category.
    If a section 112(c)(9) approach were adopted, the requirements of 
the proposed rule would not apply to any source that demonstrates that 
it belongs in a subcategory which has been delisted under section 
112(c)(9).
    Consideration of criteria pollutants. Finally, EPA projects that 
adoption of the MACT floor level of controls would result in increases 
in nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. This pollutant is a 
precursor in the formation of ozone and fine particulate matter (PM). 
Ozone has been associated with a variety of adverse health effects such 
as reduced lung function, respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough and chest 
pain) and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for 
respiratory causes. Fine PM has been associated with a variety of 
adverse health effects such as premature mortality, chronic bronchitis, 
and increased frequency of asthma attacks. The EPA requests comments on 
the extent to which consideration should be given to the adverse 
effects of the possible increase in NOX emissions from 
applying MACT technology, in the context of implementing our authority 
under section 112(c)(9) or other exemptions.

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

A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States

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

B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposed Amendments

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

VI. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation

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

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined

[[Page 78632]]

that the proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' because 
it could have an annual impact on the economy of over $100 million. 
Consequently, this action was submitted to OMB for review under 
Executive Order 12866. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or 
recommendations will be documented in the public record.
    As stipulated in Executive Order 12866, in deciding how or whether 
to regulate, EPA is required to assess all costs and benefits of 
available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not 
regulating. To this end, EPA prepared a detailed benefit-cost analysis 
in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Automobile and 
Light-Duty Truck Coatings NESHAP,'' which is contained in the docket. 
The following is a summary of the benefit-cost analysis:
    It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the rule as 
proposed, HAP emissions will be reduced from 10,000 tpy to 4,000 tpy. 
This represents a 60 percent reduction (or 6,000 tpy) of toluene, 
xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. Based on 
scientific studies conducted over the past 20 years, the EPA has 
classified ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE), one of the glycol 
ethers, as a ``possible human carcinogen,'' while ethylbenzene, MEK, 
toluene, and xylenes are considered by the EPA as ``not classifiable as 
to human carcinogenicity.'' At this time, we are unable to provide a 
comprehensive quantification and monetization of the HAP-related 
benefits of this proposal.
    Exposure to HAP can result in the incidence of respiratory 
irritation, chest constriction, gastric irritation, eye, nose, and 
throat irritation as well as neurological and blood effects. 
Specifically, exposure to EGBE may result in neurological and blood 
effects, including fatigue, nausea, tremor, and anemia. Though no 
reliable human epidemiological study is available to address the 
potential carcinogenicity of EGBE, a draft report of a 2-year rodent 
inhalation study reported equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity 
in female rats and male mice. Exposure to MEK may lead to eye, nose, 
and throat irritation while methanol may lead to blurred vision, 
headache, dizziness, and nausea. Toluene may cause effects to the 
central nervous system, such as fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and 
nausea. In addition, chronic exposure to this HAP can lead to tremors, 
decreased brain size, involuntary eye movements, and impairment of 
speech, hearing, and vision. Xylenes, a mixture of three closely 
related compounds, may cause nose and throat irritation, nausea, 
vomiting, gastric irritation, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and 
tremors.
    The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from 
automobile and light-duty truck coating operations are also expected to 
reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, particularly VOC. 
Specifically, the proposed rule achieves a 12,000 to 18,000 tpy 
reduction in VOC. The VOC is a precursor to tropospheric (ground-level) 
ozone and a small percentage also precipitate in the atmosphere to form 
PM.
    Although we have not estimated the monetary value associated with 
VOC reductions, the benefits can be substantial. Health and welfare 
effects from exposure to ground-level ozone are well documented. 
Elevated concentrations of ground-level ozone primarily may result in 
acute respiratory-related impacts such as coughing and difficulty 
breathing. Chronic exposure to ground-level ozone may lead to 
structural damage to the lungs, alterations in lung capacity and 
breathing frequency, increased sensitivity of airways, eye, nose, and 
throat irritation, malaise, and nausea. Adverse ozone welfare effects 
include damage to agricultural crops, ornamental plants, and materials 
damage. Though only a small fraction of VOC forms PM, exposure to PM 
can result in human health and welfare effects including excess deaths, 
morbidity, soiling and materials damage, as well as reduced visibility. 
To the extent that reduced exposure to HAP and VOC reduces the 
instances of the above described health effects, benefits from the 
proposed rule are realized by society through an improvement in 
environmental quality.
    Benefit-cost comparison (net benefits) is a tool used to evaluate 
the reallocation of society's resources used to address the pollution 
externality created by the coatings operations at automobile and light-
duty truck plants. The additional costs of internalizing the pollution 
produced at major sources of emissions from automobile and light-duty 
truck manufacturing facilities can be compared to the improvement in 
society's well-being from a cleaner and healthier environment. 
Comparing benefits of the proposed rule to the costs imposed by the 
alternative methods to control emissions optimally identifies a 
strategy that results in the highest net benefit to society. In the 
case of the proposed automobiles and light-duty trucks coating NESHAP, 
we are proposing only one option, the minimum level of control mandated 
by the CAA or the MACT floor.
    Based on estimated compliance costs associated with this proposed 
rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected 
industry, the estimated social costs of this proposed rule are $161 
million (1999 dollars).

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR

[[Page 78633]]

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' 
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own or operate automobile 
and light-duty truck surface coating facilities. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to the proposed rule.

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

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

E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

    \10\ U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Electric Power Annual, 
Volume I. Table A2: Industry Capability by Fuel Source and Industry 
Sector, 1999 and 1998 (Megawatts).
    \11\ U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Natural Gas Annual. Table 
1: Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, 1995-
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most 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.
    We have determined that the proposed rule contains a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any 1 year. Accordingly, we have prepared a written statement 
(titled ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis for the Proposed 
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Coating NESHAP'') under section 202 
of the UMRA which is summarized below.
1. Statutory Authority
    The statutory authority for this rulemaking is section 112 of the 
CAA, enacted to reduce nationwide air toxic emissions. In compliance 
with UMRA section 205(a), we identified and considered a reasonable 
number of regulatory alternatives. Additional information on the costs 
and environmental impacts of these

[[Page 78634]]

regulatory alternatives is presented in the docket. The regulatory 
alternative upon which the proposed rule is based represents the MACT 
floor for automobile and light-duty truck coating operations and, as a 
result, is the least costly and least burdensome alternative.
2. Social Costs and Benefits
    The RIA prepared for the proposed rule, including EPA's assessment 
of costs and benefits, is detailed in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis 
for the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks Coating NESHAP'' in the 
docket. Based on the estimated compliance costs associated with the 
proposed rule and the predicted changes in prices and production in the 
affected industry, the estimated annual social costs of the proposed 
rule is projected to be $161 million (1999 dollars).
    It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the rule as 
proposed, HAP will be reduced from 10,000 tpy to 4,000 tpy. This 
represents a 60 percent reduction (6,000 tpy) of toluene, xylene, 
glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. Based on 
scientific studies conducted over the past 20 years, EPA has classified 
EGBE as a ``possible human carcinogen,'' while ethylbenzene, MEK, 
toluene, and xylenes are considered by the Agency as ``not classifiable 
as to human carcinogenicity.'' The studies upon which these 
classifications are based have worked toward the determination of a 
relationship between exposure to these HAP and the onset of cancer. 
However, there are several questions remaining on how cancers that may 
result from exposure to these HAP can be quantified in terms of 
dollars. Therefore, EPA is unable to provide a monetized estimate of 
the benefits of HAP reduced by the proposed rule at this time. Exposure 
to HAP can result in the incidence of respiratory irritation, chest 
constriction, gastric irritation, eye, nose, and throat irritation, as 
well as neurological and blood effects, including fatigue, nausea, 
tremor, and anemia.
    The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from 
automobile and light-duty truck coating operations is also expected to 
reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, particularly VOC. 
Specifically, this proposed rule achieves a 12,000 to 18,000 tpy 
reduction in VOC. The VOC is a precursor to tropospheric (ground-level) 
ozone and a small percentage also precipitate in the atmosphere to form 
PM.
    Although we have not estimated the monetary value associated with 
VOC reductions, the benefits can be substantial. Health and welfare 
effects from exposure to ground-level ozone are well documented. 
Elevated concentrations of ground-level ozone primarily may result in 
acute respiratory-related impacts such as coughing and difficulty 
breathing. Chronic exposure to ground-level ozone may lead to 
structural damage to the lungs, alterations in lung capacity and 
breathing frequency, increased sensitivity of airways, eye, nose, and 
throat irritation, malaise, and nausea. Adverse ozone welfare effects 
include damage to agricultural crops, ornamental plants, and materials 
damage. Though only a small fraction of VOC forms PM, exposure to PM 
can result in human health and welfare effects, including excess 
deaths, morbidity, soiling and materials damage, as well as reduced 
visibility.
    To the extent that reduced exposure to HAP and VOC reduces the 
instances of the above described health effects, benefits from the 
proposed rule would be realized by society through an improvement in 
environmental quality.
3. Future and Disproportionate Costs
    The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is 
reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the proposed 
rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. We do not believe that 
there will be any disproportionate budgetary effects of the proposed 
rule on any particular areas of the country, State, or local 
governments, types of communities (e.g., urban, rural), or particular 
industry segments.
4. Effects on the National Economy
    The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the proposed rule 
on the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the 
effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of 
productive jobs, and international competitiveness of United States 
goods and services if we determine that accurate estimates are 
reasonably feasible and that such effect is relevant and material.
    The nationwide economic impact of the proposed rule is presented in 
the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Automobiles and Light-Duty 
Trucks Coating NESHAP.'' That analysis provides estimates of the effect 
of the proposed rule on some of the categories mentioned above.
    The estimated direct cost to the automobile and light-duty truck 
manufacturing industry of compliance with the proposed rule is 
approximately $154 million (1999 dollars) annually. Indirect costs of 
the proposed rule to industries other than the automobile and light-
duty truck manufacturing industry, governments, tribes, and other 
affected entities are expected to be minor. The estimated annual costs 
is minimal when compared to the nominal gross domestic product of 
$9,255 billion reported for the Nation in 1999. The proposed rule is 
expected to have little impact on domestic productivity, economic 
growth, full employment, energy markets, creation of productive jobs, 
and the international competitiveness of United States goods and 
services.
5. Consultation With Government Officials
    Although this proposed rule does not affect any State, local, or 
tribal governments, EPA has consulted with State and local air 
pollution control officials. The EPA has held meetings on the proposed 
rule with many of the stakeholders from numerous individual companies, 
environmental groups, consultants and vendors, and other interested 
parties. The EPA has added materials to the docket to document these 
meetings.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For the automobile and light-duty truck surface coating industry, a 
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to Small 
Business Administration size standards for companies identified by 
NAICS codes 33611 (automobile manufacturing) and 33621 (light-duty 
truck and utility vehicle manufacturing) with 1,000 or fewer employees; 
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
county, town, school district, or special district with a population of 
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field. Based on the above definition, there are no 
small entities presently engaged in automobile and light-duty truck 
surface coating.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that the proposed

[[Page 78635]]

rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This certification is based on the 
observation that the proposed rule affects no small entities since none 
are engaged in the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty 
trucks.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

[[Page 78636]]

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 63

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

40 CFR Part 264

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

40 CFR Part 265

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

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

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts 
63, 264, and 265 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be 
amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

Subpart IIII--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

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

Emission Limitations

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

General Compliance Requirements

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

Notifications, Reports, and Records

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

Compliance Requirements for Adhesive, Sealer, and Deadener

63.3150 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance 
demonstration?
63.3151 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations?
63.3152 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
limitations?

