[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69164-69201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22928]



[[Page 69163]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous 
Coating Manufacturing; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2003 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 69164]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178; FRL-7554-3]
RIN 2060-AK59


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for miscellaneous coating 
manufacturing facilities. The final rule establishes emission limits 
and work practice requirements for new and existing miscellaneous 
coating manufacturing operations, including process vessels, storage 
tanks, wastewater, transfer operations, equipment leaks, and heat 
exchange systems, and implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet hazardous air pollutant 
(HAP) emission standards reflecting application of the maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT). The HAP emitted from 
miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities include toluene, xylene, 
glycol ethers, methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone. 
Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse 
health effects such as irritation of the lung, eye, and mucous 
membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and cancer. We do not 
have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities and 
the people living around the facilities covered by the final rule for 
this source category that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to 
determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these 
facilities and the potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, 
we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described 
above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However, 
to the extent the adverse effects do occur, and the final rule reduces 
emissions, subsequent exposures will be reduced. The final rule will 
reduce HAP emissions by 4,900 tons per year (tpy) for existing 
facilities that manufacture miscellaneous coatings.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 11, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Docket ID. No. OAR-2003-0178 and A-96-04 are located at the 
U.S. EPA, Office of Air & Radiation Docket & Information Center 
(6102T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., room B108, Washington, DC 
20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy McDonald, Organic Chemicals 
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-C504-04), U.S. EPA, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5402, electronic 
mail (e-mail) address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities 
potentially regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category            NAICS\*\   Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................      3255  Manufacturers of coatings,
                                          including inks, paints, or
                                          adhesives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.7985 of the 
final 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.
    Docket. The EPA has established official electronic public dockets 
for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178 and A-96-04. The 
official public docket consists of the documents specifically 
referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other 
information related to this action. Although a part of the official 
docket, a public docket does not include Confidential Business 
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that 
is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the 
EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 
(202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket 
materials.
    Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the 
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and 
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing 
of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those 
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. 
Portions of the docket materials are available electronically through 
Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178. Once in the system, select ``search,'' 
then key in the appropriate docket identification number. You may still 
access publicly available docket materials through the Docket ID No. A-
96-04.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the final rule will also be available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of the rule will be placed 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.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for 
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit by February 9, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, 
only an objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during 
judicial review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by the final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceeding brought to enforce these 
requirements.
    Background Information Document. The EPA proposed the NESHAP for 
miscellaneous coating manufacturing on April 4, 2002 (67 FR 16154), and 
received 81 comment letters and comments from 8 speakers at a public 
hearing on the proposal. A background information document (BID) 
(``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 
for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Industry, Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses,'') containing EPA's responses to each public 
comment is available in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178.

[[Page 69165]]

    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 is the history of the source category?
    D. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants 
emitted from miscellaneous coating manufacturing?
    E. How did we develop the final rule?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. What are the affected sources and emission points?
    B. What are the emission limitations and work practice 
standards?
    C. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
    D. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
    E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air emission reduction impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air quality health and environmental impacts 
and energy impacts?
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
    A. What changes to applicability did the commenters suggest?
    B. How Did We Develop the Standards?
    C. Standards for Process Vessels
    D. Standards for Storage Tanks
    E. Standards for Wastewater
    F. Standards for Equipment Leaks
    G. Standards for Transfer Operations
    H. Pollution Prevention
    I. Initial Compliance
    J. Ongoing Compliance
    K. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    L. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review 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 some area sources of HAP and to 
establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. 
Major sources of HAP are those that are located within a contiguous 
area and under common control and have the potential to emit greater 
than 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 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, taking into consideration the cost 
of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control 
is commonly referred to as the maximum achievable control technology or 
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 all major sources achieve the level of control 
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 for 
which the Administrator has emissions information (or the best-
performing five sources for which the Administrator has or could 
reasonably obtain emissions information for categories or subcategories 
with fewer than 30 sources).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. In considering whether to establish standards 
more stringent than the floor, we must consider cost, non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Is the History of the Source Category?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish rules for 
categories of emission sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, we 
published an initial list of 174 source categories to be regulated (57 
FR 31576). The listing was our best attempt to identify major sources 
of HAP by manufacturing category. Following the publication of that 
listing, we published a schedule for the promulgation of emission 
standards for each of the 174 listed source categories. At the time the 
initial list was published, we recognized that we might have to revise 
the list from time to time as better information became available.
    Based on information we collected in 1995, we realized that several 
of the original source categories on the list had similar process 
equipment, emission characteristics and applicable control 
technologies. Additionally, many of these source categories were on the 
same schedule for promulgation, by November 15, 2000. Therefore, we 
decided to combine a number of source categories from the original 
listing into one broad set of emission standards. On November 7, 1996, 
we published a Federal Register notice combining 21 source categories 
from the initial list of 174 into the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 
Processes source category (61 FR 57602). One of the 21 source 
categories was the manufacture of paints, coatings, and adhesives.
    On November 18, 1999, we published a Federal Register notice 
describing changes to the source category list (64 FR 63035). At that 
time, we also described our intent to group the source categories into 
two new source categories instead of one. The two new source categories 
are called the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing source 
category and the miscellaneous coating manufacturing source category. 
We proposed the NESHAP for both source categories on April 4, 2002 (67 
FR 16154).
    Today's action establishes final standards for miscellaneous 
coating manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH). Final standards 
for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFF) will be published separately.

D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the Pollutants Emitted 
From Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing?

    The CAA was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality 
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and 
welfare and the productive capacity of the population'' (see section 
101(b) of the CAA). These NESHAP will protect public health by reducing 
emissions of HAP from miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities.
    Miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities emit an estimated 
6,900 Mg/yr (7,600 tpy) of HAP. Approximately 30

[[Page 69166]]

percent of the HAP emitted by miscellaneous coating manufacturing 
facilities is toluene, 30 percent is xylene, and glycol ethers, methyl 
ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone account for approximately 25 
percent. The final rule reduces total HAP emissions from miscellaneous 
coating manufacturing facilities by 64 percent. As a result of 
controlling these HAP, the final NESHAP will also reduce emissions of 
volatile organic compounds (VOC). A summary of the potential health 
effects caused by exposure to these pollutants is presented in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 16154).

E. How Did We Develop the Final Rule?

    We proposed the NESHAP for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 
source category on April 4, 2002 (67 FR 16154) and provided an 85-day 
comment period. We received public comments on the proposed 
miscellaneous coating manufacturing NESHAP from 81 sources consisting 
of paint, ink, and adhesives manufacturers, industry trade 
associations, a federal government agency, an environmental group, and 
other interested parties. In addition, a public hearing was held, at 
which 8 of 11 speakers provided testimony related to the proposed 
miscellaneous coating manufacturing rule. A copy of each of the comment 
letters is available in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178.
    The final rule reflects full consideration of all the comments we 
received on the proposed subpart HHHHH, as well as our reassessment of 
certain data in the rulemaking record. A detailed response to all 
comments is included in the BID for the promulgated standards (Docket 
ID No. OAR-2003-0178).

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?

    The affected source for the miscellaneous coating manufacturing 
source category is the miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations 
at the facility. These operations include storage tanks, process 
vessels, equipment components, wastewater treatment and conveyance 
systems, transfer operations, and ancillary sources such as heat 
exchange systems.
    The final standards for miscellaneous coating manufacturing cover 
vents from process vessels, storage tanks, wastewater, transfer 
operations, equipment leaks, and ancillary heat exchange operations. 
Total baseline HAP emissions for the miscellaneous coating 
manufacturing source category are estimated to be 6,900 Mg/yr (7,600 
tpy).

B. What Are the Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards?

Process Vessel Vents
    For stationary process vessels with capacities greater than or 
equal to 0.94 cubic meters (m3) (250 gallons (gal)) at 
existing sources, the final rule requires an overall reduction, 
adjusting for capture and control efficiency based on enclosure tests, 
as applicable, of at least 75 percent by weight for HAP with a vapor 
pressure greater than or equal to 0.6 kilopascals (kPa) (0.09 pounds 
per square inch absolute (psia)), and at least a 60 percent reduction 
by weight for HAP with a vapor pressure less than 0.6 kPa (0.09 psia). 
The final rule also provides an emissions averaging alternative for 
stationary process vessels at existing sources that are equipped with a 
tightly-fitting vented cover. The overall mass reduction in HAP 
emissions for vessels in the averaging group must be equal to or 
greater than the reduction that would have resulted if each of the 
covered vessels were vented to a control device that achieves a 75 
percent emissions reduction for HAP with a vapor pressure greater than 
or equal to 0.6 kPa (0.09 psia) or a 60 percent emissions reduction for 
HAP with a vapor pressure less than 0.6 kPa (0.09 psia). The final rule 
requires that portable process vessels at existing sources with 
capacities greater than or equal to 0.94 m3 (250 gal) be 
equipped with a cover. Stationary and portable vessels at new sources 
must be equipped with a tightly-fitting vented cover, and the vented 
organic HAP emissions must be reduced by at least 95 percent by weight. 
Alternatively, for stationary process vessels with capacities greater 
than or equal to 0.94 m3 (250 gal) at existing and new 
sources and portable process vessels with capacities greater than or 
equal to 0.94 m3 (250 gal) at new sources, you may install a 
tightly-fitting vented cover and vent emissions to a condenser operated 
at specified temperature limits to satisfy the overall control 
requirement. Another option for meeting the standards for stationary 
process vessels at existing sources is to use the vessels to produce 
coatings with less than 5 percent HAP by weight; no additional control 
of process vessel vents is required when producing such coatings.
    We did not specifically request information on process vessels with 
capacities less than 0.94 m3 (250 gal). Thus, we do not have 
information indicating that a sufficient number of sources are using 
control devices or other HAP emission reduction techniques to enable us 
to set a MACT floor based on such devices or techniques. Therefore, the 
MACT floor for process vessels with capacities less than 0.94 
m3 (250 gal) is no emissions reduction. We examined one 
regulatory alternative that would require the same 75 percent emissions 
reduction as for larger process vessels. We concluded that the total 
impacts of this alternative, including cost, non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements, are unreasonable in 
light of the HAP emission reductions achieved. Thus, we did not develop 
standards for process vessels with capacities less than 250 gal.
Storage Tanks
    The standards for storage tanks at existing sources require either 
organic HAP emissions reductions of 90 percent by weight or more, or 
the use of floating roofs, or vapor balancing if the storage tanks have 
capacities greater than or equal to 75 m3 (20,000 gal) and 
store material with an organic HAP vapor pressure greater than or equal 
to 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia). The standards for storage tanks at new sources 
require either organic HAP emissions reductions of at least 80 percent 
by weight, the use of floating roofs, or vapor balancing if the storage 
tanks have capacities greater than or equal to 10,000 gal and store 
material with an organic HAP vapor pressure greater than or equal to 
0.02 psia. The standards for new sources also require either organic 
HAP emissions reductions of at least 90 percent by weight, the use of 
floating roofs, or vapor balancing for storage tanks that have 
capacities equal to or greater than 75 m3 (20,000 gal) but 
less than 94 m3 (25,000 gal) and store material that has an 
organic HAP vapor pressure greater than or equal to 10.3 kPa (1.5 
psia), and tanks with capacities greater than 94 m3 (25,000 
gal) storing material that has an organic HAP vapor pressure greater 
than or equal to 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia). The final rule does not include 
standards for storage tanks smaller than 20,000 gal at existing sources 
or for storage tanks smaller than 10,000 gal at new sources because the 
MACT floor for these tanks was determined to be no emissions reduction.
Wastewater
    For existing sources, the final rule requires that wastewater 
containing a total partially soluble and soluble HAP load of 750 pounds 
per year (lb/yr) and a concentration of 4,000 parts per million by 
weight (ppmw) or greater be treated as hazardous waste or in an

[[Page 69167]]

enhanced biological treatment unit. The final rule also allows for 
offsite treatment provided the affected sources that ship their 
wastewater to an offsite facility for treatment as a hazardous waste 
note this fact along with the name of the facility to which the 
wastewater is shipped in their notification of compliance status 
report. If the wastewater is shipped offsite for treatment in an 
enhanced biological treatment unit, the offsite facility must comply 
with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 
subpart HHHHH. For new sources, the applicability triggers for control 
are more stringent, affecting all streams that contain partially 
soluble and soluble HAP at a concentration greater than or equal to 
1,600 ppmw.
Transfer Operations
    Standards for transfer operations at existing and new sources 
require 75 percent control of HAP emissions from product loading to 
tank trucks and railcars if the amount of material transferred contains 
at least 11.4 million liters per year (l/yr) (3.0 million gal/yr) of 
HAP, and the material has a HAP partial pressure greater than or equal 
to 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia). Acceptable control strategies also include 
routing displaced vapors back to the process, or the use of condensers 
operated below specified temperature limits.
Equipment Leaks
    The final rule requires compliance with leak detection and repair 
(LDAR) programs for equipment leaks. Existing sources must comply with 
the sensory-based LDAR provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, the 
NESHAP for Gas Distribution Facilities. Alternatively, existing sources 
may comply with the LDAR program in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, or 
subpart UU (the National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--
Control Level 1 and Control Level 2, respectively) because these 
alternatives are equivalent to or more stringent than the sensory-based 
LDAR program. New sources must comply with either the subpart TT or 
subpart UU LDAR provisions. For heat exchange systems at existing and 
new sources, the final rule requires a leak detection program, 
consistent with the program in 40 CFR 63.104 (the Hazardous Organic 
NESHAP (HON)).
    Cleaning operations are considered part of the miscellaneous 
coating manufacturing operations at existing and new sources. 
Therefore, cleaning fluids are considered to be process fluids, and the 
requirements for process vessels, storage tanks, equipment leaks, and 
wastewater systems that apply to other process operations also apply to 
cleaning operations.

C. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

    To verify that the required reductions have been achieved, you must 
either test or use calculation methodologies, depending on the emission 
stream characteristics, control device, and the type of process vent. 
Initial compliance demonstration provisions for stationary process 
vessels at miscellaneous coating manufacturing sources reference the 40 
CFR part 63, subpart SS, closed vent system and performance test 
provisions and the capture efficiency Method 204 in appendix M to 40 
CFR part 51. Control devices handling greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) 
of HAP must be tested, while engineering assessments are allowed for 
control devices with lower loads and for condensers. Performance test 
provisions are based on worst case operating conditions for devices 
controlling process vents.
    The initial compliance demonstration procedures reference 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart SS, for storage tanks complying using control devices 
and transfer operations, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, for storage 
tanks complying using floating roofs.

D. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    The final rule requires monitoring to determine whether you are in 
compliance with emission limits on an ongoing basis. This monitoring is 
done either by continuously measuring HAP emissions reductions or by 
continuously measuring a site-specific operational parameter, the value 
of which you would establish during the initial compliance 
demonstration. These parameters are required to be monitored at 15-
minute intervals throughout the operation of the control device. For 
control devices that do not control more than 1 tpy of HAP emissions, 
only a daily verification of the operating parameter is required, as is 
provided in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG. To demonstrate compliance with 
work practice standards, such as the requirement to maintain floating 
roofs, inspection of equipment serves as the monitoring demonstration.

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

    The final rule requires recordkeeping and initial and semiannual 
reporting. The initial notification is required within 120 days of the 
effective date of the NESHAP. That report, which is very brief, serves 
to alert appropriate agencies (State agencies and EPA Regional Offices) 
of the existence of your affected source and puts them on notice for 
future compliance actions. The precompliance report details compliance 
alternatives that require preapproval and is required 6 months prior to 
the compliance date. The notification of compliance status (NOCS) 
report, which is due 150 days after the compliance date of the NESHAP, 
is a comprehensive report that describes the affected source and the 
strategy being used to comply. The final rule also incorporates a 
number of provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 (General 
Provisions), among them the startup, shutdown and malfunction 
provisions.

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts?