Compliance Requirements for the Combined Electrodeposition Primer, 
Primer-Surfacer, Topcoat, Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass 
Bonding Adhesive Emission Rates

63.3160 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other 
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.3161 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
63.3162 [Reserved]
63.3163 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
limitations?
63.3164 What are the general requirements for performance tests?
63.3165 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency?
63.3166 How do I determine the add-on control device emission 
destruction or removal efficiency?

[[Page 78637]]

63.3167 How do I establish the add-on control device operating 
limits during the performance test?
63.3168 What are the requirements for continuous parameter 
monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?

Compliance Requirements for the Combined Primer-Surfacer, Topcoat, 
Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission 
Rates and the Separate Electrodeposition Primer Emission Rates

63.3170 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other 
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.3171 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
63.3172 [Reserved]
63.3173 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
limitations?

Other Requirements and Information

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

Tables to Subpart IIII of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart IIII of Part 63--Operating Limits for Capture 
Systems and Add-On Control Devices
Table 2 to Subpart IIII of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart IIII of Part 63
Table 3 to Subpart IIII of Part 63--Default Organic HAP Mass 
Fraction for Solvents and Solvent Blends
Table 4 to Subpart IIII of Part 63--Default Organic HAP Mass 
Fraction for Petroleum Solvent Groups

Subpart IIII--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.3080  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for facilities which surface coat new 
automobile or light-duty truck bodies or collections of body parts for 
new automobiles or new light-duty trucks. This subpart also establishes 
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations.


Sec.  63.3081  Am I subject to this subpart?

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

    \1\ Proposed December 4, 2002 (67 FR 72275).
    \2\ Proposed August 13, 2002 (67 FR 52780).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Surface coating that occurs at research or laboratory 
facilities or that is part of janitorial, building, and facility 
maintenance operations, including maintenance spray booths used for 
painting production equipment, furniture, signage, etc., for use within 
the plant.


Sec.  63.3082  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

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


Sec.  63.3083  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    The date by which you must comply with this subpart is called the 
compliance date. The compliance date for each type of affected source 
is specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. The 
compliance date begins the initial compliance period during which you 
conduct the initial compliance demonstrations described in Sec. Sec.  
63.3150, 63.3160 and 63.3170.
    (a) For a new or reconstructed affected source, the compliance date 
is the applicable date in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section:
    (1) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected 
source is before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], the compliance date is [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (2) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected 
source occurs after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], the compliance date is the date of initial startup of your 
affected source.
    (b) For an existing affected source, the compliance date is the 
date 3 years after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER].
    (c) For an area source that increases its emissions or its 
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP emissions, 
the compliance date is specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) For any portion of the source that becomes a new or 
reconstructed affected source subject to this subpart, the

[[Page 78638]]

compliance date is the date of initial startup of the affected source 
or [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 
whichever is later.
    (2) For any portion of the source that becomes an existing affected 
source subject to this subpart, the compliance date is the date 1 year 
after the area source becomes a major source or 3 years after [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later.
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec.  63.3110 
according to the dates specified in that section and in subpart A of 
this part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before the 
compliance dates described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 
section.

Emission Limitations


Sec.  63.3090  What emission limits must I meet for a new or 
reconstructed affected source?

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


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

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


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

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


Sec.  63.3093  What operating limits must I meet?

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


Sec.  63.3094  What work practice standards must I meet?

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

[[Page 78639]]

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

General Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.3100  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations in 
Sec. Sec.  63.3090 and 63.3091 at all times, as determined on a monthly 
basis.
    (b) The coating operations must be in compliance with the operating 
limits for emission capture systems and add-on control devices required 
by Sec.  63.3093 at all times except during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.
    (c) You must be in compliance with the work practice standards in 
Sec.  63.3094 at all times.
    (d) You must always operate and maintain your affected source 
including all air pollution control and monitoring equipment you use 
for purposes of complying with this subpart according to the provisions 
in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i).
    (e) You must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance 
of the emission capture systems, add-on control devices, and continuous 
parameter monitors (CPM) during the period between the compliance date 
specified for your affected source in Sec.  63.3083 and the date when 
the initial

[[Page 78640]]

emission capture system and add-on control device performance tests 
have been completed, as specified in Sec.  63.3160.
    (f) If your affected source uses emission capture systems and add-
on control devices, you must develop and implement a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.6(e)(3). The plan must address startup, shutdown, and corrective 
actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission capture system or 
the add-on control devices.


Sec.  63.3101  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 2 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.3110  What notifications must I submit?

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


Sec.  63.3120  What reports must I submit?

    (a) Semiannual compliance reports. You must submit semiannual 
compliance reports for each affected source according to the 
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section. The 
semiannual compliance reporting requirements may be satisfied by 
reports required under other parts of the CAA, as specified in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) Dates. Unless the Administrator has approved a different 
schedule for submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must 
prepare and submit each semiannual compliance report according to the 
dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) The first semiannual compliance report must cover the first 
semiannual reporting period which begins the day after the end of the 
initial compliance period described in Sec.  63.3160 that applies to 
your affected source and ends on June 30 or December 31, whichever 
occurs first following the end of the initial compliance period.
    (ii) Each subsequent semiannual compliance report must cover the 
subsequent semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 
or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (iii) Each semiannual compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (iv) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR

[[Page 78641]]

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of according to the date specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of 
this section.
    (2) Inclusion with title V report. If you have obtained a title V 
operating permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must 
report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual 
monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a semiannual compliance report 
pursuant to this section along with, or as part of, the semiannual 
monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the semiannual compliance report includes all 
required information concerning deviations from any emission limit, 
operating limit, or work practice in this subpart, its submission shall 
be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in 
the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a semiannual 
compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation you may 
have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting 
authority.
    (3) General requirements. The semiannual compliance report must 
contain the information specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) 
of this section, and the information specified in paragraphs (a)(4) 
through (9) and (c)(1) of this section that are applicable to your 
affected source.
    (i) Company name and address.
    (ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the 
reporting period. The reporting period is the 6-month period ending on 
June 30 or December 31.
    (iv) Identification of the compliance option specified in Sec.  
63.3090(b) or Sec.  63.3091(b) that you used for electrodeposition 
primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, 
and glass bonding adhesive application in the affected source during 
the initial compliance period.
    (4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission 
limitations, operating limits, or work practices in Sec. Sec.  63.3090, 
63.3091, 63.3092, 63.3093, and 63.3094 that apply to you, the 
semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were 
no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting 
period. If you used control devices to comply with the emission limits, 
and there were no periods during which the continuous parameter 
monitoring systems (CPMS) were out of control as specified in Sec.  
63.8(c)(7), the semiannual compliance report must include a statement 
that there were no periods during which the CPMS were out of control 
during the reporting period.
    (5) Deviations: adhesive, sealer, and deadener. If there was a 
deviation from the applicable emission limits in Sec.  63.3090(c) and 
(d) or Sec.  63.3091(c) and (d), the semiannual compliance report must 
contain the information in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) The beginning and ending dates of each month during which the 
monthly average organic HAP content exceeded the applicable emission 
limit in Sec.  63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec.  63.3091(c) and (d).
    (ii) The volume and organic HAP content of each material used that 
is subject to the applicable organic HAP content limit.
    (iii) The calculation used to determine the average monthly organic 
HAP content for the month in which the deviation occurred.
    (iv) The reason for the deviation.
    (6) Deviations: combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, 
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer and glass bonding adhesive, 
or combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding 
primer, and glass bonding adhesive. If there was a deviation from the 
applicable emission limits in Sec.  63.3090(a) or (b) or Sec.  
63.3091(a) or (b), the semiannual compliance report must contain the 
information in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (xiv) of this section.
    (i) The beginning and ending dates of each month during which the 
monthly organic HAP emission rate from combined electrodeposition 
primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, 
and glass bonding adhesive exceeded the applicable emission limit in 
Sec.  63.3090(a) or Sec.  63.3091(a); or the monthly organic HAP 
emission rate from combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, 
glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive exceeded the 
applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3090(b) or Sec.  63.3091(b).
    (ii) The calculation used to determine the monthly organic HAP 
emission rate in accordance with Sec.  63.3161 or Sec.  63.3171. You do 
not need to submit the background data supporting these calculations, 
for example information provided by materials suppliers or 
manufacturers, or test reports.
    (iii) The date and time that any malfunctions of the capture system 
or add-on control devices used to control emissions from these 
operations started and stopped.
    (iv) A brief description of the CPMS.
    (v) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit.
    (vi) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (vii) The date and time period that each CPMS was out of control, 
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (viii) The date and time period of each deviation from an operating 
limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and time period of each bypass 
of an add-on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during 
a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
    (ix) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total 
source operating time of the deviations from each operating limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart and the bypass of each add-on control device 
during the semiannual reporting period.
    (x) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from each 
operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of each add-on 
control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that 
were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process 
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
    (xi) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total 
source operating time of the downtime for each CPMS during the 
semiannual reporting period.
    (xii) A description of any changes in the CPMS, coating operation, 
emission capture system, or add-on control devices since the last 
semiannual reporting period.
    (xiii) For each deviation from the work practice standards, a 
description of the deviation, the date and time period of the 
deviation, and the actions you took to correct the deviation.
    (xiv) A statement of the cause of each deviation.
    (7) Deviations: separate electrodeposition primer organic HAP 
content limit. If you used the separate electrodeposition primer 
organic HAP content limits in Sec.  63.3092(a), and there was a 
deviation from these limits, the semiannual compliance report must 
contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Identification of each material used that deviated from the 
emission limit,

[[Page 78642]]

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


Sec.  63.3130  What records must I keep?