    We estimate nationwide baseline HAP emissions from the 
miscellaneous coating manufacturing sources to be 6,900 Mg/yr (7,600 
tpy). We project that the final rule will reduce HAP emissions by about 
4,400 Mg/yr (4,900 tpy). Because many of the HAP emitted by 
miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities are also VOC, the 
proposed NESHAP will also reduce VOC.
    Combustion of fuels to generate electricity and steam will increase 
secondary emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) by about 25 Mg/yr 
(27 tpy). These impacts were estimated assuming electricity is 
generated in coal-fired power plants and steam is produced in natural 
gas-fired industrial boilers.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The cost impacts include the capital cost to install control 
devices and monitoring equipment, and include the annual costs involved 
in operating control devices and monitoring equipment, implementing 
work practices, and conducting performance tests. The annual cost 
impacts also include the cost savings generated by reducing the loss of 
product or solvent in the form of emissions. The total capital costs 
for existing sources are estimated to be $57 million, and the total 
annualized costs for existing sources are estimated to be $16 million. 
Total capital costs for new sources are estimated to be $1.3 million 
per new facility and total annualized costs are estimated to be $.25 
million per new facility. Three new facilities were estimated in the 
first 3 years after promulgation of this rule.

[[Page 69168]]

    We estimate that in the first 3 years after the effective date of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, that the annual cost burden will average 
$3,500/yr per respondent for recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
for an estimated 129 sources. Most of these costs are for new and 
reconstructed sources that must be in compliance upon startup; other 
costs are for existing sources to prepare initial notifications and 
plans. In the fourth year after the effective date, existing facilities 
must begin to monitor and record operating parameters to comply with 
operating limits and prepare compliance reports. These activities will 
significantly increase the nationwide annual burden.
    We expect that the actual compliance cost impacts of the NESHAP 
will be less than described above because of the potential to use 
common control devices, upgrade existing control devices, implement 
emissions averaging, or comply with the preset temperature limits for 
condensers. Because the effect of such practices is highly site-
specific and data were unavailable to estimate how often the lower cost 
compliance practices could be utilized, we could not quantify the 
amount by which actual compliance costs will be reduced.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    The economic impact analysis shows that the expected price increase 
for affected output would be 0.3 percent as a result of the NESHAP for 
miscellaneous coating manufacturers. The expected change in production 
of affected output is a reduction of 0.1 percent as a result of the 
final rule. One plant closure is expected out of the 127 facilities 
affected by the final rule. It should be noted that the baseline 
economic conditions of the facility predicted to close affect the 
closure estimate provided by the economic model, and that the facility 
predicted to close appears to have low profitability levels currently. 
Therefore, no adverse impact is expected to occur for those industries 
that produce output affected by the NESHAP, such as paints, inks, and 
adhesives.

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

    We do not expect wastewater, solid waste, or hazardous waste to be 
generated from controlling HAP emissions from miscellaneous coating 
manufacturing facilities. Thus, we expect no non-air quality health 
impacts from controlling HAP emissions from miscellaneous coating 
manufacturing facilities. We expect the overall energy demand (i.e., 
for electricity generation and steam production) to increase by an 
estimated 32,000 gigajoules per year (30.0 billion British thermal 
units per year (Btu/yr).

IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

A. What Changes to Applicability Did the Commenters Suggest?

    Comment: A number of commenters opposed regulation of activities 
such as mixing additives and other ingredients, thinning, and adjusting 
tint by facilities that are the end-users of coatings and are subject 
to any of the surface coating NESHAP; several of the commenters 
described these activities as ``affiliated operations,'' and they 
concurred with the definition and draft preamble language for the Paper 
and Other Web Coating (POWC) NESHAP that were discussed during POWC 
stakeholder meetings on May 22 and June 26, 2002.\1\ For example, 
several of the commenters requested specific exemptions for affiliated 
operations at facilities subject to surface coating rules in subpart GG 
(National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Facilities), subpart KK of 40 CFR part 63 (NESHAP for the Printing and 
Publishing Industry), and/or subpart JJJJ of 40 CFR part 63 (NESHAP: 
Paper and Other Web Coating). Another commenter requested an exemption 
for the onsite formulation and mixing of specialty, ablative coatings 
that are applied to space vehicles at a National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) site and are exempt from control under subpart GG 
of 40 CFR part 63. Two commenters requested specific language in either 
the preamble or final rule to clarify that operations at facilities 
subject to subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63 (the plywood and composite 
wood products NESHAP) are not subject to subpart HHHHH of 40 CFR part 
63. Another commenter also suggested extending the provision to all 
equipment associated with a process for which another 40 CFR part 63 
standard has been promulgated. One commenter stated that end users, 
particularly those at facilities subject to subpart MMMM of 40 CFR part 
63 (NESHAP: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products), 
should be exempt because subpart MMMM already addresses emissions 
associated with the use of diluents at such facilities. Another 
commenter noted that the exemption in Sec.  63.7985(a)(4) of operations 
that are part of an affected source under another subpart of 40 CFR 
part 63 should apply to end-users subject to subparts MMMM, IIII (auto 
surface), and PPPP (plastic parts and products) because affiliated 
operations are part of the affected sources under those rules. One 
commenter requested clarification that the exemption in Sec.  
63.7985(a)(4) is not limited only to operations that are required to 
implement controls under other standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The final POWC NESHAP was published on December 4, 2002 (67 
FR 72330).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters requested exemptions for affiliated operations at 
facilities subject to any of the surface coating NESHAP. According to 
the commenters, the exemption is necessary because we obtained no 
information on end-users while developing subpart HHHHH, some of the 
regulated community would not have an opportunity to comment on the 
proposal because some of the surface coating rules will not be 
published until after subpart HHHHH is finalized, and we considered 
emissions from affiliated operations in some surface coating source 
categories to be insignificant when we were developing the surface 
coating NESHAP. To exclude end users in general, one commenter 
recommended more clearly defining ``coatings manufacturing'' with a 
definition similar to that for ``batch process'' in subpart GGG of 40 
CFR part 63, using a more narrow listing of Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial Classification 
System (NAICS) codes, and adding specific exemptions for temporary 
activities such as mixing prior to painting a tank or structure at a 
major source.
    Response: The final rule does not apply to activities conducted by 
end users of coating products in preparation for application. As noted 
by some of the commenters, we have decided to exempt affiliated 
operations at POWC facilities from subpart HHHHH. In the preamble to 
the final POWC surface coating MACT rule (67 FR 72330, December 4, 
2002), we define affiliated operations at POWC facilities and indicate 
that they are part of the POWC source category, but they are not part 
of the POWC affected source for a variety of reasons. We also examined 
other surface coating rules, and determined that the exemption for 
affiliated operations should also be applied to sources that are 
subject to the printing and publishing rule (subpart KK), the aerospace 
manufacturing rule (subpart GG), the metal coil coating rule (subpart 
SSSS of 40 CFR part 63), and the miscellaneous metal parts and products 
rule (subpart MMMM). These five rules lack requirements for affiliated

[[Page 69169]]

operations, but affiliated operations were considered during the 
development of the rules and controls were determined not to be 
warranted. We have not extended this exemption to other surface coating 
rules (or certain other rules) that already include affiliated 
operations as part of the affected source under the applicable subpart 
because operations that are part of another affected source are exempt 
from the final subpart HHHHH according to Sec.  63.7985(a)(4). One 
commenter's assumption that this exemption is not limited to those 
operations within another affected source that must implement controls 
is correct. Preparations for painting equipment or structures at a 
facility are not part of a manufacturing process and thus are not 
subject to subpart HHHHH.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended clarifying the provision in 
Sec.  63.7985(c)(3) of the proposed rule that would exempt all 
equipment associated with a process that has less than 5 percent HAP in 
process vessels. One commenter noted that this provision will not 
exempt all water-based coating manufacturing because the actual HAP 
content in the process vessel varies during the process. To be useful, 
this commenter stated the determination must be based on the HAP 
content of the final product. According to another commenter, the 
exemption should be based on ``organic'' HAP, and sources should be 
allowed to determine this percentage based on material safety data 
sheets (MSDS) or other available information as an alternative to 
chemical analysis. One commenter suggested that the exemption would be 
less confusing if it were applied to individual vessels rather than a 
``coating process'' because equipment is generally associated with a 
specific process vessel and the definition of ``process'' is too broad. 
One commenter also stated that if a process vessel is not subject to 
control because its capacity is less than 250 gallons or the HAP 
emissions are less than 50 parts per million by volume (ppmv), then it 
is also reasonable that no other requirements should apply to any of 
the equipment associated with that process vessel (i.e., the storage 
tank, equipment leak, and wastewater standards).
    To minimize the compliance burden, one commenter requested 
exemptions for impurities and trace constituents present in quantities 
less than 0.1 percent by weight for carcinogens and less than 1.0 
percent by weight for all other HAP, values which are consistent with 
the levels that must be provided on MSDS. The commenter stated that 
this would reduce the burden of determining the HAP content in a vessel 
for comparison with the 5 percent exemption level and for determining 
the HAP content in process vessel vents for comparison to the 50 ppmv 
limit.
    Response: Under the proposed rule, whenever the contents of a 
process vessel contain less than 5 percent HAP by weight, the owner or 
operator would be exempt from all requirements for the process vessel 
and related equipment. Under the final rule, this provision has been 
replaced with a provision that provides for compliance with the 
stationary process vessel standards at existing sources when the vessel 
is being used to manufacture a coating that contains less than 5 
percent HAP by weight. Our rationale for allowing the mass limit as an 
alternative standard is based on an estimated equivalent reduction in 
HAP emissions as compared to complying with the process vessel 
standards. Although we did not collect specific data on coatings 
content, we reviewed information that we collected in the development 
of standards for other coating manufacturing source categories. Based 
on these data, we concluded that we could achieve equivalent reductions 
in HAP emissions if coating manufacturers reduce the HAP content of 
final products to less than 5 percent by weight. In order to achieve 
equivalent reductions of 75 percent for process vessels, the average 
HAP content of coatings would have to be greater than 20 percent. Other 
data collection efforts support the conclusion. For example, the 
average HAP levels in all the solventborne coatings reported in the 
metal can and wood building products source categories are 32 and 28 
percent, respectively. On a consumption-weighted basis, the HAP content 
of coatings in the metal can source category is 20 percent. Further, 
although the HAP content of many water-based coatings is less than 5 
percent by weight, we did not include an explicit exemption for 
waterborne coatings because the HAP content of some waterborne coatings 
could be relatively high as long as the HAP is soluble in water.
    In developing this alternative, we are persuaded by one commenter's 
suggestion to apply it to all vessels that are associated with the 
manufacturing of the final product. Although another commenter 
suggested that identifying all process vessels in a manufacturing 
process would be confusing, we think that this alternative would 
actually simplify compliance for most owners and operators. As long as 
the process vessel meets the definition in the final rule, an owner or 
operator could comply with the alternative standard when the vessel was 
processing material that would ultimately contain less than 5 percent 
HAP by weight as final product.
    To further eliminate confusion, we clarified that the alternative 
applies only to process vessels. Storage tanks are not considered 
because their control requirements are determined based on the size of 
the tank and the HAP partial pressure, not whether the tank is used for 
an individual product. Transfer operations are not considered because 
their control requirements are determined based on the total annual 
quantity of coating that is loaded and its weighted average partial 
pressure. Equipment leaks also are not considered because the need for 
control is determined by the number of hours a particular component is 
in organic HAP service within the affected source, not the specific 
product being produced. Also, we did not exempt wastewater streams from 
process vessels smaller than 250 gal because we have no evidence that 
such vessels are cleaned by a different procedure than larger vessels 
or that the wastewater streams from such cleaning operations are kept 
separate.
    We did not allow in the final rule a de minimis exemption of 0.1 or 
1 weight percent HAP for trace constituents. This exemption is not 
relevant to the 5 weight percent HAP product alternative standard. 
Further, we do not feel that an additional de minimis or trace 
constituent exemption for compliance with the remaining standards is 
necessary.
    Comment: One commenter recommended establishing applicability based 
on the affected source rather than the major source so that small 
coating manufacturing operations co-located with large surface coating 
sources are not subject to subpart HHHHH.
    Response: We have not made the suggested change because the 
definition of a ``major source'' encompasses an entire plant site 
without being subdivided according to industrial classifications or 
activities. This definition is contained in section 112(a)(1) of the 
CAA, which includes ``any stationary source or group of stationary 
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that 
emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the 
aggregate, 10 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP.''
    Comment: One commenter requested an exemption for processes with 
uncontrolled emissions less than 10,000 lb/yr.

[[Page 69170]]

    Response: We have not incorporated the requested exemption because 
it is not supported by the available data.
    Comment: One commenter requested an exemption for waterborne 
coatings.
    Response: We have not included an explicit exemption for waterborne 
coatings because the HAP content of a waterborne coating could be 
relatively high as long as the HAP is soluble in water. However, a 
source can reformulate coatings to contain less than 5 percent HAP as a 
means of meeting the process vessel vent emission limits and work 
practice standards for existing sources.
    Comment: One commenter requested an exemption for low vapor 
pressure HAP.
    Response: We did not provide an exemption for low vapor pressure 
HAP materials because we could not justify a no emissions reduction 
MACT floor for these materials based on our information. We did not 
collect information that could be used to support the concept that 
process vessels containing only low vapor pressure materials would not 
be controlled to the same levels as those containing higher vapor 
pressure materials. Further, we reviewed HAP storage tank throughput at 
facilities that reported control of process vessels, and noted that 
lower vapor pressure HAP, such as glycol ethers and ethylene glycol, 
were also used at these facilities. However, for the final rule, we 
have written the standard for stationary process vessels at existing 
sources to require 75 percent reduction only for HAP with a vapor 
pressure greater than or equal to 0.6 kPa. We made this change based on 
a revised analysis that showed the total impacts of the regulatory 
alternative are unreasonable for HAP with vapor pressures less than 0.6 
kPa. Thus, these HAP must be controlled to the MACT floor level of 60 
percent.
    Comment: Three commenters requested clarification of how to 
determine whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, or 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHHH, applies to their operations. One commenter noted that 
the proposed definition of ``coating manufacturing'' is expansive and 
would unnecessarily subject facilities to both subparts.
    Response: If the product being manufactured is a coating, and the 
manufacturing steps involve blending, mixing, diluting, and related 
formulation operations, without an intended reaction, then the process 
is subject to subpart HHHHH. If a reaction as well as various other 
operations are involved, then the process typically is subject to 
subpart FFFF. However, if the downstream formulation operations are 
distinct from the preceding synthesis process(es), (perhaps because the 
synthesized product is isolated and some of it is sold or transferred 
offsite), then the formulation operations are subject to subpart HHHHH, 
and the synthesis operations are subject to subpart FFFF. In the event 
that equipment used for manufacturing products in processes that are 
subject to subpart FFFF is also used for coating manufacturing 
operations that are subject to subpart HHHHH, then the primary use of 
the equipment determines applicability.