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

[[Page 78643]]

    (5) A record, for each month, of the calculation of the average 
monthly mass organic HAP content of:
    (i) Sealers and adhesives; and
    (ii) Deadeners.
    (d) A record of the name and volume of each cleaning material used 
during each month.
    (e) A record of the mass fraction of organic HAP for each cleaning 
material used during each month.
    (f) A record of the density for each cleaning material used during 
each month.
    (g) A record of the date, time, and duration of each deviation, and 
for each deviation, a record of whether the deviation occurred during a 
period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
    (h) The records required by Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) 
related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (i) For each capture system that is a PTE, the data and 
documentation you used to support a determination that the capture 
system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 
for a PTE and has a capture efficiency of 100 percent.
    (j) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and 
documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the 
requirements specified in Sec.  63.3164, including the records 
specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this section that apply 
to you.
    (1) Records for a liquid-to-uncaptured-gas protocol using a 
temporary total enclosure or building enclosure. Records of the mass of 
total volatile hydrocarbon (TVH), as measured by Method 204A or F of 
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, for each material used in the coating 
operation, and the total TVH for all materials used during each capture 
efficiency test run, including a copy of the test report. Records of 
the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the capture system that 
exited the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each 
capture efficiency test run, as measured by Method 204D or E of 
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, including a copy of the test report. 
Records documenting that the enclosure used for the capture efficiency 
test met the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for 
either a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure.
    (2) Records for a gas-to-gas protocol using a temporary total 
enclosure or a building enclosure. Records of the mass of TVH emissions 
captured by the emission capture system, as measured by Method 204B or 
C of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, at the inlet to the add-on control 
device, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of TVH 
emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary 
total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency 
test run, as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 
51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the 
enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in 
Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total 
enclosure or a building enclosure.
    (3) Records for panel tests. Records needed to document a capture 
efficiency determination using a panel test as described in Sec.  
63.3165(e), including a copy of the test report and calculations 
performed to convert the panel test results to percent capture 
efficiency values.
    (4) Records for an alternative protocol. Records needed to document 
a capture efficiency determination using an alternative method or 
protocol, if applicable.
    (k) The records specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this 
section for each add-on control device organic HAP destruction or 
removal efficiency determination as specified in Sec.  63.3166.
    (1) Records of each add-on control device performance test 
conducted according to Sec. Sec.  63.3164 and 63.3166.
    (2) Records of the coating operation conditions during the add-on 
control device performance test showing that the performance test was 
conducted under representative operating conditions.
    (l) Records of the data and calculations you used to establish the 
emission capture and add-on control device operating limits as 
specified in Sec.  63.3167 and to document compliance with the 
operating limits as specified in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (m) Records of the data and calculations you used to determine the 
transfer efficiency for primer-surfacer and topcoat application.
    (n) A record of the work practice plans required by Sec.  
63.3094(b) and (c) and documentation that you are implementing the plan 
on a continuous basis.


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

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

Compliance Requirements for Adhesive, Sealer, and Deadener


Sec.  63.3150  By what date must I conduct the initial compliance 
demonstration?

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


Sec.  63.3151  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations?

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

[[Page 78644]]

You must determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each material 
used during the compliance period by using one of the options in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 63). You may use Method 
311 for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP. Use the 
procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section 
when performing a Method 311 test.
    (i) Count each organic HAP that is measured to be present at 0.1 
percent by mass or more for OSHA-defined carcinogens, as specified in 
29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4), and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other 
compounds. For example, if toluene (not an OSHA carcinogen) is measured 
to be 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. 
Express the mass fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value 
truncated to four places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791).
    (ii) Calculate the total mass fraction of organic HAP in the test 
material by adding up the individual organic HAP mass fractions and 
truncating the result to three places after the decimal point (e.g., 
0.7638 truncates to 0.763).
    (2) Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you may 
use Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile 
matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic 
HAP.
    (3) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for 
determining the mass fraction of organic HAP once the Administrator has 
approved it. You must follow the procedure in Sec.  63.7(f) to submit 
an alternative test method for approval.
    (4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. 
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test 
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, 
such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic 
HAP that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for OSHA-defined 
carcinogens, as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4), and at 1.0 percent 
by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not an 
OSHA carcinogen) is 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not 
have to count it. If there is a disagreement between such information 
and results of a test conducted according to paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(3) of this section, then the test method results will take precedence.
    (5) Solvent blends. Solvent blends may be listed as single 
components for some materials in data provided by manufacturers or 
suppliers. Solvent blends may contain organic HAP which must be counted 
toward the total organic HAP mass fraction of the materials. When 
neither test data nor manufacturer's data for solvent blends are 
available, you may use the default values for the mass fraction of 
organic HAP in the solvent blends listed in Table 3 or 4 to this 
subpart. If you use the tables, you must use the values in Table 3 for 
all solvent blends that match Table 3 entries, and you may only use 
Table 4 if the solvent blends in the materials you use do not match any 
of the solvent blends in Table 3 and you only know whether the blend is 
aliphatic or aromatic. However, if the results of a Method 311 test 
indicate higher values than those listed on Table 3 or 4 to this 
subpart, the Method 311 results will take precedence.
    (b) Determine the density of each material used. Determine the 
density of each material used during the compliance period from test 
results using ASTM Method D1475-98 or information from the supplier or 
manufacturer of the material. If there is disagreement between ASTM 
Method D1475-98 test results and the supplier's or manufacturer's 
information, the test results will take precedence.
    (c) Determine the volume of each material used. Determine the 
volume (liters) of each material used during each month by measurement 
or usage records.
    (d) Determine the mass average organic HAP content for each group 
of materials. Determine the mass average organic HAP content of the 
materials used during the initial compliance period for each group of 
materials for which an emission limit is established in Sec.  
63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec.  63.3091(c) and (d), using Equations 1 and 2 
of this section.
    (1) Calculate the mass average organic HAP content of adhesive and 
sealer materials other than components of the glass bonding system used 
in the initial compliance period using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.006

Where:

Cavg,as = mass average organic HAP content of adhesives and 
sealers used, kg/kg.
Volas,j = volume of adhesive or sealer j used, liters.
Das,j = Density of adhesive or sealer j used, kg per liter.
Was,j = mass fraction of organic HAP in adhesive or sealer, 
j, kg/kg.
r = number of adhesives and sealers used.

    (2) Calculate the mass average organic HAP content of deadener used 
in the initial compliance period using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.007

Where:

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

[[Page 78645]]

Dd,m = density of deadener, m, used, kg per liter.
Wd,m = mass fraction of organic HAP in deadener, m, kg/kg.
s = number of deadener materials used.

    (e) Compliance demonstration. The mass average organic HAP content 
for the compliance period must be less than or equal to the applicable 
emission limit in Sec.  63.3090(c) and (d) or Sec.  63.3091(c) and (d). 
You must keep all records as required by Sec. Sec.  63.3130 and 
63.3131. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by 
Sec.  63.3110, you must submit a statement that the coating operations 
were in compliance with the emission limitations during the initial 
compliance period because the mass average organic HAP content was less 
than or equal to the applicable emission limits in Sec.  63.3090(c) and 
(d) or Sec.  63.3091(c) and (d), determined according to this section.


Sec.  63.3152  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations?

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

Compliance Requirements for the Combined Electrodeposition Primer, 
Primer-Surfacer, Topcoat, Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass 
Bonding Adhesive Emission Rates


Sec.  63.3160  By what date must I conduct performance tests and other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

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


Sec.  63.3161  How do I demonstrate initial compliance?

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

[[Page 78646]]

using the procedures specified in Sec. Sec.  63.3167 and 63.3168.
    (c) Compliance with work practice requirements. You must develop, 
implement, and document your implementation of the work practice plans 
required by Sec.  63.3094(b) and (c) during the initial compliance 
period, as specified in Sec.  63.3130.
    (d) Compliance with emission limits. You must follow the procedures 
in paragraphs (e) through (o) of this section to demonstrate compliance 
with the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3090(a) or Sec.  
63.3091(a). You may also use the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for 
Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile 
and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (docket A-
2001-22) in making this demonstration.
    (e) Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP, density and volume 
used. Follow the procedures specified in Sec.  63.3151(a) through (c) 
to determine the mass fraction of organic HAP and the density and 
volume of each coating and thinner used during each month.
    (f) Determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each 
coating. You must determine the volume fraction of coating solids 
(liter of coating solids per liter of coating) for each coating used 
during the compliance period by a test or by information provided by 
the supplier or the manufacturer of the material, as specified in 
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. If test results obtained 
according to paragraph (f)(1) of this section do not agree with the 
information obtained under paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the test 
results will take precedence.
    (1) ASTM Method D2697-86(1998) or D6093-97. You may use ASTM Method 
D2697-86(1998) or D6093-97 to determine the volume fraction of coating 
solids for each coating. Divide the nonvolatile volume percent obtained 
with the methods by 100 to calculate volume fraction of coating solids.
    (2) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. 
You may obtain the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating 
from the supplier or manufacturer.
    (g) Determine the transfer efficiency for each coating. You must 
determine the transfer efficiency for each primer-surfacer and topcoat 
coating using ASTM Method D5066-91(2001) or the guidelines presented in 
``Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission 
Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/
3-88-018 (docket A-2001-22). Those guidelines include provisions for 
testing representative coatings instead of testing every coating. You 
may assume 100 percent transfer efficiency for electrodeposition primer 
coatings, glass bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives. For final 
repair coatings, you may assume 40 percent transfer efficiency for air 
atomized spray and 55 percent transfer efficiency for electrostatic 
spray and high volume, low pressure spray.
    (h) Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions before add-on 
controls. Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions before 
consideration of add-on controls from all coatings and thinners used 
during each month in the combined electrodeposition primer, primer-
surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass 
bonding adhesive operations using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.008

Where:

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

    (1) Calculate the kg organic HAP in the coatings used during the 
month using Equation 1A of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.009

Where:

A = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the month, 
kg.
Volc,i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month, 
liters.
Dc,i = density of coating, i, kg coating per liter coating.
Wc,i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, kg 
organic HAP per kg coating.
m = number of different coatings used during the month.