B. How Did We Develop the Standards?

    Comment: According to one commenter, the lack of standards for all 
HAP is unlawful. The commenter cited hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen 
fluoride, chlorine, potassium compounds, and maleic and phthalic 
anhydrides as examples of HAP that are not regulated. Another commenter 
recommended listing the HAP that are subject to the final rule, or 
cross-referencing Table 2 in subpart F of the HON.
    Response: The standards in subpart HHHHH apply to all HAP that are 
used in coating manufacturing. Of the six compounds cited by the first 
commenter, only HCl and phthalic anhydride are listed in our database. 
All process vessels larger than 250 gallons that emit any HAP, 
including the six cited by the first commenter, must be controlled. We 
did not list the HAP in the final rule because the rule applies to all 
HAP listed in the Clean Air Act.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the thresholds in the proposed 
subpart HHHHH unlawfully exempt emission points from control. According 
to the commenter, all emission points must be controlled.
    Response: We disagree that every emission point at a major source 
must be required to reduce emissions. First, section 112(a) of the CAA 
defines ``stationary source'' (through reference to section 111(a)) as: 
* * * any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or 
may emit any air pollutant * * * .'' (42 U.S.C. 7412(a)(3) and 
7411(a)(3)). The General Provisions for the MACT program define the 
term ``affected source'' as * * * the collection of equipment, 
activities, or both within a single contiguous area and under common 
control that is included in a section 112(c) source category or 
subcategory for which a section 112(d) standard or other relevant 
standard is established pursuant to section 112 * * *.'' (40 CFR 63.2). 
Nothing in the definition of ``stationary source'' or in the regulatory 
definition of ``affected source'' states or implies that each emission 
point or volume of emissions must be subjected to control requirements 
in standards promulgated under CAA section 112.
    Further, even under the commenter's interpretation of ``stationary 
source,'' the Agency would still have discretion in regulating 
individual emission sources. Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the 
Administrator to * * * distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of 
sources within a category or subcategory in establishing such standards 
* * *.'' We interpret this provision for the miscellaneous coating 
manufacturing NESHAP, as we have for previous rules, as allowing 
emission limitations to be established for subcategories of sources 
based on size or volume of materials processed at the affected source. 
Under the discretion allowed by the CAA for the Agency to consider 
sizes of sources, we made the determination that certain small-capacity 
and low-use operations (e.g., smaller storage tanks) can be analyzed 
separately for purposes of identifying the MACT floor and determining 
whether beyond-the-floor requirements are reasonable. In addition, our 
MACT floor determinations for certain categories (e.g., stationary 
process vessels), which are set according to section 112(d)(3) of the 
CAA, reflect the performance levels of the best-performing sources for 
which we had information, including vapor pressure thresholds or 
cutoffs below which the best-performing sources do not reduce 
emissions.
    In general, our MACT floor determinations have focused on the best-
performing sources in each source category, and they consider add-on 
control technologies as well as other practices that reduce emissions. 
As part of our information collection effort, we requested information 
on emission reduction measures. We generally did not receive 
information indicating that, for the emission points covered by 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHHH, sources are currently reducing emissions 
through measures other than control technologies (e.g., by fuel 
switching or raw materials or process changes) in sufficient numbers to 
support a MACT floor based on such measures. Accordingly, our standards 
include a performance level that represents the level achieved by the 
best control technology, and a threshold or cutoff that represents the 
lowest emission potential that is controlled by the best 12 percent of 
sources. Because the miscellaneous coating manufacturing source 
category is broad in terms of the

[[Page 69171]]

numbers and types of processing operations that are covered, one 
challenge was to develop a format by which all sources could be 
compared to each other to establish the best-performing sources. The 
performance level generally is of the format that can be applied to 
different types of control technology and processes and is generally 
consistent with existing State and local rules. Thus, different types 
of control technology and emission levels resulting from existing rules 
are captured in our MACT floor analysis. The cutoff allows owners and 
operators that have reduced their emissions below a certain level using 
one or more methods, including process changes to reduce or eliminate 
pollution at the source, to comply without additional control. Both 
performance levels and cutoffs have been set to account for variations 
in emission stream characteristics so that the standards can be applied 
consistently across the source category. This approach is consistent 
with the language of CAA section 112(d)(3) that requires us to set the 
MACT floor based on the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources.

C. Standards for Process Vessels

    Comment: One commenter is not convinced that the existing source 
MACT floor for portable vessels should be only a cover because some 
portable vessels have a cover plus add-on control devices, and the 
actual performance of a covered vessel varies depending on the type of 
cover and other factors such as the HAP content and vapor pressure of 
the material being processed. Similarly, the commenter also objected to 
the existing source MACT floor for stationary process vessels, claiming 
that it does not reflect the actual performance of the best performers, 
and that we have not accounted for various factors that affect the 
performance.
    Other commenters indicated that the existing source MACT floor is 
too stringent, or at the very least the control level should not be 
increased from 60 percent to 80 percent. For example, one commenter is 
not convinced that 6 percent, or the average of the best performing 12 
percent, are controlled because many of the controls are applied only 
to vessels with specific characteristics rather than facility-wide. 
Another commenter questioned the validity of averaging uncontrolled 
sources with controlled sources in developing the MACT floor, and 
concluded that the floor should be no control. In response to a 
solicitation for comment regarding the setting of the floor based on 
the mean or the median of controlled vessels (i.e., 60 percent versus 
80 percent control, respectively), the commenter stated the mean is 
appropriate for several reasons: (1) There are sufficient data points 
to use the mean, (2) 60 percent represents a real-world technology, (3) 
EPA claimed in MACT floor memoranda that the mean is a better measure 
of the central tendency of the data, (4) EPA indicated during the 
stakeholder process that the mean would be used as it is representative 
of the industry and consistent with Congress' intent under the CAA, and 
(5) EPA guidelines for MACT determinations under CAA section 112(j) 
state that the MACT floor should be based on the mean unless there is a 
large discrepancy between the emission reductions achieved by available 
control options (which the commenter indicated is not the case here 
because control efficiencies are uniformly distributed between 2 and 99 
percent). Numerous other commenters simply stated that the MACT floor 
has been adequately characterized, and should not be revised
    Nearly all of the commenters objected to the apparent requirement 
for 100 percent capture of emissions for the new and existing source 
MACT floors for stationary process vessels, and they stated the floor 
control levels should specify only the efficiency of the control 
device. They expressed particular concern with a statement in the 
preamble to the proposed rule that indicated covers must be sealed and 
gasketed. The commenters noted that 100 percent capture is not feasible 
(and, therefore, not achieved in practice except possibly if using 
chemical reaction type vessels and closed solids charging systems) 
because covers often must include an opening for an agitator shaft, and 
vessels must be opened periodically to take samples, add material, and 
perform inspections. They also noted that this requirement contradicts 
our position in stakeholder meetings and background memoranda, and they 
concluded that the information collection request (ICR) data do not 
support a capture component to the floor (i.e., only information about 
the control efficiency was requested). Even if actual capture 
efficiencies are allowed, they noted that the proposed overall capture 
plus control efficiency of 95 percent for process vessels at new 
sources would be virtually impossible to achieve because it effectively 
requires nearly 100 percent capture.
    Numerous commenters objected to the requirement that emissions from 
cleaning are subject to control, at least if the vessel does not have 
an automatic wash system. One commenter noted that most vessels are 
cleaned by hand, but even vessels that have automatic wash systems must 
be opened for inspections after cleaning.
    Response: We did not adjust the MACT floors for portable or 
stationary vessels. For portable vessels, the MACT floor is to equip 
each vessel larger than 250 gal with a cover. Our data show that less 
than 6 percent of portable vessels are equipped with add-on control 
devices, but over 90 percent are equipped with covers. We did not 
receive information regarding any other emission reduction techniques 
besides the use of covers or add-on control devices for portable 
vessels in responses to our ICR request for such information. Thus, we 
do not have information indicating that a sufficient percentage of 
sources to set a floor are using any emission reduction techniques 
other than covers, and we cannot support a floor determination based on 
the use of any other techniques.
    Our database includes information for 4,628 stationary process 
vessels larger than 250 gal. Six percent of all stationary process 
vessels corresponds to a total of 278 vessels. A total of 368 vessels 
are equipped with some type of add-on device, or about 8 percent. The 
average control of the best-performing 12 percent (60 percent 
reduction) represents a technically feasible level of control and, 
therefore, we disagree with the assertion that the floor should be no 
control. The average control efficiency was determined for 368 vessels, 
including 278 controlled vessels and factoring in no control for the 
remaining 187 top records.
    The commenters also contended that reported efficiencies do not 
consider capture efficiency. Of the 378 vessels that are controlled, 
over 278 (6 percent of the stationary process vessels) reported either 
direct ventilation to control devices, reported closed vent systems to 
control devices, or reported operating essentially 100 percent capture 
(routing building exhausts to an incinerator a capture system) and 
control. Therefore, we concluded that it is appropriate to set the 
existing source MACT floor for stationary process vessels larger than 
250 gal on an overall control efficiency based on the reported 
efficiencies.
    The new source MACT floors for portable and stationary process 
vessels larger than 250 gal are based on the best-performing source. 
For both portable and stationary process vessels, the best-performing 
source covers the vessels and vents emissions through a closed-vent 
system to a thermal incinerator with an overall control efficiency of 
95

[[Page 69172]]

percent. Thus, the MACT floors are based on these conditions.
    We recognize that basing MACT floors for stationary and portable 
vessels on capture and control does not overtly consider fuel, 
materials, process, or similar changes that could result in lower 
overall mass emissions. However, based on the information we have, we 
cannot accurately quantify a level of mass emissions that could result 
from such emission reduction techniques as a MACT floor and that could 
be achieved by all coating manufacturers given the variability in 
processing operations, the scale of processing operations, and products 
manufactured.
    We did not specifically request information for portable or 
stationary process vessels with capacities less than 250 gal, and we do 
not have any such information. We set a MACT floor of no emissions 
reductions because we do not have information indicating that a 
sufficient percentage of sources are using emission reduction 
techniques or add-on controls to enable us to set a MACT floor.
    The MACT floor for stationary process vessels at existing sources 
is based on overall control. Thus, the final rule specifies that these 
process vessels must either be equipped with tightly-fitting vented 
covers and closed vent systems meeting the requirements of subpart SS 
of 40 CFR part 63. We have decided to exempt some emissions releases 
that result from safety and hygiene practices because it is unlikely 
that these vents would reach the 50 ppmv concentration level defined to 
be a process vessel vent. The exemption also will relieve owners and 
operators from the burden of demonstrating that they meet the 
concentration level. Specifically, the definition of process vessel 
vent excludes flexible elephant trunk systems that draw ambient air 
(i.e, systems that are not ducted, piped, or otherwise connected to the 
unit operations) away from operators that could be exposed to fumes 
when vessels are opened. As an alternative, capture efficiency must be 
considered in the overall control efficiency determination if vessels 
are not equipped with tightly-fitting vented covers and closed vent 
systems. Opening of covers for addition of materials, sampling, etc., 
is included as part of the capture efficiency demonstration. For new 
sources, the final rule requires the use of tightly-fitting vented 
covers to controls; determining capture is not an option because, as 
the commenters noted, achieving 95 percent overall control would 
require nearly 100 percent capture.
    Finally, we have not required control of cleaning that is 
accomplished manually. However, emissions resulting from automatic wash 
systems are required to be considered and controlled. Similarly, 
control is required for emissions resulting from flushing of lines or 
other equipment with solvent at the end of a batch because these are 
closed operations.
    Comment: Most of the commenters stated that the standard for 
stationary process vessels at existing sources should be set at the 
MACT floor. According to the commenters, the cost of the regulatory 
alternative is unreasonable because our analysis overstated the 
uncontrolled emissions, used unrealistic model plant and emission 
stream characteristics, and understated the costs.
    The commenters disputed our estimate of uncontrolled emissions for 
a number of reasons. Their primary argument is that using the Emission 
Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) equations would give a more 
accurate estimate of the HAP emissions than the AP-42 VOC emission 
factor. They noted that EPA has identified the EIIP equations as the 
preferred method, companies use them as the basis for title V permits, 
States prefer them for permitting and compliance demonstrations, and 
EPA specifies the use of similar equations in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
GGG. Conversely, they noted that the AP-42 VOC emission factor is 
inappropriate because, typically, half or less of the VOC is HAP; the 
factor is meant to estimate emissions from the entire process, not just 
stationary process vessels; and the industry has shifted to less 
volatile solvents in recent years. One commenter provided data showing 
that the EIIP methodology, calibrated with stack testing, results in 
emissions equal to about 0.2 to 0.6 percent of HAP throughput. Another 
commenter also noted that our baseline emissions estimate exceeds 
facility-wide Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) emissions (which also 
include non-HAP, fugitives, emissions from portable vessels, and 
emissions from other processes) by factors between 3 and 36. The 
commenter also does not believe that 5 facilities generate half of the 
emissions in the source category. For example, the commenter contacted 
the facility in our database with the highest estimated emissions and 
determined that only 2 percent of the solvent throughput is 
attributable to the manufacture of inks and coatings; the remainder is 
associated with the distribution of paint thinners and paint reducers.
    The commenters considered many of the model plant parameters and 
emission stream characteristics to be unrealistic. Related to their 
concerns that 100 percent capture is infeasible, they noted that local 
exhaust ventilation systems usually convey large volumes of air to 
minimize worker exposure, reduce the risk of fires, and contain dust. 
As a result of the high air flow rates, they noted that the HAP 
concentration is much lower than the 40,000 ppmv in our impacts 
analysis. Based on stack test data, one commenter stated that actual 
concentrations are less than 1,200 ppmv. Another commenter indicated 
the concentrations are in the hundreds of ppmv. The commenters noted 
that for toluene, the surrogate HAP used in our analysis, 40,000 ppmv 
is within the flammable range, which poses safety concerns and would 
necessitate the use of expensive fire/explosion prevention equipment 
and inerting systems. One commenter stated that xylene should be used 
as the surrogate HAP because it is now four times more prevalent than 
toluene. The commenters noted that the model included emissions only 
from filling, but emissions also result from other process steps such 
as mixing, gas sweep, heat-up, holding, emptying, and cleaning. They 
also disagreed with the assumption that a control device needs to be 
sized to handle emissions from only 5 vessels at a time. For example, 
one commenter indicated that many facilities have dozens of process 
vessels being filled simultaneously (as much as 50 to 75 percent of all 
vessels onsite). Another commenter noted that each vessel would have to 
have its own condenser because a common header poses safety and product 
quality risks. One commenter objected to the assumption that condensers 
can be used to control all process vessels because water cooled 
condensers will not be effective for the low concentration (and high 
flow) streams in the industry, and condensers are meant to operate for 
long periods of time under steady-state conditions, not intermittently 
during filling steps.
    According to this commenter, our cost analysis included a number of 
errors and deficiencies. For example, the analysis did not include the 
cost to replace existing vessels with chemical reaction type tanks and 
raw material addition equipment, which would be needed to even approach 
100 percent capture. If cleaning emissions must be controlled, the 
commenter indicated that a cost for automatic wash systems must be 
included. Fire and safety instrumentation and systems would be needed 
since the model operates with toluene in the flammable range.
    Even if condensers are assumed to be applicable for all process 
vessels (which