    (2) Calculate the kg of organic HAP in the thinners used during the 
month using Equation 1B of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.010

Where:

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

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

[[Page 78647]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.011

Where:

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

    (1) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the 
controlled coating operation, kg, using Equation 2A of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.012

Where:

AC = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the 
controlled coating operation during the month, kg.
Volc,i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month, 
liters.
Dc,i = density of coating, i, kg per liter.
Wc,i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, kg per 
kg.
m = number of different coatings used.

    (2) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the 
controlled coating operation, kg, using Equation 2B of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.013

Where:

BC = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the 
controlled coating operation during the month, kg.
Volt,j = total volume of thinner, j, used during the month, 
liters.
Dt,j = density of thinner, j, kg per liter.
Wt,j = mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner, j, kg per 
kg.
n = number of different thinners used.
    (3) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the coatings and thinners 
used in the controlled coating operation during deviations specified in 
Sec.  63.3163(c) and (d), using Equation 2C of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.014

Where:

Hunc = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings and 
thinners used during all deviations specified in Sec.  63.3163(c) and 
(d) that occurred during the month in the controlled coating operation, 
kg.
Volh = total volume of coating or thinner, h, used in the 
controlled coating operation during deviations, liters.
Dh = density of coating or thinner, h, kg per liter.
Wh = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating or thinner, h, 
kg organic HAP per kg coating.
q = number of different coatings or thinners.

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

[[Page 78648]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.015

Where:

RV = volatile organic matter collection and recovery 
efficiency of the solvent recovery system during the month, percent.
MVR = mass of volatile organic matter recovered by the 
solvent recovery system during the month, kg.
Voli = volume of coating, i, used in the coating operation 
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, liters.
Di = density of coating, i, kg per liter.
WVc,i = mass fraction of volatile organic matter for 
coating, i, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating.
Volj = volume of thinner, j, used in the coating operation 
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, liters.
Dj = density of thinner, j, kg per liter.
WVt,j = mass fraction of volatile organic matter for 
thinner, j, kg volatile organic matter per kg thinner.
m = number of different coatings used in the coating operation 
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month.
n = number of different thinners used in the coating operation 
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month.

    (7) Calculate the mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the 
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the 
month, using Equation 4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.016

Where:

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

    (i) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the 
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, kg, using 
Equation 4A of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.017

Where:

ACSR = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the 
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the 
month, kg.
Volc,i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month 
in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, 
liters.
Dc,i = density of coating, i, kg per liter.
Wc,i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, kg per 
kg.
m = number of different coatings used.

    (2) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the 
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, kg, using 
Equation 4B of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.018

Where:

BCSR = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the 
coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the 
month, kg.
Volt,j = total volume of thinner, j, used during the month 
in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, 
liters.
Dt,j = density of thinner, j, kg per liter.
Wt,j = mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner, j, kg per 
kg.
n = number of different thinners used.

    (l) Calculate the total volume of coating solids deposited. 
Determine the total volume of coating solids deposited, liters, in the 
combined electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, final 
repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations 
using Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.019

Where:

Vsdep = total volume of coating solids deposited during the 
month, liters.
Volc,i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month, 
liters.
Vs,i = volume fraction of coating solids for coating, i, 
liter solids per liter coating, determined according to Sec.  
63.3161(f).
TEc,i = transfer efficiency of coating, i, determined 
according to Sec.  63.3161(g).
m = number of coatings used during the month.

    (m) Calculate the mass of organic HAP emissions for each month. 
Determine the mass of organic HAP emissions, kg, during each month, 
using Equation 6 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.020

Where:

HHAP = total mass of organic HAP emissions for the month, 
kg.
HBC = total mass of organic HAP emissions before add-on 
controls

[[Page 78649]]

from all the coatings and thinners used during the month, kg, 
determined according to paragraph (h) of this section.
HC,i = total mass of organic HAP emission reduction for 
controlled coating operation, i, not using a liquid-liquid material 
balance, during the month, kg, from Equation 2 of this section.
HCSR,j = total mass of organic HAP emission reduction for 
coating operation, j, controlled by a solvent recovery system using a 
liquid-liquid material balance, during the month, kg, from Equation 4 
of this section.
q = number of controlled coating operations not using a liquid-liquid 
material balance.
r = number of coating operations controlled by a solvent recovery 
system using a liquid-liquid material balance.

    (n) Calculate the organic HAP emission rate for the month. 
Determine the organic HAP emission rate for the month compliance 
period, kg organic HAP per liter coating solids deposited, using 
Equation 7 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.021

Where:

Hrate = organic HAP emission rate for the month compliance 
period, kg organic HAP per liter coating solids deposited.
HHAP = mass of organic HAP emissions for the month, kg, 
determined according to Equation 6 of this section.
Vsdep = total volume of coating solids deposited during the 
month, liters, from Equation 5 of this section.

    (o) Compliance demonstration. To demonstrate initial compliance, 
the organic HAP emissions from the combined electrodeposition primer, 
primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass 
bonding adhesive operations must meet the applicable emission 
limitation in Sec.  63.3090(a) or Sec.  63.3091(a). You must keep all 
records as required by Sec. Sec.  63.3130 and 63.3131. As part of the 
Notification of Compliance Status required by Sec.  63.3110, you must 
submit a statement that the coating operation(s) was (were) in 
compliance with the emission limitations during the initial compliance 
period because the organic HAP emission rate was less than or equal to 
the applicable emission limit in Sec.  63.3090(a) or Sec.  63.3091(a) 
and you achieved the operating limits required by Sec.  63.3093 and the 
work practice standards required by Sec.  63.3094.


Sec.  63.3162  [Reserved]


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

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


Sec.  63.3164  What are the general requirements for performance tests?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test required by Sec.  
63.3160 according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and under the 
conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the 
performance test according to the provisions in Sec.  63.7(h).
    (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must 
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions 
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction, and during periods of nonoperation do not 
constitute representative conditions. You must record the process 
information that is necessary to document operating

[[Page 78650]]

conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent 
normal operation.
    (2) Representative emission capture system and add-on control 
device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when 
the emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at 
a representative flow rate, and the add-on control device is operating 
at a representative inlet concentration. You must record information 
that is necessary to document emission capture system and add-on 
control device operating conditions during the test and explain why the 
conditions represent normal operation.
    (b) You must conduct each performance test of an emission capture 
system according to the requirements in Sec.  63.3165. You must conduct 
each performance test of an add-on control device according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.3166.


Sec.  63.3165  How do I determine the emission capture system 
efficiency?

    You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to 
determine capture efficiency as part of the performance test required 
by Sec.  63.3160.
    (a) Assuming 100 percent capture efficiency. You may assume the 
capture system efficiency is 100 percent if both of the conditions in 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section are met:
    (1) The capture system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix 
M to 40 CFR part 51 for a PTE and directs all the exhaust gases from 
the enclosure to an add-on control device.
    (2) All coatings and thinners used in the coating operation are 
applied within the capture system, and coating solvent flash-off and 
coating curing and drying occurs within the capture system. For 
example, this criterion is not met if parts enter the open shop 
environment when being moved between a spray booth and a curing oven.
    (b) Measuring capture efficiency. If the capture system does not 
meet both of the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, 
then you must use one of the four procedures described in paragraphs 
(c) through (f) of this section to measure capture efficiency. The 
capture efficiency measurements use TVH capture efficiency as a 
surrogate for organic HAP capture efficiency. For the protocols in 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the capture efficiency 
measurement must consist of three test runs. Each test run must be at 
least 3 hours duration or the length of a production run, whichever is 
longer, up to 8 hours. For the purposes of this test, a production run 
means the time required for a single part to go from the beginning to 
the end of production, which includes surface preparation activities 
and drying or curing time.
    (c) Liquid-to-uncaptured-gas protocol using a temporary total 
enclosure or building enclosure. The liquid-to-uncaptured-gas protocol 
compares the mass of liquid TVH in materials used in the coating 
operation to the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the emission 
capture system. Use a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure 
and the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section to 
measure emission capture system efficiency using the liquid-to-
uncaptured-gas protocol.
    (1) Either use a building enclosure or construct an enclosure 
around the coating operation where coatings, thinners, and cleaning 
materials are applied, and all areas where emissions from these applied 
coatings and materials subsequently occur, such as flash-off, curing, 
and drying areas. The areas of the coating operation where capture 
devices collect emissions for routing to an add-on control device, such 
as the entrance and exit areas of an oven or spray booth, must also be 
inside the enclosure. The enclosure must meet the applicable definition 
of a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure in Method 204 of 
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51.
    (2) Use Method 204A or F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to 
determine the mass fraction of TVH liquid input from each coating, 
thinner, and cleaning material used in the coating operation during 
each capture efficiency test run. To make the determination, substitute 
TVH for each occurrence of the term volatile organic compounds (VOC) in 
the methods.
    (3) Use Equation 1 of this section to calculate the total mass of 
TVH liquid input from all the coatings and thinners used in the coating 
operation during each capture efficiency test run.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.022

Where:

TVHi = mass fraction of TVH in coating or thinner, i, used 
in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, kg TVH 
per kg material.
Voli = total volume of coating or thinner, i, used in the 
coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, liters.
Di = density of coating or thinner, i, kg material per liter 
material.
n = number of different coatings and thinners used in the coating 
operation during the capture efficiency test run.