[[Page 69173]]

the commenter opposed), the commenter noted the following concerns with 
the analysis: (1) Solvent recovery is not feasible because the 
condensed solvent is contaminated with condensed water vapor (and must 
be disposed of as hazardous waste); (2) the amount of coolant piping 
and valves per condenser is underestimated; (3) baghouses will be 
needed upstream of the condenser to remove particulate if solid 
materials are added to the process vessel; (4) two-stage rather than 
single stage condensers will be required to operate at the model 
operating temperature of 32[deg]F; (5) the refrigeration unit needs to 
be large enough to service 75 percent of the facility's condensers; and 
(6) costs are needed for foundations and supports, electrical 
components, instrumentation, insulation, site preparation, and 
buildings.
    The commenter also stated the analysis understates the incremental 
cost effectiveness relative to the floor because it used uncontrolled 
emissions rather than baseline emissions; the condenser count is 
incorrect for more than 30 facilities; the costs for covers were not 
included for the vessels that do not currently have them; the results 
reported in $/Mg are actually in $/ton; and the saturation toluene 
concentration is 37,370 ppmv, not 40,000 ppmv. Based on a sensitivity 
analysis that incorporates some of these suggested changes and looks at 
a range of emission stream flows, HAP concentrations, and control 
devices, the commenter estimated that costs are at least 5 to 20 times 
higher than our estimate. The commenter noted that these estimates are 
conservatively low because they do not include costs for chemical 
reaction tanks, raw material addition equipment, and fire safety 
equipment; they also do not consider the impact of using a less 
volatile surrogate HAP on emission reductions. Even without changing 
the elements in the analysis, the commenter stated that we should 
consider the average facility cost effectiveness value rather than the 
nationwide value because a majority of the facilities in the analysis 
have incremental costs above $3,500/Mg; typically, these facilities are 
small or produce predominately water-based coatings.
    Response: We agree that the EIIP guidance is appropriate for use in 
estimating emissions from coating manufacturing process sources. We did 
not use EIIP models because we did not have the level of detail 
required to conduct emission estimates from the facilities in our 
database. We considered the 1 to 2 percent solvent throughput values 
contained in the Chapter 5 AP-42 documentation to be adequate in 
characterizing the level of emissions for nationwide impacts. And, 
although one commenter indicated that the EIIP methodology would result 
in HAP emissions between 0.2 and 0.6 percent of HAP throughput for his 
facilities, this commenter also calculated a loss of 1.3 percent for 
one facility due to more conservative assumptions associated with that 
facility's operations. While our 1 percent factor may be conservative, 
it was a reasonable value for the impacts analysis. The commenters 
noted that the AP-42 VOC emission factor is inappropriate because, 
typically, half or less than half of the VOC is HAP; however, because 
the factor is based on HAP throughput, only the portion of solvent that 
is HAP is considered, and therefore, basing the emissions on HAP 
throughput appropriately limits the estimates to HAP, not VOC. 
Regarding the comment that our baseline emissions estimate exceeds 
facility-wide TRI emissions, we note that one commenter indicated that 
baseline HAP emissions total 6.3 million pounds for all 127 facilities 
in the database, as compared to our estimate of 13.5 million pounds, 
roughly a factor of two. Because of the uncertainty associated with 
estimation methods, and varying operational practices from site to 
site, these estimates are reasonable.
    Regarding assumptions made in our cost analysis of the regulatory 
alternative for stationary process vessels, we note that the low 
overall control efficiency (75 percent) enables numerous control 
scenarios for achieving compliance, including those scenarios where air 
flows are increased to enable proper capture of emissions from opening 
in vessels. While we did not cost out this alternative for presentation 
of impacts, it would likely be a scenario employed by owners and 
operators. As discussed previously, the two predominant types of 
control devices are condensers and thermal incinerators. Therefore, to 
further examine the cost effectiveness of the regulatory alternative, 
we evaluated the cost effectiveness of applying a capture and control 
system using thermal incineration. We started with the analyses 
generated by one commenter, which are based on EPA's COST-AIR control 
cost spreadsheets for regenerative thermal oxidizers and included the 
commenter's estimated installation costs for ductwork, auxiliary 
equipment, vapor collection systems and lids for tanks. The commenter 
also noted that cost calculations did not include chemical reaction 
type tanks to approach 100 percent capture, automatic cleaning systems, 
raw material addition equipment, baghouses or fire control system 
costs. We also excluded chemical reaction tanks and raw material feed 
equipment because they would not be needed when high air flow rates and 
a capture system are used to collect and route emissions from the 
existing tanks to a thermal incinerator.
    The commenter apparently generated an industry-wide cost 
effectiveness estimate for thermal oxidizers from average flow and 
concentration value ranges. The commenter did not provide enough 
information to methodically step through the procedure to arrive at the 
resulting value of $16,138/Mg. In fact, it was not clear whether the 
commenter selected ranges of concentrations and flowrates corresponding 
to 36 stack test data points and then calculated cost effectiveness 
values from the midpoints of these ranges or whether the commenter 
calculated the cost effectiveness of 36 stack test data points and 
developed an arithmetic average. We note that the table supplied by the 
commenter identifying concentration and flowrate ranges indicates that 
flowrates and concentrations were considered to be independent of each 
other and produced a counterintuitive result that flowrate and 
concentrations would be directly proportional, as opposed to inversely 
proportional. For example, the low flow rate range midpoint values were 
listed as 300 cubic feet per minute (cfm) and 50 ppmv, while the high 
flowrate range midpoints were listed as 7,500 cfm and 1,750 ppmv. We 
would expect that as flowrates increased, concentrations would 
decrease, and we concluded that an analysis resulting from the use of 
these ranges would likely not represent the actual emission stream 
characteristics. Further, we estimated the cost effectiveness of 
incinerator controls for these 5 ranges and obtained values ranging 
from $290,000/Mg for the 300 cfm, 50 ppmv concentration stream to $400/
Mg for the stream with 7,500 cfm and 1,750 ppmv, indicating a wide 
range of cost effectiveness.
    We reasoned that a more representative evaluation would be based on 
a selected model emission stream. This model stream was based on a 
common value resulting from the histogram presented by the commenter; 
we selected as model emission stream characteristics a flowrate of 
5,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) waste gas and a 
concentration of 500 ppmv. Our analysis indicated that the cost 
effectiveness value for this model stream would be $2,200/Mg, assuming 
only 75 percent reduction of potential HAP emission was achieved. Based 
on

[[Page 69174]]

this result, we concluded that an evaluation of capture and control 
systems using thermal incineration would result in reasonable costs.
    Our original analysis that was the basis for selecting the 75 
percent regulatory alternative based on condenser control is still 
valid and the total impacts, considering the emission reduction 
achieved as well as cost, non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements, are reasonable. Thus, we continue to 
base the standard for stationary process vessels at existing sources on 
the regulatory alternative. However, the commenter has pointed out 
valid concerns regarding our assumptions. Upon review, we agree that we 
mistakenly overestimated reductions from the regulatory alternative by 
approximately 15 percent from the uncontrolled levels. Therefore, our 
estimated total reductions for the regulatory alternative should be on 
the order of 4,400 Mg/yr, not 5,000 Mg/yr. The revised incremental HAP 
reduction achieved by the regulatory alternative is about 1,000 Mg/yr, 
and it reduces costs by an estimated $130/Mg of HAP controlled. The 
incremental electricity consumption to operate the refrigeration unit 
for the condensers is about 1.7 million kilowatt hours per year (kWh/
yr), and the fuel energy to generate the electricity is about 16 
billion Btu/yr. Total CO, NOX, and SO2 emissions 
from combustion of the additional fuel to generate the electricity is 
14 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater, solid waste, or other non-air 
quality health or environmental impacts.
    Regarding concerns expressed by the commenter on the system design 
requirements, such as the required size of the refrigeration units, the 
amount of piping and valves per condenser, and various installation 
cost elements, we recognize that these costs could be higher, depending 
on the site specific situation. In general, the costs would increase 
for the MACT floor condenser system as well as the regulatory 
alternative condenser system. The basis for selecting the 75 percent 
regulatory alternative is that the incremental cost between the MACT 
floor of 60 percent and the regulatory alternative is reasonable when 
considered in light of the non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts and energy requirements. In our original analysis based on 
condensation of toluene, the difference in total annual cost of the two 
model systems, one rendering an exit gas temperature of 36[deg]F and 
one rendering an exit gas temperature of 50[deg]F, was about the same, 
$45,100 for the regulatory alternative, and $43,417 for the MACT floor 
alternative; our costs did not specifically assume that the condenser 
system rendering an outlet gas temperature of 36[deg]F would require a 
precooler; however, our conservative approach to estimating condenser 
costs based on a minimum surface area would account for the precooler 
costs, since the calculated surface area of the model condenser system 
was lower than the minimum size for which costs are available. Given 
all the cost elements, we note that the significant factor in 
annualized cost differences between the two alternatives is the 
recovery credit, which for the regulatory alternative was $37,063 while 
the recovery credit for the MACT floor alternative was $29,650. When 
subtracted from the total annual cost, the annualized cost for the 
regulatory alternative was $8,038, while the annualized cost for the 
MACT floor alternative was $13,766. Because cost effectiveness is 
expressed as total annualized cost divided by emissions reductions, 
recovery credit factors in not only by lowering the total cost of the 
option, but increases the denominator in the cost effectiveness term. 
The incremental difference between the two models, and also between the 
nationwide impacts that were essentially extrapolated from these two 
models, is negative. Further, the effect of the recovery credit 
essentially drives this decision, and is valid for our analysis. We 
assumed that each vessel would be equipped with a condenser and the 
condensed material could be returned directly to the vessel without 
further refinement; we do not agree that cross contamination would be a 
problem under this scenario; further, moisture generated from 
condensation of humid air does not appear to be a concern currently as 
indicated by the predominance of air systems and lack of nitrogen 
blanketing systems on storage tanks.
    The commenters suggested that our cost analysis would have yielded 
different conclusions had we designed the model condensation systems 
for xylene, rather than toluene. We agree that cost effectiveness of 
implementing the model condensation systems largely depends on emission 
potential, which in turn varies according to the volatility of the HAP 
materials. Therefore, we decided to expand the commenter's issue and 
determine the HAP materials for which incremental costs for the 75 
percent regulatory alternative are reasonable. We conducted an 
additional analysis on a model set of emission events consisting of 
identical processing steps, but processing a different HAP. For the 
analysis we evaluated the following HAP: Toluene, xylene, cumene, 
phenol, and ethylene glycol. These compounds represent a range of vapor 
pressures for common HAP in the industry. We found that the incremental 
cost impacts of going above the MACT floor are unreasonable for HAP 
with vapor pressures less than that of cumene. Therefore, we revised 
the regulatory alternative and standard for stationary process vessels 
at existing sources to include a HAP vapor pressure threshold of 0.6 
kPa at 25[deg]C. Emissions of HAP with vapor pressures above the 
threshold must be controlled to the regulatory alternative level of 75 
percent, whereas HAP with lower vapor pressures must be controlled to 
the MACT floor level of 60 percent. About 1 percent of the total HAP 
throughput in the industry consists of HAP with vapor pressures below 
the threshold; thus, we did not revise the incremental impacts for the 
regulatory alternative.
    Note that we could not do a similar analysis for thermal 
incinerators because the efficiency of incinerators is generally 
assumed at 98 percent, and the analysis becomes dependent on 
assumptions made about incremental costs of capture efficiency. 
Instead, we assumed that the incremental analysis based on condenser 
control alone could also be used to justify the regulatory alternative.
    We examined the feasibility of a regulatory alternative for 
portable process vessels with capacities greater than or equal to 250 
gal at existing sources that would require the same 75 percent overall 
control as the regulatory alternative for stationary process vessels 
with capacities greater than or equal to 250 gal at existing sources. 
Using the same condenser cost analysis, we concluded that the total 
impacts of this option are unreasonable in light of the emissions 
reductions achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by this 
beyond-the-floor option is approximately 400 Mg/yr, and the incremental 
cost was estimated to be approximately $21,000/Mg of HAP controlled. In 
addition, electricity consumption to operate refrigeration units would 
increase from zero at the MACT floor to nearly 2.0 million kwh/yr. Fuel 
consumption (coal) to generate the electricity would increase by more 
than 19.0 billion Btu/yr; collectively, CO, NOx, and 
SO2 emissions would increase by about 16.5 Mg/yr; and there 
would be no wastewater, solid waste, or other non-air quality health or 
environmental impacts.
    We also evaluated a regulatory alternative for portable and 
stationary process vessels smaller than 250 gal at existing sources 
that would require the

[[Page 69175]]

same 75 percent overall control as the regulatory alternative for 
stationary process vessels larger than 250 gal at existing sources. We 
do not know the number of such vessels or their size distribution. 
Therefore, we conducted the analysis for a model 250 gal vessel with a 
tightly-fitting vented cover at baseline that is used in the production 
of a coating that is manufactured using toluene. As for the other 
analyses, we assumed the vessel is controlled using a condenser to meet 
the regulatory alternative, and the condenser can be served by the same 
refrigeration unit as for the stationary process vessels. We concluded 
that the total impacts of this alternative are unreasonable in light of 
the emission reduction achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved 
by this beyond-the-floor alternative is 0.07 Mg/yr, and the incremental 
cost is over $25,000/Mg of HAP controlled. If the vessel at baseline 
does not have a tightly-fitting vented cover, the baseline emissions 
would be greater by an unknown amount, but the total costs would still 
be unreasonable. We also assumed that there would be no additional 
electricity or energy impacts because they are based on sized 
refrigeration systems, and addition of one or more vessels smaller than 
250 gal would not require additional refrigeration capacity. Also, 
there would be no wastewater, solid waste, or other non-air quality 
health or environmental impacts.
    Comment: One commenter requested flexibility in the control 
requirements for process vessels. The commenter noted that the proposed 
standard was tailored to the use of condensers on every process vessel, 
but it is not suited for the use of other control technologies or 
varying control levels among process vessels. The commenter also urged 
us to provide flexible averaging provisions that would allow different 
levels of control on different vessels while achieving overall control 
equivalent to that achieved by requiring the same control efficiency 
for each vessel. Furthermore, the commenter stated the proposed 
emissions averaging provisions are not useful because most vessels are 
not larger than 10,000 gallons; too few emission points are allowed in 
the average; it is too complex and burdensome; submitting a plan in the 
precompliance report 18 months before the compliance date is infeasible 
because facilities would not have determined how to comply by that 
date, and the requirement to obtain approval prior to making changes is 
cumbersome and restricts operations; it does not account for changes in 
the mix of processes being run; and it should be available for use at 
anytime, not just when demonstrating initial compliance.
    Response: The final rule includes an emissions averaging option for 
stationary process vessels at existing sources that may address the 
commenter's concerns. To demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emissions averaging option, an owner or operator must estimate three 
sets of emissions for each vessel in the averaging group. First, the 
owner or operator must determine the uncontrolled emissions. Procedures 
for estimating uncontrolled emissions are specified in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2), except that for purging events the final subpart HHHHH 
specifies a procedure for estimating the specific partial pressure of 
each HAP rather than allowing an assumption of saturation or 25 percent 
of saturation. Second, the owner or operator must estimate emissions 
from each vessel in the averaging group as if it were controlled in 
accordance with the percent reduction standard (i.e., 60 percent or 75 
percent reductions depending on the vapor pressure of the HAP in the 
emission stream). Third, the owner or operator must determine the 
actual emissions, which may range from uncontrolled for some vessels to 
control levels significantly higher than those determined in the 
previous step. The owner or operator must include these data and 
calculations in the precompliance report along with rationale for why 
the sum of the actual emissions on a quarterly basis will be less than 
the sum of the emissions if 60 percent or 75 percent, as applicable, 
were achieved for each individual vessel. To demonstrate ongoing 
compliance, the owner or operator must track the number of batches 
produced, calculate the quarterly actual emissions and emissions under 
the regular percent reduction standard for each vessel, and sum the two 
sets of quarterly emissions. Compliance is demonstrated if the sum of 
the actual emissions is lower than the sum of emissions under the 
regular percent reduction standard.