    (4) Use Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure 
the total mass, kg, of TVH emissions that are not captured by the 
emission capture system; they are measured as they exit the temporary 
total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency 
test run.
    To make the measurement, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the 
term VOC in the methods.
    (i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure is a temporary total 
enclosure.
    (ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure is a building enclosure. 
During the capture efficiency measurement, all organic compound 
emitting operations inside the building enclosure, other than the 
coating operation for which capture efficiency is being determined, 
must be shut down, but all fans and blowers must be operating normally.
    (5) For each capture efficiency test run, determine the percent 
capture efficiency of the emission capture system using Equation 2 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.023


[[Page 78651]]


Where:

CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the 
add-on control device, percent.
TVHused = total mass of TVH liquid input used in the coating 
operation during the capture efficiency test run, kg.
TVHuncaptured = total mass of TVH that is not captured by 
the emission capture system and that exits from the temporary total 
enclosure or building enclosure during the capture efficiency test run, 
kg.

    (6) Determine the capture efficiency of the emission capture system 
as the average of the capture efficiencies measured in the three test 
runs.
    (d) Gas-to-gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or a 
building enclosure. The gas-to-gas protocol compares the mass of TVH 
emissions captured by the emission capture system to the mass of TVH 
emissions not captured. Use a temporary total enclosure or a building 
enclosure and the procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this 
section to measure emission capture system efficiency using the gas-to-
gas protocol.
    (1) Either use a building enclosure or construct an enclosure 
around the coating operation where coatings, thinners, and cleaning 
materials are applied, and all areas where emissions from these applied 
coatings and materials subsequently occur, such as flash-off, curing, 
and drying areas. The areas of the coating operation where capture 
devices collect emissions generated by the coating operation for 
routing to an add-on control device, such as the entrance and exit 
areas of an oven or a spray booth, must also be inside the enclosure. 
The enclosure must meet the applicable definition of a temporary total 
enclosure or building enclosure in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR 
part 51.
    (2) Use Method 204B or C of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure 
the total mass, kg, of TVH emissions captured by the emission capture 
system during each capture efficiency test run as measured at the inlet 
to the add-on control device. To make the measurement, substitute TVH 
for each occurrence of the term VOC in the methods.
    (i) The sampling points for the Method 204B or C measurement must 
be upstream from the add-on control device and must represent total 
emissions routed from the capture system and entering the add-on 
control device.
    (ii) If multiple emission streams from the capture system enter the 
add-on control device without a single common duct, then the emissions 
entering the add-on control device must be simultaneously measured in 
each duct, and the total emissions entering the add-on control device 
must be determined.
    (3) Use Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure 
the total mass, kg, of TVH emissions that are not captured by the 
emission capture system; they are measured as they exit the temporary 
total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency 
test run. To make the measurement, substitute TVH for each occurrence 
of the term VOC in the methods.
    (i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure is a temporary total 
enclosure.
    (ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure is a building enclosure. 
During the capture efficiency measurement, all organic compound 
emitting operations inside the building enclosure, other than the 
coating operation for which capture efficiency is being determined, 
must be shut down, but all fans and blowers must be operating normally.
    (4) For each capture efficiency test run, determine the percent 
capture efficiency of the emission capture system using Equation 3 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.024

Where:

CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the 
add-on control device, percent.
TVHcaptured = total mass of TVH captured by the emission 
capture system as measured at the inlet to the add-on control device 
during the emission capture efficiency test run, kg.
TVHuncaptured = total mass of TVH that is not captured by 
the emission capture system and that exits from the temporary total 
enclosure or building enclosure during the capture efficiency test run, 
kg.

    (5) Determine the capture efficiency of the emission capture system 
as the average of the capture efficiencies measured in the three test 
runs.
    (e) Panel testing to determine the capture efficiency of flash-off 
or bake oven emissions. You may determine the capture efficiency of 
flash-off or bake oven emissions using ASTM Method D5087-91(1994), ASTM 
Method D6266-00a, or the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for 
Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile 
and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (docket A-
2001-22). The results of these panel testing procedures are in units of 
mass of VOC per volume of coating solids deposited. These results must 
be converted to percent capture efficiency values using Equation 4 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.025

Where:

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

    (1) Calculate the total volume of coating solids deposited for each 
coating used during the month in the spray booth(s) for the flash-off 
area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted using equation 
5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.026

Where:

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

[[Page 78652]]

Vs,i = volume fraction of coating solids for coating, i, 
liter solids per liter coating, determined according to Sec.  
63.3161(f).
TEc,i = transfer efficiency of coating, i, in the spray 
booth(s) for the flash-off area or bake oven for which the panel test 
is conducted determined according to Sec.  63.3161(g).

    (2) Calculate the total mass of VOC in each coating used during the 
month in the spray booth(s) for the flash-off area or bake oven for 
which the panel test is conducted, kg, using Equation 6 of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.027

Where:

VOCi = total mass of VOC in coating i used during the month 
in the spray booth(s) for the flash-off area or bake oven for which the 
panel test is conducted, kg.
Volc,i = total volume of coating i used during the month in 
the spray booth(s) for the flash-off area or bake oven for which the 
panel test is conducted, liters.
DC = density of coating i, kg coating per liter coating, determined 
according to Sec.  63.3151(b).
Wvocc,i = mass fraction of VOC in coating i, kg organic HAP 
per kg coating, determined by Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60) 
or the guidelines presented in ``Protocol for Determining Daily 
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty 
Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA-450/3-88-018 (docket A-2001-22).

    (f) Alternative capture efficiency procedure. As an alternative to 
the procedures specified in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, 
you may determine capture efficiency using any other capture efficiency 
protocol and test methods that satisfy the criteria of either the DQO 
or LCL approach as described in appendix A to subpart KK of this part.


Sec.  63.3166  How do I determine the add-on control device emission 
destruction or removal efficiency?

    You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to 
determine the add-on control device emission destruction or removal 
efficiency as part of the performance test required by Sec.  63.3160. 
You must conduct three test runs as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(3), and 
each test run must last at least 1 hour.
    (a) For all types of add-on control devices, use the test methods 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Use Method 1 or 1A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as 
appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points.
    (2) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 60, as appropriate, to measure gas volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Use Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as 
appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. The 
ASME PTC 19.10-1981 may be used as an alternative to Method 3B.
    (4) Use Method 4 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 to determine stack 
gas moisture.
    (5) Methods for determining gas volumetric flow rate, dry molecular 
weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as applicable, during 
each test run.
    (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the 
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using 
either Method 25 or 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as specified 
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. You must use the same 
method for both the inlet and outlet measurements.
    (1) Use Method 25 if the add-on control device is an oxidizer and 
you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be more 
than 50 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at the control device 
outlet.
    (2) Use Method 25A if the add-on control device is an oxidizer and 
you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 50 
ppmv or less at the control device outlet.
    (3) Use Method 25A if the add-control device is not an oxidizer.
    (c) If two or more add-on control devices are used for the same 
emission stream, then you must measure emissions at the outlet of each 
device. For example, if one add-on control device is a concentrator 
with an outlet for the high-volume, dilute stream that has been treated 
by the concentrator, and a second add-on control device is an oxidizer 
with an outlet for the low-volume, concentrated stream that is treated 
with the oxidizer, you must measure emissions at the outlet of the 
oxidizer and the high volume dilute stream outlet of the concentrator.
    (d) For each test run, determine the total gaseous organic 
emissions mass flow rates for the inlet and the outlet of the add-on 
control device, using Equation 1 of this section. If there is more than 
one inlet or outlet to the add-on control device, you must calculate 
the total gaseous organic mass flow rate using Equation 1 of this 
section for each inlet and each outlet and then total all of the inlet 
emissions and total all of the outlet emissions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.028

Where:

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

    (e) For each test run, determine the add-on control device organic 
emissions destruction or removal efficiency using Equation 2 of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24DE02.029

Where:

DRE = organic emissions destruction or removal efficiency of the add-on 
control device, percent.
Mfi = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate at the 
inlet(s) to the add-on control device, using Equation 1 of this 
section, kg/h.
Mfo = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate at the 
outlet(s) of the add-on control device, using Equation 1 of this 
section, kg/h.

    (f) Determine the emission destruction or removal efficiency of the 
add-on control device as the average of the efficiencies determined in 
the three test runs and calculated in Equation 2 of this section.


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

    During the performance test required by Sec.  63.3160 and described 
in Sec. Sec.  63.3164 and 63.3166, you must establish the operating 
limits required by Sec.  63.3193 according to this section, unless you 
have received approval for alternative monitoring and operating limits 
under Sec.  63.8(f) as specified in Sec.  63.3193.
    (a) Thermal oxidizers. If your add-on control device is a thermal 
oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs (a)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the 
combustion temperature at least once

[[Page 78653]]

every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. You must monitor 
the temperature in the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or immediately 
downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
    (2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate 
and record the average combustion temperature maintained during the 
performance test. This average combustion temperature is the minimum 
operating limit for your thermal oxidizer.
    (b) Catalytic oxidizers. If your add-on control device is a 
catalytic oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to either 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) or paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section.
    (1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the 
temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference 
across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of 
the three test runs.
    (2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate 
and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the 
average temperature difference across the catalyst bed maintained 
during the performance test. These are the minimum operating limits for 
your catalytic oxidizer.
    (3) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference 
across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet 
to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and 
maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph 
(b)(4) of this section. During the performance test, you must monitor 
and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed at least once 
every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. Use the data 
collected during the performance test to calculate and record the 
average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance 
test. This is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer.
    (4) You must develop and implement an inspection and maintenance 
plan for your catalytic oxidizer(s) for which you elect to monitor 
according to paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The plan must address, 
at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through 
(iii) of this section.
    (i) Annual sampling and analysis of the catalyst activity (i.e., 
conversion efficiency) following the oxidizer manufacturer's or 
catalyst supplier's recommended procedures.
    (ii) Monthly inspection of the oxidizer system, including the 
burner assembly and fuel supply lines for problems and, as necessary, 
adjustment of the equipment to assure proper air-to-fuel mixtures.
    (iii) Annual internal and monthly external visual inspection of the 
catalyst bed to check for channeling, abrasion, and settling. If 
problems are found, you must replace the catalyst bed and conduct a new 
performance test to determine destruction efficiency according to Sec.  
63.3166.
    (c) Carbon adsorbers. If your add-on control device is a carbon 
adsorber, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs (c)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must monitor and record the total regeneration desorbing 
gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle and 
the carbon bed temperature after each carbon bed regeneration and 
cooling cycle for the regeneration cycle either immediately preceding 
or immediately following the performance test.
    (2) The operating limits for your carbon adsorber are the minimum 
total desorbing gas mass flow recorded during the regeneration cycle 
and the maximum carbon bed temperature recorded after the cooling 
cycle.
    (d) Condensers. If your add-on control device is a condenser, 
establish the operating limits according to paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) 
of this section.
    (1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the 
condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15 
minutes during each of the three test runs.
    (2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate 
and record the average condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature 
maintained during the performance test. This average condenser outlet 
gas temperature is the maximum operating limit for your condenser.
    (e) Concentrators. If your add-on control device includes a 
concentrator, you must establish operating limits for the concentrator 
according to paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the 
desorption concentrate stream gas temperature at least once every 15 
minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test.
    (2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate 
and record the average temperature. This is the minimum operating limit 
for the desorption concentrate gas stream temperature.
    (3) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the 
pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator at least 
once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance 
test.
    (4) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate 
and record the average pressure drop. This is the maximum operating 
limit for the dilute stream across the concentrator.
    (f) Emission capture systems. For each capture device that is not 
part of a PTE that meets the criteria of Sec.  63.3165(a), establish an 
operating limit for either the gas volumetric flow rate or duct static 
pressure, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. 
The operating limit for a PTE is specified in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (1) During the capture efficiency determination required by Sec.  
63.3160 and described in Sec. Sec.  63.3164 and 63.3165, you must 
monitor and record either the gas volumetric flow rate or the duct 
static pressure for each separate capture device in your emission 
capture system at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three 
test runs at a point in the duct between the capture device and the 
add-on control device inlet.
    (2) Calculate and record the average gas volumetric flow rate or 
duct static pressure for the three test runs for each capture device. 
This average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure is the 
minimum operating limit for that specific capture device.


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

    (a) General. You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS 
specified in paragraphs (c), (e), (f), and (g) of this section 
according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section. You must 
install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraphs (b) 
and (d) of this section according to paragraphs (a)(3) through (5) of 
this section.
    (1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four 
equally spaced successive cycles of CPMS operation in 1 hour.
    (2) You must determine the average of all recorded readings for 
each successive 3-hour period of the emission capture system and add-on 
control device operation.
    (3) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration, 
and validation check of the CPMS.
    (4) You must maintain the CPMS at all times and have available 
necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.
    (5) You must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system 
and add-on control device parameter data at

[[Page 78654]]

all times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except 
during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required 
quality assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, 
calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments).
    (6) You must not use emission capture system or add-on control 
device parameter data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality 
assurance or control activities when calculating data averages. You 
must use all the data collected during all other periods in calculating 
the data averages for determining compliance with the emission capture 
system and add-on control device operating limits.
    (7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS to provide valid data. 
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or 
careless operation are not malfunctions. Any period for which the 
monitoring system is out of control and data are not available for 
required calculations is a deviation from the monitoring requirements.
    (b) Capture system bypass line. You must meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section for each emission capture 
system that contains bypass lines that could divert emissions away from 
the add-on control device to the atmosphere.
    (1) You must monitor or secure the valve or closure mechanism 
controlling the bypass line in a nondiverting position in such a way 
that the valve or closure mechanism cannot be opened without creating a 
record that the valve was opened. The method used to monitor or secure 
the valve or closure mechanism must meet one of the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Flow control position indicator. Install, calibrate, maintain, 
and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications a flow 
control position indicator that takes a reading at least once every 15 
minutes and provides a record indicating whether the emissions are 
directed to the add-on control device or diverted from the add-on 
control device. The time of occurrence and flow control position must 
be recorded, as well as every time the flow direction is changed. The 
flow control position indicator must be installed at the entrance to 
any bypass line that could divert the emissions away from the add-on 
control device to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures. Secure any bypass 
line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key 
type configuration. You must visually inspect the seal or closure 
mechanism at least once every month to ensure that the valve is 
maintained in the closed position, and the emissions are not diverted 
away from the add-on control device to the atmosphere.
    (iii) Valve closure monitoring. Ensure that any bypass line valve 
is in the closed (nondiverting) position through monitoring of valve 
position at least once every 15 minutes. You must inspect the 
monitoring system at least once every month to verify that the monitor 
will indicate valve position.
    (iv) Automatic shutdown system. Use an automatic shutdown system in 
which the coating operation is stopped when flow is diverted by the 
bypass line away from the add-on control device to the atmosphere when 
the coating operation is running. You must inspect the automatic 
shutdown system at least once every month to verify that it will detect 
diversions of flow and shut down the coating operation.
    (2) If any bypass line is opened, you must include a description of 
why the bypass line was opened and the length of time it remained open 
in the semiannual compliance reports required in Sec.  63.3120.
    (c) Thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers. If you are using a 
thermal oxidizer or catalytic oxidizer as an add-on control device 
(including those used to treat desorbed concentrate streams from 
concentrators or carbon adsorbers), you must comply with the 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) For a thermal oxidizer, install a gas temperature monitor in 
the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or in the duct immediately 
downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
    (2) For a catalytic oxidizer, install gas temperature monitors both 
upstream and downstream of the catalyst bed. The temperature monitors 
must be in the gas stream immediately before and after the catalyst bed 
to measure the temperature difference across the bed.
    (3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must 
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (c)(3)(i) 
through (vii) of this section for each gas temperature monitoring 
device.
    (i) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a 
representative temperature.
    (ii) Use a temperature sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 4 
degrees Fahrenheit or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever 
is larger.
    (iii) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic 
interference and chemical contaminants.
    (iv) If a gas temperature chart recorder is used, it must have a 
measurement sensitivity in the minor division of at least 20 degrees 
Fahrenheit.
    (v) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually 
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual. 
Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature 
sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature 
sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a 
reading within 30 degrees Fahrenheit of the process temperature sensor 
reading.
    (vi) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor 
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature 
range or install a new temperature sensor.
    (vii) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity and 
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic 
corrosion.
    (d) Carbon adsorbers. If you are using a carbon adsorber as an add-
on control device, you must monitor the total regeneration desorbing 
gas (e.g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle, 
the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and cooling cycle, 
and comply with paragraphs (a)(3) through (5) and (d)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) The regeneration desorbing gas mass flow monitor must be an 
integrating device having a measurement sensitivity of plus or minus 10 
percent, capable of recording the total regeneration desorbing gas mass 
flow for each regeneration cycle.
    (2) The carbon bed temperature monitor must have a measurement 
sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature (as expressed in degrees 
Fahrenheit) recorded or 1 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater, and 
must be capable of recording the temperature within 15 minutes of 
completing any carbon bed cooling cycle.
    (e) Condensers. If you are using a condenser, you must monitor the 
condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature and comply with 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The gas temperature monitor must have a measurement sensitivity 
of 1 percent of the temperature (expressed in degrees Fahrenheit) 
recorded or 1 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater.
    (2) The temperature monitor must provide a gas temperature record 
at least once every 15 minutes.
    (f) Concentrators. If you are using a concentrator, such as a 
zeolite wheel or

[[Page 78655]]

rotary carbon bed concentrator, you must comply with the requirements 
in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must install a temperature monitor in the desorption gas 
stream. The temperature monitor must meet the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (c)(3) of this section.
    (2) You must install a device to monitor pressure drop across the 
zeolite wheel or rotary carbon bed. The pressure monitoring device must 
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (f)(2)(i) 
through (vii) of this section.
    (i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of the pressure.
    (ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion.
    (iii) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or 
a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure 
range.
    (iv) Check the pressure tap daily.
    (v) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (vi) Conduct calibration checks anytime the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (vii) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity, 
electrical connections for continuity, and mechanical connections for 
leakage.
    (g) Emission capture systems. The capture system monitoring system 
must comply with the applicable requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (1) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (g)(1)(i) through 
(iv) of this section.
    (i) Locate a flow sensor in a position that provides a 
representative flow measurement in the duct from each capture device in 
the emission capture system to the add-on control device.
    (ii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to 
upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least 
semiannually.
    (iv) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity, electrical 
connections for continuity, and mechanical connections for leakage.
    (2) For each pressure drop measurement device, you must comply with 
the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (g)(2)(i) through 
(vi) of this section.
    (i) Locate the pressure tap(s) in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of the pressure drop across each opening you 
are monitoring.
    (ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion.
    (iii) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
    (iv) Using an inclined manometer with a measurement sensitivity of 
0.0002 inch water, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer 
calibration monthly.
    (v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (vi) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity, electrical 
connections for continuity, and mechanical connections for leakage.

Compliance Requirements for the Combined Primer Surfacer, Topcoat, 
Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission 
Rates and the Separate Electrodeposition Primer Emission Rates


Sec.  63.3170  By what date must I conduct performance tests and other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) New and reconstructed affected sources. For a new or 
reconstructed affected source, you must meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of Sec.  63.3160.
    (b) Existing affected sources. For an existing affected source, you 
must meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of Sec.  
63.3160.


Sec.  63.3171  How do I demonstrate initial compliance?

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

[[Page 78656]]

    (h) Compliance demonstration. To demonstrate initial compliance, 
the organic HAP emissions from the combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, 
final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive 
operations must meet the applicable emission limitation in Sec.  
63.3090(b) or Sec.  63.3091(b); the organic HAP emissions from the 
electrodeposition primer operation must meet the applicable emissions 
limitations in Sec.  63.3092(a) or (b). You must keep all records as 
required by Sec. Sec.  63.3130 and 63.3131. As part of the Notification 
of Compliance Status required by Sec.  63.3110, you must submit a 
statement that the coating operation(s) was (were) in compliance with 
the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because 
the organic HAP emission rate from the combined primer-surfacer, 
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive 
operations was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in 
Sec.  63.3090(b) or Sec.  63.3091(b), and the organic HAP emissions 
from the electrodeposition primer operation met the applicable 
emissions limitations in Sec.  63.3092(a) or (b), and you achieved the 
operating limits required by Sec.  63.3093 and the work practice 
standards required by Sec.  63.3094.