D. Standards for Storage Tanks

    Comment: One commenter stated the MACT floor for storage tanks was 
determined incorrectly because we did not consider the actual 
performance of scrubber controls. The commenter also stated that the 
standard must be revised because tank capacity and HAP partial pressure 
cutoffs are illegal.
    Response: None of the storage tanks containing organic HAP at the 
surveyed facilities was controlled with a scrubber. Therefore, the MACT 
floors for both existing and new sources are based on the actual 
reported performance of sources' controls and our consideration of 
whether sources are reducing emissions by other means besides controls.
    Regarding tank capacity cutoffs, we considered two subcategories of 
storage tanks in our floor analysis: tanks with capacities less than 
10,000 gal and storage tanks with capacities greater than or equal to 
10,000 gal. We did not specifically request information for storage 
tanks with capacities less than 10,000 gal, and we did not receive any 
information about such smaller tanks. However, since the costs relative 
to the amount of control achieved tend to increase as the size of the 
storage tank decreases, we consider it highly unlikely that the 
industry is reducing emissions from tanks with capacities smaller than 
10,000 gal when they are not reducing emissions from tanks with larger 
capacities. Thus, we concluded that the existing source and new source 
MACT floors for storage tanks with capacities less than 10,000 are no 
emissions reduction. We did not set beyond-the-floor standards for 
these smaller tanks because the total impacts to reduce emissions from 
storage tanks smaller than 20,000 gal were found to be unreasonable, 
and impacts for smaller tanks would be even less favorable.
    With respect to storage tanks with capacities greater than or equal 
to 10,000 gal, fewer than 6 percent of the storage tanks in our 
database use controls or reduce emissions by any other means. Thus, we 
concluded that the existing source MACT floor for all storage tanks 
with capacities greater than or equal to 10,000 gal is no emissions 
reduction.
    In setting the MACT floor for existing sources, we considered 
whether some facilities may implement emission reduction measures to 
reduce emissions from storage tanks, instead of using control 
technologies. Internal and external floating roofs are used to minimize 
emissions in many other industries, and vapor balancing when filling 
the tank is another common technique in other industries. However, we 
did not obtain any information in the responses to the ICR or from 
other resources that such measures are being used in the miscellaneous 
coating manufacturing industry. Another factor that can affect the 
emissions level is the color of the tank, but we have no information to 
suggest that any facilities are not already using the most favorable 
color scheme. Also, we have no information that any other measures are 
being used to reduce emissions. Therefore, because we lack information 
indicating that a sufficient number of storage tanks employ measures 
other

[[Page 69176]]

than control technologies to reduce HAP emissions to set a floor, we 
were unable to set a MACT floor based on emission reduction measures.
    We examined two regulatory alternatives for storage tanks with 
capacities greater than or equal to 10,000 gal at existing sources, 
both of which would require the use of either a floating roof or 
venting to a control device that reduces emissions by 90 percent. The 
first alternative would apply to storage tanks with capacities greater 
than or equal to 20,000 gal that store material with a HAP partial 
pressure greater than or equal to 1.9 psia. The second alternative uses 
a size cutoff of 10,000 gal with the same HAP partial pressure cutoff. 
We set the standard at the level of the first regulatory alternative 
because, considering the level of emission reduction achieved, the 
total impacts of that alternative were determined to be reasonable, 
whereas the total impacts of the second alternative were determined to 
be unreasonable. Specifically, the first regulatory alternative reduces 
HAP emissions by 2.5 Mg/yr at an incremental cost of $2,700 to $4,900 
per Mg of HAP controlled, depending on the characteristics of the tank. 
In addition, because this option can be achieved by using floating 
roofs, there are no non-air quality health or environmental impacts, 
including wastewater impacts and solid waste impacts, and no energy 
impacts. The second alternative reduces emissions by 7.5 Mg/yr at an 
incremental cost of at least $17,000 per Mg of HAP controlled, 
depending on the characteristics of the tank. The second regulatory 
alternative also has no non-air quality health or environmental 
impacts, including wastewater impacts and solid waste impacts, and no 
energy impacts for tanks that can be controlled with floating roofs. 
However, horizontal tanks (all of which in our database are smaller 
than 20,000 gal) must be controlled with an add-on control device such 
as a condenser. The incremental electricity consumption to run the 
condensers and fuel energy consumption to generate electricity would be 
31,000 kwh/yr and 300 million Btu/yr, respectively. Total CO, 
NOX, and SO2 emissions from combustion of 
additional fuel to generate the electricity would be about 0.26 Mg/yr. 
There would be no wastewater, solid waste, or other non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts.
    The new source MACT floor for storage tanks is based on the control 
achieved by the best-performing source. The proposed floor consisted of 
90 percent control of emissions from storage tanks with capacities 
greater than or equal to 20,000 gal that store material with a HAP 
partial pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 psia and 90 percent 
control of emissions from storage tanks with capacities greater than or 
equal to 25,000 gal that store material with a HAP partial pressure 
greater than or equal to 0.1 psia. However, another facility reduces 
emissions by 80 percent from storage tanks with capacities of 10,000 
gal that store material with a HAP vapor pressure of 0.02 psia. Upon 
further consideration since proposal, we determined that we cannot 
exclude these tanks from the floor analysis simply because the HAP 
vapor pressure is extremely low. Thus, the revised new source MACT 
floor for storage tanks consists of venting through a closed-vent 
system to a control device that reduces HAP emissions by at least 80 
percent for storage tanks with a capacity greater than or equal to 
10,000 gal that store material with a HAP partial pressure greater than 
or equal to 0.02 psia; the new source floor also consists of venting 
emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device that reduces 
HAP emissions by at least 90 percent for storage tanks with either 
capacities greater than or equal to 20,000 gal that store material with 
a HAP partial pressure greater than or equal to 0.1 psia or capacities 
greater than or equal to 25,000 gal that store material with a HAP 
partial pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 psia. Each of these new 
source standards reflects, or is equivalent to, the performance of the 
best-controlled source because the control levels for existing tanks 
increase with both increasing tank capacity and increasing HAP partial 
pressure.
    The revised emission limits for storage tanks at new sources are 
based on the MACT floor because the MACT floor is more stringent than 
the second regulatory alternative for existing sources, which we 
determined to have unreasonable impacts.

E. Standards for Wastewater

    Comment: Four commenters disagreed with our determination that the 
MACT floor for wastewater is HON-equivalent management and treatment 
procedures for wastewater that contains more than 4,000 ppmw of HAP 
listed in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G. One commenter stated 
that the floor should be recalculated to be based on the actual 
performance of the best sources, not simply set at the median 
concentration of controlled streams. According to one commenter, the 
floor should be no control because no add-on control is used by more 
than 6 percent of all wastewater streams. One commenter indicated that 
we have obtained accurate information on 30 wastewater streams, and all 
of the data must be used in setting the floor, including data for 
streams that contain less than 1,000 ppmw of HAP and streams that 
contain only inorganic HAP. Further, the commenter stated that flow is 
needed as well as concentration to determine the best performers. Flow 
is needed to convert concentrations to mass loadings, and it, or total 
volume, has been used to determine applicability in past rules and is 
the determining factor in disposal costs. According to the commenter, 
our assumptions that coating manufacturing facilities are only small 
quantity generators, and only the concentration drives the cost of 
disposal, are incorrect. The commenter noted that our database includes 
wastewater streams that have higher flows than the five top-performing 
streams that we used to set the MACT floor, but these streams are not 
sent offsite for treatment because the cost to do so would be 
prohibitive. In addition, if our assumption that concentration drives 
the cost of disposal were true, the commenter stated that other streams 
in the database with concentrations similar to those of the top 5 
streams would also be treated offsite, but they are actually treated 
onsite, sent to a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), or sent 
offsite for solidification. Taking all of these factors into account, 
the commenter concluded the floor should be no control.
    The commenter also provided additional comments in the event that 
we maintain that a floor exists and develop a standard, despite their 
objections noted above. First, the commenter stated that applicability 
thresholds must be based on the mean rather than the median because our 
hierarchy is to use the mean first when it results in a standard that 
matches real world technology. Second, if the standard still requires 
management and treatment procedures like those in the HON, the 
commenter requested an exemption from the steam stripping requirement 
for streams containing soluble HAP because steam stripping is 
inefficient and expensive for such streams; the commenter also stated 
that enclosed sewers are unnecessary for such streams. Third, two 
commenters requested that offsite RCRA waste treatment facilities not 
be required to certify that they will meet the requirements for 
wastewater in the final rule because such facilities are already 
stringently controlled. One commenter was concerned that RCRA 
facilities may

[[Page 69177]]

decline to accept wastewater if they are unnecessarily burdened with 
compliance requirements under the final rule. The commenter noted that 
a similar change was made recently to the NESHAP for Publicly Owned 
Treatment Works (POTW) in response to litigation.
    Response: The miscellaneous coating manufacturing database contains 
ten streams from nine facilities. The 30 streams cited by one commenter 
was a preliminary draft value that was subsequently changed because it 
was incorrect.
    After consideration of the comments, we decided to make two changes 
to the MACT floor analysis. First, to simplify the analysis, we have 
focused on only the actual management and treatment techniques used for 
the top performing five streams rather than calling them HON-
equivalent. All five of these streams are collected and shipped offsite 
for destruction by combustion at a RCRA hazardous waste treatment 
facility. Second, we have decided that specifying only a concentration 
cutoff for determining which streams are subject to control is 
insufficient. Specifying only the concentration means even very small 
streams would be subject to control as long as the concentration of HAP 
listed on Table 9 of the HON (i.e., partially soluble and soluble HAP 
in the final rule) is greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw, but this is 
inconsistent with the statutory requirement to base the floor on the 
average of the top five streams. We considered specifying either load 
or flow rate in addition to the concentration, and we decided that load 
is the best choice. For the top five streams, the load tracks better 
with the concentration (i.e., ranking the controlled streams by 
increasing load is the same as ranking by increasing concentration).
    Of the top five streams, the median stream has a HAP concentration 
of 4,000 ppmw and a HAP load of 750 lb/yr. We continue to use the 
median rather than the mean because the median better represents the 
central tendency of the data. The top five streams (as well as the 
other five streams in the database) are skewed towards low 
concentrations; three of the five have relatively similar low 
concentrations, but the other two streams have concentrations ten or 
more times higher. A mean would be closer to the midpoint of the range, 
but it would not represent the bulk of the data. Therefore, the revised 
existing source MACT floor for wastewater consists of treatment as a 
hazardous waste for all streams with partially soluble and soluble HAP 
at a concentration greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw and a load 
greater than or equal to 750 lb/yr. We estimate that a standard based 
on the MACT floor will reduce HAP emissions by 12.9 Mg/yr (14.2 tpy) at 
a cost of $306,000 per year.
    The revised new source MACT floor is based on the requirements for 
the best performing stream, which is a stream that contains 1,600 ppmw 
and 12 lb/yr of partially soluble and soluble HAP. Since this load is 
negligible, the new source MACT floor consists of treatment as a 
hazardous waste for wastewater streams that contain partially soluble 
and soluble HAP at a concentration greater than or equal to 1,600 ppmw 
at any load.
    In setting the MACT floor, we considered whether some facilities 
may implement emission reduction measures other than control 
technologies to reduce HAP emissions from wastewater. We requested 
information on emission reduction measures in our CAA section 114 
information collection request. Several facilities reported that they 
have implemented changes in the type or quantity of cleaning solution 
used, or in the method of cleaning. However, we do not know how 
effective these changes were in reducing HAP emissions, and we have no 
information to conclude that similar measures could be implemented by 
the facilities that reported HAP in their wastewater. Further, some HAP 
in the wastewater is HAP that is used in coatings products, and this 
HAP cannot be reduced without impacting the coating products produced. 
Therefore, we were unable to set a MACT floor based on emission 
reduction measures other than treatment.
    We examined one regulatory alternative beyond the floor for 
existing sources that would require treatment as a hazardous waste for 
wastewater containing partially soluble and soluble HAP at a 
concentration greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw and a load greater 
than or equal to 100 lb/yr. We concluded that the total impacts of this 
alternative are unreasonable because the incremental cost would be 
about $280,000/Mg; it would increase electricity consumption by 640 
kwh/yr; increase fuel consumption by 182 million Btu/yr; and increase 
CO, NOX, and SO2 emissions by 0.02 Mg/yr. There 
would be no wastewater or solid waste impacts. Therefore, the standard 
for wastewater in the final rule is based on the revised MACT floor.
    In addition, analyses for the HON and other projects concluded that 
enhanced biotreatment for soluble HAP compounds could achieve 
reductions as high as 99 percent. Because wastewater containing soluble 
HAP is generated at miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities, the 
final rule also allows onsite or offsite treatment in an enhanced 
biological treatment unit as an effectively equivalent alternative for 
soluble HAP. This alternative also may prove to be less costly than 
treatment as a hazardous waste for high-volume wastewater streams. 
Finally, we agree with the comment that Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities do not need to certify that they are 
meeting the requirements of subpart HHHHH; therefore, the final rule 
requires affected sources that ship their wastewater to an offsite 
facility for treatment as a hazardous waste to note this fact along 
with the name of the facility to which the wastewater is shipped in 
their notification of compliance status report.

F. Standards for Equipment Leaks

    Comment: One commenter objected to our determination that the MACT 
floor is a LDAR program. According to the commenter, the actual 
performance of the best sources was not determined, and the selected 
program was simply borrowed from another rulemaking. If we make a 
determination of the floor based on the actual performance of relevant 
sources, the commenter noted that we must provide the public an 
opportunity to comment on it, or the rule would be unlawful, and 
arbitrary and capricious.
    Response: The proposed floor was based on actual performance, but 
this concept takes a different form for equipment leak controls than 
for controls on other types of emission points because equipment leaks 
are essentially malfunctions, which are not predictable. However, a 
program of inspections and repair will ensure that any leaks that do 
occur are identified and fixed. We rate the performance of different 
LDAR programs based on the type of leak detection method, leak 
definition, and leak frequency. Specifically, performance is higher for 
instrument-based programs (i.e., using portable organic vapor analyzers 
and EPA Method 21 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60) than sensory 
programs, lower leak definitions, and increased inspection frequency.
    Based on the ICR responses from coating manufacturers, more than 12 
percent of the facilities are implementing some type of LDAR program. 
One facility reported using an organic vapor analyzer (OVA), a 10,000 
ppmv leak definition, and various monitoring frequencies for the 
different types of components; this program appears to be similar to 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT (National Emission 
Standards for

[[Page 69178]]

Equipment Leaks--Control Level 1) and 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV 
(Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic 
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry). The others reported using a 
sensory-program, with most of them conducting inspections monthly. No 
facilities are capturing all of their equipment leak emissions and 
venting them through a closed-vent system to a control device. Thus, 
the MACT floor for existing sources was determined to be a sensory-
based LDAR program with monthly inspections of all components. The new 
source MACT floor was determined to be an LDAR program based on 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart TT, consistent with the program implemented by the 
best-performing source.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the standard being based on an 
LDAR program because it is a work practice standard rather than an 
emission limit. According to the commenter, the CAA requires us to set 
an emission limit rather than a work practice standard unless it is not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission limit, and the commenter 
found no evidence or analysis in the record suggesting that it 
infeasible to do so.
    Response: We determined that an LDAR program is the most reasonable 
option for control of leaking components. Unlike other emission 
sources, leaking components are not deliberate emission sources but 
rather result from mechanical limitations associated with process 
piping and machinery. A well-managed facility follows a preventive 
maintenance program to minimize leaks but in all practicality cannot 
guarantee that no leaks will occur. Therefore, an emission standard for 
equipment leaks would be difficult to enforce or prescribe. In order to 
develop such an option, all processes and equipment containing process 
piping that could potentially leak would require complete capture and 
control. While the practice of enclosing components and venting to 
control is allowed as an alternative to LDAR, it is not practiced 
except in limited cases.
    Comment: Many commenters stated the standard should be based on the 
MACT floor (i.e., a sensory-based LDAR program). According to the 
commenters, we assumed leak frequencies and leak rates that are too 
high and costs that are too low; changing these assumptions will show 
the regulatory alternative (i.e., an LDAR program requiring monitoring 
using Method 21) is not cost effective. According to the commenters, 
the SOCMI average factors are not representative of the coatings 
manufacturing industry because coatings processes generally use less 
volatile HAP, operate at lower temperatures and pressures, and all 
operation is in the liquid phase. The commenters considered coatings 
process conditions to be similar to those for gasoline distribution 
facilities, which they noted are required to comply with a sensory-
based LDAR program. To support their position that leak frequencies and 
emission rates for coatings manufacturing processes are low, one 
commenter provided monitoring data for 13 facilities in the industry, 
including bagging sample data for a few of the pumps, valves, and 
connectors at one facility.
    Response: We reviewed the leak data submitted by the commenter for 
13 facilities, including three facilities from which data was recently 
collected by a fugitive emissions contractor. The three-facility study 
was well documented and conducted by the same contractor and using the 
same monitoring instrument that was calibrated on methane. Data from 
the remaining ten facilities was not as well documented and in some 
cases, the monitoring data appear to have been based on various 
instruments and that were calibrated on compounds other than methane. 
While these data may have been adequate for the individual facility 
purposes, we did not consider them in our analysis because we felt 
these data were not consistently obtained. The commenter also conducted 
a bagging study at one of the three plants for which screening data was 
collected. Using the results of the bagging study, the commenter 
calculated emission factors that are 0.00054 kilograms per hour (kg/
hr)-source for valves, 0.0025 kg/hr-source for pumps, and 0.0000422 kg/
hr-source for connectors. In developing the emission factors, the 
commenter essentially took an arithmetic average of the VOC emission 
rates for all components in the bagging study.
    After reviewing the information, we decided to recalculate the 
emission factors according to the method documented in both American 
Petroleum Institute (API) and EPA publications (``Development of 
Fugitive Emission Factors for Petroleum Marketing Terminals,'' 
Publication Number 4588, March 1993, Prepared by Radian Corporation for 
API; and ``Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates,'' EPA 
Publication EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995). Using the bagging study 
and the corresponding screening data, we developed emission rate 
equations for pumps, valves, and connectors that relate the VOC 
emission rate (in kg/hr) to the average screening value (in ppmv) for 
each component. As a second step, we used the data from the three-
facility screening study to calculate average emission factors. Our 
analysis resulted in average emission factors of 0.000412 kg/hr-source 
for valves, 0.0042 kg/hr-source for pumps, and 0.000015 kg/hr-source 
for connectors. When we applied these emission factors to our model 
plant that was the basis for the cost analysis, we found that the 
uncontrolled HAP emissions are 0.70 tpy, versus the 4.03 tpy that was 
used in the original analysis. For comparison, if we had used the 
commenter's calculated emission factors, we would have estimated 0.66 
tpy HAP, a slightly lower value but well within the same order of 
magnitude as the factor we developed. In either case, we note that the 
revised estimate is only about 20 percent of the previous uncontrolled 
estimate.
    We revised our impacts calculation by conservatively assuming that 
the relative reductions achieved by the MACT floor sensory LDAR program 
and the regulatory alternative (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU program) 
would be the same as assumed in prior analyses. For the model 
facilities, our previous analysis assumed a 29 percent reduction from 
uncontrolled baseline for the MACT floor and a 62 percent reduction for 
the subpart UU regulatory alternative. We multiplied the previously 
estimated nationwide reductions of implementing the MACT floor and the 
regulatory alternative by the ratio of model facility revised 
uncontrolled emission over the earlier estimate of uncontrolled 
emissions, or 0.7/4.03, to obtain revised emissions reductions. We 
assumed that the capital and total annual cost estimates would be 
unchanged from the previous analysis. The incremental cost 
effectiveness of going beyond the floor using this analysis was 
estimated to be $15,800, and there are essentially no energy impacts or 
non-air quality health and environmental impacts associated with the 
regulatory alternative. Therefore, we cannot justify going beyond the 
floor in the final rule.

G. Standards for Transfer Operations

    Comment: One commenter stated we must set a MACT floor for transfer 
operations at existing sources. According to the commenter, not setting 
a MACT floor because no State regulations apply to transfer operations 
is unlawful.
    Response: In setting the MACT floor for existing sources, we 
considered the available information. We did not specifically request 
information for transfer operations in our CAA section 114 information 
request. Based on

[[Page 69179]]

follow-up conversations with representatives from five facilities with 
high solvent throughput rates that potentially are the most likely to 
control emissions from transfer operations, we determined that these 
facilities are not controlling their emissions from transfer 
operations. We also examined State regulations and determined that they 
apply only to throughput rates above those at coating manufacturing 
facilities, and they apply only to loading of tank trucks and railcars, 
which is less common than filling of smaller containers at coating 
manufacturing facilities. There are no other known means by which 
sources may be reducing emissions from transfer operations. Therefore, 
we concluded that the MACT floor for transfer operations at existing 
sources is no emissions reductions. Because we lack information 
indicating that any source is implementing or required to implement any 
measures to reduce HAP emissions from transfer operations, we concluded 
that the new source MACT floor also is no emissions reductions.
    Comment: One commenter opposed the beyond-the-floor standard for 
existing and new sources. This commenter also claimed that we have not 
demonstrated that emissions from transfer operations warrant regulation 
because the facility on which impacts were estimated is not 
representative of the industry. The commenter contacted that facility 
and learned they primarily repackage and distribute paint stripper, 
thinners, and spray gun cleaning solvent. According to the commenter, 
we generally overestimated emissions from transfer operations because 
we assumed that the industry transfers pure solvents or mixtures with 
high vapor pressures when in fact the industry transfers primarily 
materials with low vapor pressures, including waterborne products. 
Furthermore, the commenter stated that the regulatory alternative 
cannot be justified based on cost because the impacts are based on 
incorrect assumptions. For example, the commenter suggested the 
following changes: (1) Use the AP-42 saturation factor of 0.6 for 
submerged loading in dedicated vapor balance service instead of the 
assumption that displaced vapors are saturated; (2) use a tank truck 
filling rate of 25 gal/min instead of 150 gallons per minute (gal/min); 
(3) use characteristics of toluene (or better yet, xylene) instead of 
an arbitrary HAP with a molecular weight of 80 and a vapor pressure of 
3.93 psia; (4) use a gas flow rate of 100 scfm instead of less than 4 
scfm; (5) include capital costs for a refrigeration unit and auxiliary 
equipment such as a precooler, ductwork, a fan, and pump for collected 
solvent; and (6) conduct the analysis over a range of coating 
throughput rates to bracket the actual operations in the industry. 
Taking these changes into account, the commenter estimated a cost of 
more than $30,000/Mg for bulk loading tank trucks at rates between 1.8 
million gal/yr and 7.3 million gal/yr. Another commenter stated that 
the standard should be no control.
    Response: It appears that the first commenter thinks we used the 
results of the impacts analysis for one facility as the basis for our 
decision to set the existing and new source standards at a level beyond 
the floor. This is not correct. We actually conducted two analyses. The 
first was a sensitivity analysis, comparable to that suggested by the 
commenter, to determine the characteristics of emission streams for 
which the total impacts associated with a regulatory alternative that 
reduces emissions by 75 percent (the same level as the standard for 
stationary process vessels at existing sources) was reasonable. The 
second analysis involved estimating the impacts for existing facilities 
that met the characteristics from the first analysis.
    Based on the results of our sensitivity analysis, we concluded that 
the total impacts are reasonable in light of the emissions reductions 
achieved if the coating products that are bulk loaded contain at least 
3.0 million gal/yr of HAP with a partial pressure of at least 1.5 psia. 
The incremental HAP reduction achieved to meet the regulatory 
alternative for a model facility with these characteristics was 
estimated to be 10.8 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost was estimated to 
be $3,200/Mg of HAP removed. These estimates assume the emissions are 
controlled using a condenser, and that the refrigeration unit used in 
the process vessels analysis can be replaced by one with a slightly 
larger capacity to accommodate all of the condensers. The incremental 
electricity consumption to operate the enlarged refrigeration unit is 
3,200 kwh/yr, and the incremental fuel energy consumption to generate 
the electricity is 31 million Btu per year. Total CO, NOx, 
and SO 2 emissions from combustion of the additional fuel is 
0.03 Mg/yr. The condensed HAP would be a hazardous waste. There would 
be no wastewater or other non-air quality health or environmental 
impacts.
    At the maximum product loading volume cited by the commenter, we 
estimate the HAP or solvent throughput would be about 2.0 million gal/
yr (i.e., based on an average 1.75 lb HAP/gal coating); thus, none of 
the bulk loading scenarios evaluated by the commenter would be subject 
to control under the standard. However, we provide the following 
discussion of the analysis in the event that a facility may expand 
production beyond the rates used in the commenter's analysis, or the 
quantity of HAP in their product is higher than the average value that 
we used.
    In our analysis, we assumed the emission stream is saturated 
because emissions occur only as a result of vapor displacement, and the 
vent from the tank truck or rail car can be hard-piped to a control 
device. Because our analysis assumes that the control is a condenser 
with coolant supplied from the same refrigeration unit that we assumed 
would be used with condensers for process vessel emissions, we did not 
include the cost of a separate refrigeration unit in this analysis. We 
also included a smaller maintenance labor factor than would be used for 
a separate refrigerated condenser system. These assumptions mean the 
costs for overhead, taxes, and capital recovery are lower in our 
analysis than the commenter's.
    Although we agree that adding costs for a precooler, ductwork, and 
a pump would be reasonable, we note that the overall cost of the 
auxiliary equipment in our analysis equals more than 50 percent of the 
cost for all auxiliary equipment in the commenter's analysis, even 
though we have a much smaller condenser. Furthermore, based on the 
commenter's data, it appears that we overestimated the cost of the 
condenser and waste solvent storage tank, which offsets our lack of 
costs for other auxiliary equipment.
    We assumed a fill rate of 30 gal/min, which we consider to be 
consistent with the commenter's suggested rate of 25 gal/min. This rate 
also defines the gas flow into the condenser in our analysis because 
the system can be hard-piped, and there is no need to include 
supplemental dilution air at a rate 25 times the flow of the displaced 
volume. As the commenter noted, we assumed the coating product consists 
only of HAP solvent and solids. This was done to simplify the analysis. 
Also, products that contain little HAP or less volatile HAP are not 
likely to meet the thresholds that we set. Finally, we note that our 
analysis likely overestimates the actual costs because we assumed a 
waste disposal unit cost four times higher than the cost the commenter 
considers to be realistic. Therefore, we maintain that for transfer 
operations meeting the specified flow rate and partial pressure levels 
in the regulatory alternative, the incremental cost to

[[Page 69180]]

control emissions (relative to the floor of no emissions reduction) is 
reasonable.
    In our second analysis, we searched the database for any facilities 
with HAP throughput and partial pressure that meet the cutoffs 
established for the regulatory alternative. We identified only one 
facility that potentially met the criteria. The estimated impacts for 
this facility are comparable to those for the model facility. Assuming 
the commenter is correct that most of the reported throughput at this 
facility is not associated with coating manufacturing, then the impacts 
of the standard may be lower than we estimated.

H. Pollution Prevention

    Comment: One commenter stated that the exemption for equipment that 
contain less than 5 percent HAP is not a viable pollution prevention 
alternative. Several commenters consider the lack of a viable pollution 
prevention alternative to be a serious shortcoming in the rule as 
proposed, and they suggested several options for consideration. First, 
numerous commenters favored an option that allows manufacturers to take 
credit for reductions achieved by voluntarily choosing to manufacture 
lower HAP coatings or making other changes in production technology. 
Second, two commenters suggested exempting any compliance coating 
manufacturing from subpart HHHHH if the facility certifies that the 
coatings are manufactured to meet the surface coating rules. Third, one 
commenter suggested that we consider allowing delayed implementation of 
subpart HHHHH or provide an opt-out provision for facilities whose 
emissions drop below major source thresholds; this would minimize the 
impact of the ``once-in, always-in'' policy. Fourth, if none of the 
preceding options is acceptable, one commenter requested that the 
stringency of the standards be reduced because the industry has already 
achieved reductions as great as or greater than those expected by the 
proposed standards. Many commenters cited numerous changes in the 
industry over the past few years that have reduced emissions from 
coating manufacturing and have not been accounted for in setting the 
standards. For example, the shift in production to waterborne, UV cure, 
and high solids coatings, some of which has been driven by other 
regulatory requirements, contribute to reducing emissions from coating 
manufacturing as well as from coating application. One commenter 
estimated that the shift to manufacturing compliant coatings to meet 
the surface coating MACT will reduce HAP content of coatings by 265,000 
tpy, which also translates into the same reduction in HAP throughput 
for the manufacturing processes. Assuming 0.5 to 1.0 percent of the 
throughput is emitted during manufacturing means this reduction in 
throughput has already achieved a significant fraction of the expected 
reductions under subpart HHHHH. Other changes that have reduced 
emissions include the shift to using low vapor pressure solvents, 
making coatings exclusively in one vessel, and the production of 
smaller batch sizes with shorter lead times. Finally, the commenters 
noted that the industry has undertaken various voluntary efforts to 
reduce emissions including the paint industry's Coatings Care program, 
ACC's Responsible Care program, EPA's National Environmental Track 
program, and various State and local programs.
    Response: We do not agree that facilities can demonstrate that any 
of the suggested alternatives are comparable to the specified emission 
standards. A percent reduction in the HAP content of products may not 
necessarily yield an equivalent percent reduction in emissions. A 
format such as a demonstration in reduction of HAP content at coatings 
manufacturers is not easily linked to overall HAP usage upon 
application.

I. Initial Compliance

    Comment: One commenter has encountered difficulty in applying 
existing EPA stack sampling methods to determine condenser inlet 
concentrations of VOC and HAP for use in demonstrating the control 
efficiency of the condenser. The commenter manufactures adhesives and 
sealants in closed vessels to which solvent is introduced through 
closed piping systems, and solids are introduced via closed screw 
conveyors. Nitrogen is used to purge the conveyors and vessels, and the 
exhaust gas is vented to a chilled water condenser. The commenter noted 
that the vapor space in the process vessels is typically saturated with 
solvent vapor, which quickly overwhelms the sampling equipment. The 
commenter noted that the sampling equipment also artificially increases 
the emissions by drawing off vapor from the precondenser headspace that 
would not otherwise represent emissions. Furthermore, the commenter 
stated that the method and volume of nitrogen inerting dramatically 
affects the sampling effectiveness without actually altering total 
emissions. Therefore, the commenter supported the proposed option that 
would allow compliance to be demonstrated by documenting operation at a 
suitable outlet temperature, but the commenter recommended modifying 
the option to consider the combined effect of covers and other vessel 
sealing devices as well as the efficiency of the condenser.
    Response: Without additional details regarding operation of the 
equipment, characteristics of the gas stream(s), and modifications to 
the testing protocol that have already been attempted, we cannot 
provide constructive suggestions for modifying the sampling methods. 
However, we note that performance testing is only one of three options 
for demonstrating initial compliance for condensers. As the commenter 
indicated, a second option is to demonstrate that the condenser 
operates below a specified temperature, where the required level is 
based on the HAP partial pressure of the gas stream entering the 
condenser. The third option is to determine the percent reduction based 
on calculations of the uncontrolled and controlled emissions using the 
equations specified in Sec.  63.1257(d).

J. Ongoing Compliance

    Comment: According to one commenter, the monitoring provisions are 
arbitrary and capricious because they exempt sources with the greatest 
emissions (i.e., those that fall outside of the MACT floor due to size 
have the loosest monitoring).
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertions. The final 
rule, like the proposed rule, requires monitoring of all control 
devices. In some cases, to minimize the burden on small operations 
(e.g., small control devices controlling process vessel vents), the 
final rule has different monitoring requirements for lower-emitting 
sources; however, these sources are not sources with the greatest HAP 
emissions as asserted by the commenter.
    Comment: One commenter considered the proposed quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) requirements for continuous parameter monitors 
to be unduly burdensome and stated that they contravene existing EPA 
standards and test methods. The commenter recommended that sources be 
required to develop preventive maintenance programs that are based on 
manufacturer's recommendations and actual operating/maintenance history 
of the instruments. Another commenter recommended adding a provision 
that allows sources to request approval, using the precompliance 
report, of alternatives to the QA/QC procedures

[[Page 69181]]

specified in Sec.  63.8035 of the proposed rule.
    Response: The final rule references the QA/QC requirements for 
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS. We deleted the proposed requirements for the same reasons 
we decided not to implement similar proposed QA/QC requirements in 
subpart SS (67 FR 46260, July 12, 2002). Specifically, we are currently 
developing performance specifications for CPMS to be followed by owners 
and operators of all sources subject to standards under 40 CFR part 63, 
which includes subpart HHHHH. Also, subpart SS currently specifies 
requirements for CPMS, and the requirements of subpart SS are 
referenced by the final rule. Even though they may not be as specific 
as those proposed, we decided it would be premature to promulgate 
performance specifications for subpart HHHHH when the performance 
specifications that would ultimately be promulgated for all 40 CFR part 
63 may be significantly different. Until those performance 
specifications are ready, we consider the requirements in subpart SS to 
be the best choice because they are consistent with other rules applied 
to source categories containing similar control and monitoring 
equipment as in this source category. Further, references to these 
standard standards streamline compliance requirements for facilities 
with operations in numerous source categories. The procedures in 
subpart SS require monitoring equipment to be installed, calibrated, 
maintained, and operated according to manufacturer's specifications or 
other written procedures that provide adequate assurance that the 
equipment would reasonably be expected to monitor accurately. These 
provisions are consistent with the commenters' suggestions.

K. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Comment: According to one commenter, the initial notification 
requirements are unnecessary because facilities in the miscellaneous 
coating source category have already submitted an initial notification 
under CAA section 112(j). Another commenter considers the notification 
to be unnecessary because it is already required under title V.
    Response: The requirement to submit an initial notification is part 
of the General Provisions, which apply to all NESHAP. If the required 
information is already in the sources' title V permit applications, the 
requirement for sources to copy this information into their one-time 
initial notifications should not be unduly burdensome. Having this 
information will help the regulatory authorities and the public better 
understand what is being regulated, especially since a source's initial 
notification may be submitted before its title V permit is issued or 
renewed.
    Comment: Three commenters requested that the notification of 
compliance status report be due no earlier than 150 days or 180 days 
after the compliance date, as in other rules and the General 
Provisions. According to the commenters, facilities will need the full 
3 years (if not longer) after the promulgation date to respond to 
actions taken by their customers and to evaluate their own compliance 
options, particularly to determine whether they can make changes such 
that they are no longer major sources.
    Response: We accept the argument that some facilities may need the 
full 3 years after the effective date to bring controls online or to 
make product formulation changes to meet new customer requirements in 
response to the surface coating MACT rules. Therefore, we have decided 
to change the due date for the notification of compliance status 
report. In the final rule, the report is due no later than 150 days 
after the compliance date, as in many other rules.

L. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction

    Comment: According to one commenter, the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM) provisions are unlawful because they allow sources to 
avoid enforcement actions merely by complying with their startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP), but the CAA requires compliance 
continuously except for unavoidable deviations during SSM.
    Response: We recently adopted final amendments to the General 
Provisions which address the concerns raised by the commenter (68 FR 
32586, May 30, 2003). The final amendments clarify that Sec.  
63.6(e)(1)(i) establishes a general duty to minimize emissions. During 
a period of SSM, that general duty requires an owner or operator to 
reduce emissions to the greatest extent consistent with safety and good 
air pollution control practices. However, ``during an SSM event, the 
general duty to minimize emissions does not require an owner or 
operator to achieve the levels required by the applicable MACT standard 
at other times, or to make further efforts to reduce emissions if such 
levels have been successfully achieved.'' As discussed in the preamble 
to the final amendments, we disagree with the commenter's legal 
position that sources' compliance with SSMP requirements in lieu of 
applicable emission standards is permissible only where violations of 
emission limitations are unavoidable. As stated in the preamble to the 
final amendments to the General Provisions, ``we believe that we have 
discretion to make reasonable distinctions concerning those particular 
activities to which the emission limitations in a MACT standard apply * 
* *. However, we note that the general duty to minimize emissions is 
intended to be a legally enforceable duty which applies when the 
emission limitations in a MACT standard do not apply, thereby limiting 
exceedances of generally applicable emission limitations to those 
instances where they cannot be reasonably avoided.'' We further 
explained that the general duty to minimize emissions requires that 
owners or operators review their SSMP on an ongoing basis and make 
appropriate improvements to ensure that excess emissions are avoided.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that ``startup'' be defined as 
in the Amino and Phenolic Resins NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO). 
According to the commenters, the proposed definition more accurately 
defines a ``new process.''
    Response: We clarified the definition of ``startup'' for the final 
rule. However, we did not use the definition from the Amino and 
Phenolic Resins final rule because we do not consider the language 
regarding flexible operation units and continuous processes to be 
appropriate for the miscellaneous coatings manufacturing source 
category. For the final rule, we removed the term ``family of 
coatings,'' and we removed the list of actions that are not startup so 
that the definition focuses only on items that are startup. In 
addition, since it is possible that actions taken to bring equipment 
back online after it has been configured and used to produce a 
different product, we also decided to specify that the first time 
equipment is put into operation at the start of a campaign, even if the 
same product has been produced in the past, is startup if the actions 
taken differ from routine operation.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we clearly apply the SSMP 
to the emission control equipment rather than to individual process 
vessels on a batch to batch basis. According to the commenter, tracking 
the startup and shutdown of individual process vessels would require 
thousands of records, it would be nearly impossible to insure that all 
information is collected properly, and

[[Page 69182]]

the tracking adds no environmental value.
    Response: Startup and shutdown do apply to control equipment 
because the definitions specify that they apply to ``equipment required 
or used to comply with this subpart.'' Similarly, the definition of 
``malfunction'' in Sec.  63.2 specifies that it applies to control 
equipment. However, startup, shutdown, and malfunction also apply to 
the processing equipment. We disagree with the commenter's 
characterization that applying startup, shutdown, and malfunction to 
process vessels will result in the need to generate thousands of 
records because startup only applies to new sources, new equipment, and 
possibly the start of campaigns; and malfunctions, by definition, are 
infrequent failures of equipment. In addition, the definition of 
shutdown has been changed to specify that shutdown applies to the 
cessation of operation of process vessels only if the steps taken to 
cease operation differ from routine procedures for removing the vessel 
or equipment from service. This change also makes the definition of 
shutdown consistent with the revised definition of startup.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended excluding periods of SSM 
from the definition of ``deviation'' and reporting deviations 
separately from reporting of SSM events. One commenter noted that 
periods of SSM are exempt from compliance under the rule as proposed 
and concluded that the proposed requirements are redundant and provide 
no useful information regarding compliance. Another commenter also 
noted that requirements in previous rules and the General Provisions 
differentiate between SSM events and deviations (or exceedances and 
excursions, in the terminology of previous rules). According to the 
commenter, changing the terminology and requirements for the final rule 
will at a minimum be confusing for facilities that also must comply 
with previous rules.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's contention that the 
proposed requirements are redundant. Section 63.6(e) of the General 
Provisions requires operation at all times (including during periods of 
SSM) in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control 
practices for minimizing emissions to the levels required by the 
relevant standards (i.e., meet the standards or comply with the SSMP). 
Nothing in the General Provisions says the standards do not apply 
during periods of SSM, but compliance with the SSMP is allowed in the 
event the standard cannot otherwise be met. Furthermore, although a 
deviation may occur for a day during which an SSM event also occurs, 
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the 
deviation differ from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 
the SSM event; thus, there is no redundancy. Information about all 
periods during which an emission limit, operating limit, or work 
practice standard is not met and the reasons for noncompliance is 
important. Thus, we have not changed the intent of the requirements for 
the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter considers the proposed requirement for 
immediate reporting of actions taken that are inconsistent with the 
SSMP to be overly burdensome. According to the commenter, reporting 
these events with other SSM events on a semi-annual basis in the 
compliance report is sufficient, and the commenter noted that this 
approach has been used in 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJ (Polymers and 
Resins) and subpart PPP (Polyether Polyols).
    Response: We agree that immediate notifications are not necessary. 
The industries covered by this source category generally have extensive 
upset/SSM reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and state reporting 
requirements that should be adequate in supplying timely notification 
of events. Further, the final rule requires information regarding 
actions inconsistent with the SSMP to be submitted in semiannual 
compliance reports. For these reasons, and to maintain consistency with 
the HON and the Consolidated Air Rule (CAR), we have overridden the 
immediate SSM reporting required by Sec. Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iv) and 
63.10(d)(5)(ii) of the General Provisions.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 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 a ``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 entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified 
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within 
the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this action 
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or 
recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information requirements are not enforceable 
until OMB approves them. The ICR number is 2115.01.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
owners or operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 112 of 
the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7412). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant 
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in 
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The final NESHAP require maintenance inspections of the control 
devices but do not require any notifications or reports beyond those 
required by the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). 
The recordkeeping requirements collect only the specific information 
needed to determine compliance.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the final rule) is estimated to average 79 labor 
hours per year at an annual cost of $3,500 for 129 respondents. These 
estimates include one-time submissions of notifications and 
precompliance reports, preparation of an SSMP with

[[Page 69183]]

semiannual reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were 
not followed, preparation of semiannual compliance reports, and 
recordkeeping. Total annualized capital/startup costs associated with 
the monitoring requirements for the 3-year period of the ICR are 
estimated at $10,000/yr. Average operation and maintenance costs 
associated with the monitoring requirements for the 3-year period are 
estimated at $34,000/yr.
    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 purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel 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 number for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are in 40 CFR part 9. When the ICR is approved by 
OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in 
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved 
information collection requirements contained in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule. The 
EPA has also determined that the final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes 
of assessing the impact of today's rule on small entities, small entity 
is defined as: (1) A small business having up to 500 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.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Our economic analysis identified as small businesses 32 of the 58 
companies owning affected coating manufacturing facilities. This 
constitutes 55 percent of the affected businesses. Although small 
businesses represent 55 percent of the companies withing the source 
category, they are expected to incur 24 percent of the total industry 
compliance costs of $16 million. According to EPA's economic 
assessment, there are two small firms with compliance costs equal to or 
greater than 3 percent of their sales. In addition, there are five 
small firms with cost-to-sales ratios between 1 and 3 percent.
    An economic impact analysis was performed to estimate the changes 
in product price and production quantities for the firms affected by 
subpart HHHHH. The analysis shows that of the 70 facilities owned by 
affected small firms, one is expected to shut down after implementation 
of the NESHAP.
    The baseline economic condition of the facility predicted to close 
affects the closure estimate provided by the economic model. Facilities 
that are already experiencing adverse economic conditions will be more 
severely impacted than those that are not, and the facility predicted 
to close currently has low profitability levels.
    Although the NESHAP will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 
limit the impact of the final rule on small entities. We have worked 
closely with the National Paint and Coatings Association, the National 
Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers, and the Adhesives and 
Sealants Council. These trade organizations, which represent the 
majority of facilities covered by subpart HHHHH, have represented their 
members at stakeholder meetings throughout the standards development 
process. We worked with the coating manufacturers to minimize the 
overlap of MACT standards and provide several alternative ways to 
comply with the standards to allow as much flexibility as possible. The 
multi-process vessel alternative emission limit and the pollution 
prevention option help those small entities that have been proactive in 
reducing their HAP emissions and usage, respectively.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the final rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any one year. The maximum total annual costs of the 
final rule for any year is estimated to be less than $16 million. Thus, 
the final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 
205 of the UMRA.
    In addition, the NESHAP contain no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because they 
contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose 
obligations upon them. Therefore, the final rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that

[[Page 69184]]

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.''
    The final 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. None of the sources are owned or 
operated by State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to the final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 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.'' The final rule does not have tribal 
implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments 
own or operate miscellaneous coating operations. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to the final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 1985, 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 final rule is not 
subject to the Executive Order because it is based on technology 
performance and not health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution or Use

    The final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Approximately 3.0 million kwh/yr of 
electricity will be needed to operate fans and pumps for control 
systems. Generating this amount of electricity will consume about 1,000 
tpy of coal. If owners and operators elect to use combustion-based 
control devices, a small amount of natural gas will also be used.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory 
and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an 
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The final rule involves technical standards. The final rule uses 
EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2G, 2F, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 25, 25A, 
26, 26A, 305, 320, 624, 625, 1624, 1625, 1666, 1671, 8260, and 8270. 
Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify 
voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. The 
search and review results have been documented and placed in the docket 
for the NESHAP (Docket ID No. OAR-03-0178). The search for emissions 
monitoring procedures for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates 
subject to emission limitations in these NESHAP identified 19 voluntary 
consensus standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA 
standard reference methods. However, after reviewing the available 
standards, EPA determined that 13 of the candidate consensus standards 
would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, and 
validation data. The 13 standards are: ASME C00031 or Performance Test 
Code 19-10-1981, ASTM D3154-91 (1995), ASTM D3464-96, ASTM D3796-90 
(1998), ASTM D5835-95, ASTM D6060-96, ASTM E337-84 (Reapproved 1996), 
CAN/CSA Z2232.2-M-86, European Norm (EN) 12619 (1999), EN 1911-1,2,3 
(1998), ISO 9096:1992, ISO 10396:1993, and ISO 10780:1994. Of the six 
remaining candidate consensus standards, the following five are under 
development or under EPA review: ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ASME/BSR MFC 13m, 
ASTM D5790-95 (1995), ISO/DIS 12039, and ISO/FDIS 14965. The EPA plans 
to follow, review, and consider adopting these candidate consensus 
standards after their development and further review by EPA is 
completed.
    One consensus standard, ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases 
described below for inclusion in these NESHAP in addition to the 
currently available EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A for measurement of organic compounds. Therefore, the standard ASTM 
D6420-99 is cited in the final rule.
    Similar to EPA's performance based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also 
a performance based method for measurement of gaseous organic 
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific 
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages 
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less 
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method 
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 (Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178) is a 
suitable alternative to Method 18 only where the target compound(s) are 
those listed in section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99; and the target 
concentration is between 150 ppb(v) and 100 ppm(v).
    For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, 
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies 
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, 
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed, 
met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no 
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water 
soluble. For target

[[Page 69185]]

compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, and not 
amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 does not 
apply.
    As a result, EPA cites ASTM D6420-99 in subpart HHHHH of part 63. 
The EPA also cites Method 18 as a gas chromatography (GC) option in 
addition to ASTM D6420-99. This will allow the continued use of GC 
configurations other than GC/MS.
    Some EPA testing methods and performance standards are specified in 
Sec.  63.8000(d)(1) of subpart HHHHH. Most of the standards have been 
used by States and industry for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, under 
Sec.  63.7(f), the final rule also allows any State or source to apply 
to EPA for permission to use an alternative method in place of any of 
the EPA testing methods or performance standards listed in the NESHAP.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, generally provides 
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule 
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each 
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States. The EPA will submit a report containing the final rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. The final rule is 
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. -- Dated: August 
29, 2003.

    Dated: August 29, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding a new subpart HHHHH to read as follows:

Subpart HHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

Sec.

What this Subpart Covers

63.7980 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7985 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?
63.7990 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

Compliance Dates

63.7995 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limits, Work Practice Standards, and Compliance Requirements

63.8000 What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?
63.8005 What requirements apply to my process vessels?
63.8010 What requirements apply to my storage tanks?
63.8015 What requirements apply to my equipment leaks?
63.8020 What requirements apply to my wastewater streams?
63.8025 What requirements apply to my transfer operations?
63.8030 What requirements apply to my heat exchange systems?

Alternative Means of Compliance

63.8050 How do I comply with emissions averaging for stationary 
process vessels at existing sources?
63.8055 How do I comply with a weight percent HAP limit in coating 
products?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8070 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8075 What reports must I submit and when?
63.8080 What records must I keep?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8090 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is 
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?
63.8095 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8100 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8105 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work 
Practice Standards for Process Vessels
Table 2 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work 
Practice Standards for Storage Tanks
Table 3 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Equipment 
Leaks
Table 4 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work 
Practice Standards for Wastewater Streams
Table 5 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work 
Practice Standards for Transfer Operations
Table 6 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Heat Exchange 
Systems
Table 7 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Partially Soluble Hazardous Air 
Pollutants
Table 8 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Soluble Hazardous Air 
Pollutants
Table 9 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 10 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart HHHHH

Subpart HHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.7980  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for miscellaneous coating manufacturing. This 
subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and 
continuous compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and 
work practice standards.