Sec.  63.3172  [Reserved]


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

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

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.3175  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

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


Sec.  63.3176  What definitions apply to this subpart?

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

[[Page 78657]]

    Catalytic oxidizer means a device for oxidizing pollutants or waste 
materials via flame and heat incorporating a catalyst to aid the 
combustion at lower operating temperature.
    Cleaning material means a solvent used to remove contaminants and 
other materials such as dirt, grease, oil, and dried (e.g., depainting) 
or wet coating from a substrate before or after coating application; or 
from equipment associated with a coating operation, such as spray 
booths, spray guns, tanks, and hangers. Thus, it includes any cleaning 
material used on substrates or equipment or both.
    Coating means a material applied to a substrate for decorative, 
protective, or functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not 
limited to, paints, sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, primers, 
deadeners, and maskants. Decorative, protective, or functional 
materials that consist only of protective oils for metal, acids, bases, 
or any combination of these substances are not considered coatings for 
the purposes of this subpart.
    Coating operation means equipment used to apply coating to a 
substrate (coating application) and to dry or cure the coating after 
application. A single coating operation always includes at least the 
point at which a coating is applied and all subsequent points in the 
affected source where organic HAP emissions from that coating occur. 
There may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating 
application with hand-held nonrefillable aerosol containers, touchup 
markers, marking pens, or pinstriping equipment is not a coating 
operation for the purposes of this subpart.
    Coating solids means the nonvolatile portion of the coating that 
makes up the dry film.
    Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) means the total 
equipment that may be required to meet the data acquisition and 
availability requirements of this subpart; used to sample, condition 
(if applicable), analyze, and provide a record of coating operation, or 
capture system, or add-on control device parameters.
    Controlled coating operation means a coating operation from which 
some or all of the organic HAP emissions are routed through an emission 
capture system and add-on control device.
    Day tank means tank with agitation and pumping system used for 
mixing and continuous circulation of coatings from the paint storage 
area to the spray booth area of the paintshop.
    Deadener means a specialty coating applied to selected vehicle 
underbody surfaces for the purpose of reducing the sound of road noise 
in the passenger compartment.
    Deposited solids means the solids component of the coating remains 
on the substrate or object being painted.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard; or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limit or operating limit or work 
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by 
this subpart.
    Electrodeposition primer or electrocoating primer means a process 
of applying a protective, corrosion-resistant waterborne primer on 
exterior and interior surfaces that provides thorough coverage of 
recessed areas.
    It is a dip coating method that uses an electrical field to apply 
or deposit the conductive coating material onto the part. The object 
being painted acts as an electrode that is oppositely charged from the 
particles of paint in the dip tank. Also referred to as E-Coat, Uni-
Prime, and ELPO Primer.
    Emission limitation means an emission limit, operating limit, or 
work practice standard.
    Final repair means the operations performed and coating(s) applied 
outside of the paint shop to completely-assembled motor vehicles or in 
low-bake off-line operations within the paint shop to correct damage or 
imperfections in the coating.
    Flash-off area means the portion of a coating process between the 
coating application station and the next coating application station or 
drying oven where solvent begins to evaporate from the coated vehicle.
    Glass bonding adhesive means an adhesive used to bond windshield or 
other glass to an automobile or light-duty truck body.
    Glass bonding primer means a primer applied to windshield or other 
glass, or to body openings to prepare the glass or body openings for 
the application of glass bonding adhesive, or the installation of 
adhesive bonded glass.
    Guide coat means Primer-surfacer.
    In-line repair operation means the process of surface preparation 
and application of coatings on the paint line in the paint shop to 
correct damage or imperfections in the coating finish. Also referred to 
as high bake repair or high bake reprocess.
    Light-duty truck means vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor 
vehicles designed primarily to transport light loads of property with 
gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 lbs or less.
    Manufacturer's formulation data means data on a material (such as a 
coating) that are supplied by the material manufacturer based on 
knowledge of the ingredients used to manufacture that material, rather 
than based on testing of the material with the test methods specified 
in Sec. Sec.  63.3151 and 63.3161. Manufacturer's formulation data may 
include, but are not limited to, information on density, organic HAP 
content, volatile organic matter content, and coating solids content.
    Mass fraction of organic HAP means the ratio of the mass of organic 
HAP to the mass of a material in which it is contained, expressed as kg 
of organic HAP per kg of material.
    Month means a calendar month or a pre-specified period of 28 days 
to 35 days to allow for flexibility in recordkeeping when data are 
based on a business accounting period.
    Organic HAP content means the mass of organic HAP per mass of 
coating material.
    Paint shop means that area of an automobile assembly plant in which 
vehicle bodies are cleaned, phosphated, and coatings (including 
electrodeposition primer, primer-surfacer, topcoat, and deadener) are 
applied.
    Permanent total enclosure (PTE) means a permanently installed 
enclosure that meets the criteria of Method 204 of appendix M, 40 CFR 
part 51, for a PTE and that directs all the exhaust gases from the 
enclosure to an add-on control device.
    Primer-surfacer means an intermediate protective coating applied on 
the electrodeposition primer and under the topcoat. It provides 
adhesion, protection, and appearance properties to the total finish. 
Also called a guide coat or surfacer.
    Purge/clean operation means the process of flushing paint out and 
cleaning the spray lines when changing colors or to remove undesired 
material. It includes use of air and solvents to clean the lines.
    Purge capture means the capture of purge solvent and materials into 
a closed collection system immediately after purging the system. It is 
used to

[[Page 78658]]

prevent the release of organic HAP emissions and includes the disposal 
of the captured purge material.
    Purge material means the coating and associated cleaning solvent 
materials expelled from the spray system during the process of cleaning 
the spray lines and applicators when color-changing or to maintain the 
cleanliness of the spray system.
    Protective oil means an organic material that is applied to metal 
for the purpose of providing lubrication or protection from corrosion 
without forming a solid film. This definition of protective oil 
includes, but is not limited to, lubricating oils, evaporative oils 
(including those that evaporate completely), and extrusion oils.
    Research or laboratory facility means a facility whose primary 
purpose is for research and development of new processes and products, 
that is conducted under the close supervision of technically trained 
personnel, and is not engaged in the manufacture of final or 
intermediate products for commercial purposes, except in a de minimis 
manner.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2.
    Spraybooth means a ventilated structure housing automatic and/or 
manual spray application equipment for coating operations. Includes 
facilities for the capture and entrapment of particulate overspray.
    Startup, initial means the first time equipment is brought online 
in a facility.
    Surface preparation means use of a cleaning material on a portion 
of or all of a substrate. This includes use of a cleaning material to 
remove dried coating, which is sometimes called ``depainting.''
    Surfacer means Primer-surfacer.
    Tack-wipe means solvent impregnated cloth used to remove dust from 
surfaces prior to application of coatings.
    Temporary total enclosure means an enclosure constructed for the 
purpose of measuring the capture efficiency of pollutants emitted from 
a given source as defined in Method 204 of appendix M, 40 CFR part 51.
    Thermal oxidizer means a device for oxidizing air pollutants or 
waste materials via flame and heat.
    Thinner means an organic solvent that is added to a coating after 
the coating is received from the supplier.
    Topcoat means the final coating system applied to provide the final 
color and/or a protective finish. May be a Monocoat color or Basecoat/
Clearcoat system.
    Total volatile hydrocarbon (TVH) means the total amount of 
nonaqueous volatile organic matter determined according to Methods 204 
and 204A through F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 and substituting the 
term TVH each place in the methods where the term VOC is used. The TVH 
includes both VOC and non-VOC.
    Transfer efficiency means the ratio of the amount of coating solids 
deposited onto the surface of the object to the total amount of coating 
solids sprayed while applying the coating to the object.
    Uncontrolled coating operation means a coating operation from which 
none of the organic HAP emissions are routed through an emission 
capture system and add-on control device.
    Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any compound defined as VOC 
in 40 CFR 51.100(s).
    Volume fraction of coating solids means the ratio of the volume of 
coating solids (also known as volume of nonvolatiles) to the volume of 
coating; liters of coating solids per liter of coating.

Tables to Subpart IIII of Part 63

    Table 1 to Subpart IIII of Part 63.--Operating Limits for Capture
                   Systems and Add-On Control Devices
 [If you are required to comply with operating limits by Sec.   63.3093,
  you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the following
                                 table]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        And you must
                                You must meet the        demonstrate
For the following device . .   following operating       continuous
              .                    limit . . .       compliance with the
                                                     operating limit by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. thermal oxidizer.........  a. the average        i. collecting the
                               combustion            combustion
                               temperature in any    temperature data
                               3-hour period must    according to Sec.
                               not fall below the    63.3168(c);
                               combustion           ii. reducing the
                               temperature limit     data to 3-hour
                               established           block averages; and
                               according to Sec.    iii. maintaining the
                               63.3167(a).           3-hour average
                                                     combustion
                                                     temperature at or
                                                     above the
                                                     temperature limit.
2. catalytic oxidizer.......  a. the average        i. collecting the
                               temperature           temperature data
                               measured just         according to Sec.
                               before the catalyst   63.3168(c);
                               bed in any 3-hour    ii. reducing the
                               period must not       data to 3-hour
                               fall below the        block averages; and
                               limit established    iii. maintaining the
                               according to Sec.     3-hour average
                               63.3167(b); and       temperature before
                               either.               the catalyst bed at
                                                     or above the
                                                     temperature limit.
                              b. ensure that the    i. collecting the
                               average temperature   temperature data
                               difference across     according to Sec.
                               the catalyst bed in   63.3168(c);
                               any 3-hour period    ii. reducing the
                               does not fall below   data to 3-hour
                               the temperature       block averages; and
                               difference limit     iii. maintaining the
                               established           3-hour average
                               according to Sec.     temperature
                               63.3167(b)(2); or.    difference at or
                                                     above the
                                                     temperature
                                                     difference limit;
                                                     or
                              c. develop and        i. maintaining an up-
                               implement an          to-date inspection
                               inspection and        and maintenance
                               maintenance plan      plan, records of
                               according to Sec.     annual catalyst
                               63.3167(b)(4).        activity checks,
                                                     records of monthly
                                                     inspections of the
                                                     oxidizer system,
                                                     and records of the
                                                     annual internal
                                                     inspections of the
                                                     catalyst bed. If a
                                                     problem is
                                                     discovered during a
                                                     monthly or annual
                                                     inspection required
                                                     by Sec.
                                                     63.3167(b)(4), you
                                                     must take
                                                     corrective action
                                                     as soon as
                                                     practicable
                                                     consistent with the
                                                     manufacturer's
                                                     recommendations.

[[Page 78659]]

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


[[Page 78660]]


       Table 2 to Subpart IIII of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart IIII of Part 63
     [You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Applicable
                 Citation                             Subject            to subpart           Explanation
                                                                            IIII
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(14)                      General Applicability.....          Yes
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)-(3)                       Initial Applicability               Yes   Applicability to subpart
                                             Determination.                            IIII is also specified in
                                                                                       Sec.   63.3181.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)                           Applicability After                 Yes
                                             Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)-(3)                       Applicability of Permit              No   Area sources are not
                                             Program for Area Sources.                 subject to or subpart
                                                                                       IIII.
Sec.   63.1(c)(4)-(5)                       Extensions and                      Yes
                                             Notifications.
Sec.   63.1(e)                              Applicability of Permit             Yes
                                             Program Before Relevant
                                             Standard is Set.
Sec.   63.2                                 Definitions...............          Yes   Additional definitions are
                                                                                       specified in Sec.
                                                                                       63.3176.
Sec.   63.3(a)-(c)                          Units and Abbreviations...          Yes
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(5)                       Prohibited Activities.....          Yes
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)                          Circumvention/Severability          Yes
Sec.   63.5(a)                              Construction/                       Yes
                                             Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1)-(6)                       Requirements for Existing,          Yes
                                             Newly Constructed, and
                                             Reconstructed Sources.
Sec.   63.5(d)                              Application for Approval            Yes
                                             of Construction/
                                             Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e)                              Approval of Construction/           Yes
                                             Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f)                              Approval of Construction/           Yes
                                             Reconstruction Based on
                                             Prior State Review.
Sec.   63.6(a)                              Compliance With Standards           Yes
                                             and Maintenance
                                             Requirements--Applicabili
                                             ty.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(7)                       Compliance Dates for New            Yes   Sec.   63.3083 specifies
                                             and Reconstructed Sources.                the compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(5)                       Compliance Dates for                Yes   Sec.   63.3083 specifies
                                             Existing Sources.                         the compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)-(2)                       Operation and Maintenance.          Yes
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)                           Startup, Shutdown, and              Yes   Only sources using an add-
                                             Malfunction Plan.                         on control device to
                                                                                       comply with the standard
                                                                                       must complete startup,
                                                                                       shutdown, and malfunction
                                                                                       plans.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)                           Compliance Except During            Yes   Applies only to sources
                                             Startup, Shutdown, and                    using an add-on control
                                             Malfunction.                              device to comply with the
                                                                                       standards.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)                       Methods for Determining             Yes
                                             Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)                       Use of an Alternative               Yes
                                             Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)                              Compliance With Opacity/             No   Subpart IIII does not
                                             Visible Emission                          establish opacity
                                             Standards.                                standards and does not
                                                                                       require continuous
                                                                                       opacity monitoring
                                                                                       systems (COMS).
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(16)                      Extension of Compliance...          Yes
Sec.   63.6(j)                              Presidential Compliance             Yes
                                             Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)                           Performance Test                    Yes   Applies to all affected
                                             Requirements--Applicabili                 sources. Additional
                                             ty.                                       requirements for
                                                                                       performance testing are
                                                                                       specified in Sec.  Sec.
                                                                                       63.3164 and 63.3166.
Sec.   63.7(a)(2)                           Performance Test                    Yes   Applies only to
                                             Requirements--Dates.                      performance tests for
                                                                                       capture system and
                                                                                       control device efficiency
                                                                                       at sources using these to
                                                                                       comply with the
                                                                                       standards. Sec.   63.3160
                                                                                       specifies the schedule
                                                                                       for performance test
                                                                                       requirements that are
                                                                                       earlier than those
                                                                                       specified in Sec.
                                                                                       63.7(a)(2).
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)                           Performance Tests Required          Yes
                                             By the Administrator.
Sec.   63.7(b)-(e)                          Performance Test                    Yes   Applies only to
                                             Requirements--Notificatio                 performance tests for
                                             n, Quality Assurance,                     capture system and add-on
                                             Facilities Necessary for                  control device efficiency
                                             Safe Testing Conditions                   at sources using these to
                                             During Test.                              comply with the
                                                                                       standards.
Sec.   63.7(f)                              Performance Test                    Yes   Applies to alltest methods
                                             Requirements--Use of                      except those used to
                                             Alternative Test Method.                  determine capture system
                                                                                       efficiency.
Sec.   63.7(g)-(h)                          Performance Test                    Yes   Applies only to
                                             Requirements--Data                        performance tests for
                                             Analysis, Recordkeeping,                  capture system and add-on
                                             Reporting, Waiver of Test.                control device efficiency
                                                                                       at sources using these to
                                                                                       comply with the
                                                                                       standards.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(3)                       Monitoring Requirements--           Yes   Applies only to monitoring
                                             Applicability.                            of capture system and add-
                                                                                       on control device
                                                                                       efficiency at sources
                                                                                       using these to comply
                                                                                       with the standards.
                                                                                       Additional requirements
                                                                                       for monitoring are
                                                                                       specified in Sec.
                                                                                       63.3168.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)                           Additional Monitoring                No   Subpart IIII does not have
                                             Requirements.                             monitoring requirements
                                                                                       for flares.
Sec.   63.8(b)                              Conduct of Monitoring.....          Yes   ..........................

[[Page 78661]]

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

[[Page 78662]]

 
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2)                      Additional CMS Reports....           No   Subpart IIII does not
                                                                                       require the use of
                                                                                       continuous emissions
                                                                                       monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)                          Excess Emissions/CMS                 No   Sec.   63.3120(b)
                                             Performance Reports.                      specifies the contents of
                                                                                       periodic compliance
                                                                                       reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)                          COMS Data Reports.........           No   Subpart IIII does not
                                                                                       specify requirements for
                                                                                       opacity or COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)                             Recordkeeping/Reporting             Yes   ..........................
                                             Waiver.
Sec.   63.11                                Control Device                       No   Subpart IIII does not
                                             Requirements/Flares.                      specify use of flares for
                                                                                       compliance.
Sec.   63.12                                State Authority and                 Yes   ..........................
                                             Delegations.
Sec.   63.13                                Addresses.................  ............  Yes
Sec.   63.14                                Incorporation by Reference          Yes   ..........................
Sec.   63.15                                Availability of                     Yes   ..........................
                                             Information/
                                             Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table 3 to Subpart IIII of Part 63.--Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Solvents and Solvent Blends
 [You may use the mass fraction values in the following table for solvent blends for which you do not have test
                                    data or manufacturer's formulation data]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Average
                                                              organic HAP
            Solvent/Solvent blend                CAS. No.        mass       Typical organic HAP, percent by mass
                                                               fraction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Toluene...................................      108-88-3         1.0    Toluene.
2. Xylene(s).................................     1330-20-7         1.0    Xylenes, ethylbenzene.
3. Hexane....................................      110-54-3         0.5    n-hexane.
4. n-Hexane..................................      110-54-3         1.0    n-hexane.
5. Ethylbenzene..............................      100-41-4         1.0    Ethylbenzene.
6. Aliphatic 140.............................  ............         0      None.
7. Aromatic 100..............................  ............         0.02   1% xylene, 1% cumene.
8. Aromatic 150..............................  ............         0.09   Naphthalene.
9. Aromatic naphtha..........................    64742-95-6         0.02   1% xylene, 1% cumene.
10. Aromatic solvent.........................    64742-94-5         0.1    Naphthalene.
11. Exempt mineral spirits...................     8032-32-4         0      None.
12. Ligroines (VM & P).......................     8032-32-4         0      None.
13. Lactol spirits...........................    64742-89-6         0.15   Toluene.
14. Low aromatic white spirit................    64742-82-1         0      None.
15. Mineral spirits..........................    64742-88-7         0.01   Xylenes.
16. Hydrotreated naphtha.....................    64742-48-9         0      None.
17. Hydrotreated light distillate............    64742-47-8         0.001  Toluene.
18. Stoddard solvent.........................     8052-41-3         0.01   Xylenes.
19. Super high-flash naphtha.................    64742-95-6         0.05   Xylenes.
20. Varsol[reg] solvent......................     8052-49-3         0.01   0.5% xylenes, 0.5% ethylbenzene.
21. VM & P naphtha...........................    64742-89-8         0.06   3% toluene, 3% xylene.
22. Petroleum distillate mixture.............    68477-31-6         0.08   4% naphthalene, 4% biphenyl.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table 4 to Subpart IIII of Part 63.--Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Petroleum Solvent Groups a
 [You may use the mass fraction values in the following table for solvent blends for which you do not have test
                                    data or manufacturer's formulation data]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Average
                                                             organic HAP
                        Solvent type                             mass      Typical organic HAP, percent by mass
                                                               fraction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aliphatic b................................................         0.03  1% Xylene, 1% Toluene, and 1%
                                                                           Ethylbenzene.
Aromatic c.................................................         0.06  4% Xylene, 1% Toluene, and 1%
                                                                           Ethylbenzene.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Use this table only if the solvent blend does not match any of the solvent blends in Table 3 to this subpart,
  and you only know whether the blend is aliphatic or aromatic.
b e.g., Mineral Spirits 135, Mineral Spirits 150 EC, Naphtha, Mixed Hydrocarbon, Aliphatic Hydrocarbon,
  Aliphatic Naphtha, Naphthol Spirits, Petroleum Spirits, Petroleum Oil, Petroleum Naphtha, Solvent Naphtha,
  Solvent Blend.
c e.g., Medium-flash Naphtha, High-flash Naphtha, Aromatic Naphtha, Light Aromatic Naphtha, Light Aromatic
  Hydrocarbons, Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Light Aromatic Solvent.


[[Page 78663]]

PART 264--[AMENDED]

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

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

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


Sec.  264.1050  Applicability.

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

PART 265--[AMENDED]

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

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

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


Sec.  265.1050  Applicability.

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

[FR Doc. 02-31420 Filed 12-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P