Sec.  63.7985  Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to the requirements in this subpart if you own 
or operate miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations, as defined 
in paragraph (b) of this section, that meet the conditions specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Are located at or are part of a major source of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) emissions, as defined in section 112(a) of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA).
    (2) Manufacture coatings as defined in Sec.  63.8105.
    (3) Process, use, or produce HAP.
    (4) Are not part of an affected source under another subpart of 
this part 63.
    (b) Miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations include the 
facilitywide collection of equipment described in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) of this section that is used to manufacture coatings as 
defined in Sec.  63.8105. Miscellaneous coating manufacturing 
operations also include cleaning operations.
    (1) Process vessels.
    (2) Storage tanks for feedstocks and products.
    (3) Components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure 
relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or 
lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems.
    (4) Wastewater tanks and transfer racks.
    (c) If the predominant use of a transfer rack loading arm or 
storage tank

[[Page 69186]]

(including storage tanks in series) is associated with miscellaneous 
coating manufacturing, and the loading arm or storage tank is not part 
of an affected source under a subpart of this part 63, then you must 
assign the loading arm or storage tank to the miscellaneous coating 
manufacturing operations. If the predominant use cannot be determined, 
and the loading arm or storage tank is not part of an affected source 
under a subpart of this part 63, then you must assign the loading arm 
or storage tank to the miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations. 
If the use varies from year to year, then you must base the 
determination on the utilization that occurred during the year 
preceding December 11, 2003 or, if the loading arm or storage tank was 
not in operation during that year, you must base the use on the 
expected use for the first 5-year period after startup. You must 
include the determination in the notification of compliance status 
report specified in Sec.  63.8075(d). You must redetermine the 
predominant use at least once every 5 years after the compliance date.
    (d) The requirements for miscellaneous coatings manufacturing 
sources in this subpart do not apply to operations described in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Research and development facilities, as defined in section 
112(c)(7) of the CAA.
    (2) The affiliated operations located at an affected source under 
subparts GG (National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing 
and Rework Facilities), KK (National Emission Standards for the 
Printing and Publishing Industry), JJJJ (NESHAP: Paper and Other Web 
Coating), future MMMM (National Emission Standards for Miscellaneous 
Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating Operations) and SSSS (NESHAP: 
Surface Coating of Metal Coil) of 40 CFR part 63. Affiliated operations 
include, but are not limited to, mixing or dissolving of coating 
ingredients; coating mixing for viscosity adjustment, color tint or 
additive blending, or pH adjustment; cleaning of coating lines and 
coating line parts; handling and storage of coatings and solvent; and 
conveyance and treatment of wastewater.
    (3) Ancillary equipment such as boilers and incinerators (only 
those not used to comply with the emission limits in Tables 1 through 5 
to this subpart), chillers and refrigeration systems, and other 
equipment that is not directly involved in the manufacturing of a 
coating (i.e., it operates as a closed system, and materials are not 
combined with materials used to manufacture the coating).
    (4) Quality assurance/quality control laboratories.


Sec.  63.7990  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each miscellaneous coating 
manufacturing affected source as defined in Sec.  63.7985(a).
    (b) The miscellaneous coating manufacturing affected source is the 
miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations as defined in Sec.  
63.7985(b).
    (c) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced 
construction or reconstruction after April 4, 2002, and you met the 
applicability criteria at the time you commenced construction or 
reconstruction.

Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.7995  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have a new affected source, you must comply with this 
subpart according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) If you start up your new affected source before December 11, 
2003, then you must comply with the requirements for new sources in 
this subpart no later than December 11, 2003.
    (2) If you start up your new affected source after December 11, 
2003, then you must comply with the requirements for new sources in 
this subpart upon startup of your affected source.
    (b) If you have an existing affected source on December 11, 2003, 
then you must comply with the requirements for existing sources in this 
subpart no later than December 11, 2005.
    (c) If you add equipment to your existing affected source after 
December 11, 2003 you must comply with the requirements for existing 
sources in this subpart upon startup of the added equipment.
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec.  63.8070 
according to the schedule in Sec.  63.8070 and in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 
required to comply with the emission limits, operating limits, and work 
practice standards in this subpart.

Emission Limits, Work Practice Standards, and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.8000  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limits and work 
practice standards in Tables 1 through 5 to this subpart at all times, 
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must 
meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section. You must meet the requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8005 
through 63.8025 (or the alternative means of compliance in Sec.  
63.8050), except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. You 
must meet the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements 
specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8070, 63.8075, and 63.8080.
    (b) General requirements. (1) If an emission stream contains 
halogen atoms, you must determine whether it meets the definition of a 
halogenated stream by calculating the concentration of each organic 
compound that contains halogen atoms using the procedures specified in 
Sec.  63.115(d)(2)(v), multiplying each concentration by the number of 
halogen atoms in the organic compound, and summing the resulting 
halogen atom concentrations for all of the organic compounds in the 
emission stream. Alternatively, you may elect to designate the emission 
stream as halogenated.
    (2) Opening of a safety device, as defined in Sec.  63.8105, is 
allowed at any time conditions require it to avoid unsafe conditions.
    (c) Compliance requirements for closed vent systems and control 
devices. If you use a control device to comply with an emission limit 
in Table 1, 2, or 5 to this subpart, you must comply with the 
requirements in subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63 as specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (3) of this section, except as specified in paragraph 
(d) of this section.
    (1) If you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions 
through a closed-vent system to any combination of control devices 
(except a flare), you must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.982(c) and 
the requirements referenced therein.
    (2) If you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions 
through a closed-vent system to a flare, you must meet the requirements 
of Sec.  63.982(b) and the requirements referenced therein. You may not 
use a flare to control halogenated vent streams or hydrogen halide and 
halogen HAP emissions.
    (3) If you use a halogen reduction device to reduce hydrogen halide 
and halogen HAP emissions that are generated by combusting halogenated 
vent streams, you must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.994 and the 
requirements referenced therein. If you use a halogen reduction device 
before a combustion device, you must determine the halogen atom 
emission rate prior to

[[Page 69187]]

the combustion device according to the procedures in Sec.  
63.115(d)(2)(v).
    (d) Exceptions to the requirements specified in other subparts of 
this part 63. (1) Requirements for performance tests. The requirements 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (v) of this section apply 
instead of or in addition to the requirements for performance testing 
of control devices as specified in subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63.
    (i) Conduct gas molecular weight analysis using Method 3, 3A, or 3B 
in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
    (ii) Measure moisture content of the stack gas using Method 4 in 
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
    (iii) As an alternative to using Method 18, Method 25/25A, or 
Method 26/26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to comply with any of the 
emission limits specified in Tables 1 through 7 to this subpart, you 
may use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. When using Method 
320, you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of 
Method 320, unless you demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure 
has been conducted at a similar source.
    (iv) Section 63.997(c)(1) does not apply. For the purposes of this 
subpart, results of all initial compliance demonstrations must be 
included in the notification of compliance status report, which is due 
150 days after the compliance date, as specified in Sec.  
63.8075(d)(1).
    (v) The option in Sec.  63.997(e)(2)(iv)(C) to demonstrate 
compliance with a percent reduction emission limit by measuring total 
organic carbon (TOC) is not allowed.
    (vi) If you do not have a closed-vent system as defined in Sec.  
63.981, you must determine capture efficiency using Method 204 of 
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for all stationary process vessels subject 
to requirements of Table 1 to this subpart.
    (2) Design evaluation. To determine the percent reduction of a 
small control device, you may elect to conduct a design evaluation as 
specified in Sec.  63.1257(a)(1) instead of a performance test as 
specified in subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63. You must establish the 
value(s) and basis for the operating limits as part of the design 
evaluation.
    (3) Periodic verification. For a control device with total inlet 
HAP emissions less than 1 ton per year (tpy), you must establish an 
operating limit(s) for a parameter(s) that you will measure and record 
at least once per averaging period (i.e., daily or block) to verify 
that the control device is operating properly. You may elect to measure 
the same parameter(s) that is required for control devices that control 
inlet HAP emissions equal to or greater than 1 tpy. If the parameter 
will not be measured continuously, you must request approval of your 
proposed procedure in the precompliance report. You must identify the 
operating limit(s) and the measurement frequency, and you must provide 
rationale to support how these measurements demonstrate the control 
device is operating properly.
    (4) Continuous emissions monitoring systems. Each continuous 
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) must be installed, operated, and 
maintained according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8 and paragraphs 
(d)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according 
to the applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
B, and according to paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section, except as 
specified in paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A) of this section. For any CEMS 
meeting Performance Specification 8, you must also comply with appendix 
F, procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60.
    (A) If you wish to use a CEMS other than a Fourier Transform 
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) meeting the requirements of Performance 
Specification 15 to measure hydrogen halide and halogen HAP before we 
promulgate a Performance Specification for such CEMS, you must prepare 
a monitoring plan and submit it for approval in accordance with the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.8.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) You must determine the calibration gases and reporting units 
for TOC CEMS in accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A), (B), or (C) of 
this section.
    (A) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 9 or 15 
requirements, determine the target analyte(s) for calibration using 
either process knowledge of the control device inlet stream or the 
screening procedures of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream.
    (B) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor 
performance of a combustion device, calibrate the instrument on the 
predominant organic HAP and report the results as carbon 
(C1), and use Method 25A or any approved alternative as the 
reference method for the relative accuracy tests.
    (C) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor 
performance of a noncombustion device, determine the predominant 
organic HAP using either process knowledge or the screening procedures 
of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream, calibrate the monitor 
on the predominant organic HAP, and report the results as 
C1. Use Method 18, ASTM D6420-99, or any approved 
alternative as the reference method for the relative accuracy tests, 
and report the results as C1.
    (iii) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS 
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and according to the 
applicable Performance Specification of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, 
except that the schedule in Sec.  63.8(e)(4) does not apply, and the 
results of the performance evaluation must be included in the 
notification of compliance status report.
    (iv) The CEMS data must be reduced to operating day or operating 
block averages computed using valid data consistent with the data 
availability requirements specified in Sec.  63.999(c)(6)(i)(B) through 
(D), except monitoring data also are sufficient to constitute a valid 
hour of data if measured values are available for at least two of the 
15-minute periods during an hour when calibration, quality assurance, 
or maintenance activities are being performed. An operating block is a 
period of time from the beginning to end of batch operations in the 
manufacturing of a coating. Operating block averages may be used only 
for process vessel data.
    (5) Continuous parameter monitoring. The provisions in paragraphs 
(d)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section apply in addition to the 
requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) in 
subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63.
    (i) You must record the results of each calibration check and all 
maintenance performed on the CPMS as specified in Sec.  
63.998(c)(1)(ii)(A).
    (ii) When subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63 uses the term a range or 
operating range of a monitored parameter, it means an operating limit 
for a monitored parameter for the purposes of this subpart.
    (iii) As an alternative to measuring pH as specified in Sec.  
63.994(c)(1)(i), you may elect to continuously monitor the caustic 
strength of the scrubber effluent.
    (6) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Sections 63.998(b)(2)(iii) 
and (b)(6)(i)(A), which apply to the exclusion of monitoring data 
collected during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) 
from daily averages, do not apply for the purposes of this subpart.
    (7) Reporting. (i) When Sec. Sec.  63.8005 through 63.8025 
reference other subparts in this part 63 that use the term periodic 
report, it means compliance report for the purposes of this subpart.

[[Page 69188]]

    (ii) When there are conflicts between this subpart and referenced 
subparts for the due dates of reports required by this subpart, reports 
must be submitted according to the due dates presented in this subpart.
    (iii) Excused excursions, as defined in subpart SS of 40 CFR part 
63, are not allowed.


Sec.  63.8005  What requirements apply to my process vessels?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit and work practice standard in 
Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you, except as specified in 
Sec. Sec.  63.8050 and 63.8055, and you must meet each applicable 
requirement specified in Sec.  63.8000(b). For each control device used 
to comply with Table 1 to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS 
of this part 63 as specified in Sec.  63.8000(c), except as specified 
in Sec.  63.8000(d) and paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section.
    (b) When subpart SS of this part 63 refers to process vents, it 
means process vessel vents for the purposes of this section.
    (c) Process condensers, as defined in Sec.  63.1251, are not 
considered to be control devices for process vessels.
    (d) Initial compliance. (1) To demonstrate initial compliance with 
a percent reduction emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 
conduct the performance test or design evaluation under conditions as 
specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(1), except that the performance test or 
design evaluation must be conducted under worst-case conditions. Also, 
the performance test for a control device used to control emissions 
from process vessels must be conducted according to Sec.  
63.1257(b)(8), including the submittal of a site-specific test plan for 
approval prior to testing. The requirements in Sec.  63.997(e)(1)(i) 
and (iii) also do not apply for performance tests conducted to 
determine compliance with the emission limits for process vessels.
    (2) For the initial compliance demonstration for condensers, you 
must determine uncontrolled emissions using the procedures specified in 
Sec.  63.1257(d)(2), and you must determine controlled emissions using 
the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B) and (iii).
    (3) You must demonstrate that each process condenser is properly 
operated according to the procedures specified in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(4)(ii) and (d)(3)(iii)(B). The reference in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B) to the alternative standard in Sec.  63.1254(c) 
does not apply for the purposes of this subpart. As an alternative to 
measuring the exhaust gas temperature, as required by Sec.  
63.1257(d)(3)(iii)(B), you may elect to measure the liquid temperature 
in the receiver.
    (4) You must conduct a performance test or compliance demonstration 
equivalent to an initial compliance demonstration within 360 hours of a 
change in operating conditions that are not considered to be within the 
previously established worst-case conditions.
    (e) Establishing operating limits. You must establish operating 
limits under the conditions required for your initial compliance 
demonstration, except you may elect to establish operating limit(s) for 
conditions other than those under which a performance test was 
conducted as specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section and, if 
applicable, paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
    (1) The operating limits may be based on the results of the 
performance test and supplementary information such as engineering 
assessments and manufacturer's recommendations. These limits may be 
established for conditions as unique as individual emission episodes. 
You must provide rationale in the precompliance report for the specific 
level for each operating limit, including any data and calculations 
used to develop the limit and a description of why the limit indicates 
proper operation of the control device. The procedures provided in this 
paragraph (e)(1) have not been approved by the Administrator and 
determination of the operating limit using these procedures is subject 
to review and approval by the Administrator.
    (2) If you elect to establish separate operating limits for 
different emission episodes, you must maintain records as specified in 
Sec.  63.8085(g) of each point at which you change from one operating 
limit to another, even if the duration of the monitoring for an 
operating limit is less than 15 minutes.
    (f) Averaging periods. If you elect to establish separate operating 
limits for different emission episodes, you may elect to determine 
operating block averages instead of the daily averages specified in 
Sec.  63.998(b)(3). An operating block is a period of time that is 
equal to the time from the beginning to end of an emission episode or 
sequence of emission episodes.
    (g) Flow indicators. If flow to a control device could be 
intermittent, you must install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator 
at the inlet or outlet of the control device to identify periods of no 
flow. Periods of no flow may not be used in daily or block averages, 
and it may not be used in fulfilling a minimum data availability 
requirement.


Sec.  63.8010  What requirements apply to my storage tanks?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart 
that applies to your storage tanks, and you must meet each applicable 
requirement specified in Sec.  63.8000(b). For each control device used 
to comply with Table 2 to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS 
of this part 63 as specified in Sec.  63.8000(c), except as specified 
in Sec.  63.8000(d) and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
    (b) Exceptions to subparts SS and WW of this part 63. (1) If you 
conduct a performance test or design evaluation for a control device 
used to control emissions only from storage tanks, you must establish 
operating limits, conduct monitoring, and keep records using the same 
procedures as required in subpart SS of this part 63 for control 
devices used to reduce emissions from process vents instead of the 
procedures specified in Sec. Sec.  63.985(c), 63.998(d)(2)(i), and 
63.999(b)(2).
    (2) When the term storage vessel is used in subparts SS and WW of 
this part 63, the term storage tank, as defined in Sec.  63.8105 
applies for the purposes of this subpart.
    (c) Planned routine maintenance. The emission limits in Table 2 to 
this subpart for control devices used to control emissions from storage 
tanks do not apply during periods of planned routine maintenance. 
Periods of planned routine maintenance of each control device, during 
which the control device does not meet the emission limit specified in 
Table 2 to this subpart, must not exceed 240 hours per year (hr/yr). 
You may submit an application to the Administrator requesting an 
extension of this time limit to a total of 360 hr/yr. The application 
must explain why the extension is needed, it must indicate that no 
material will be added to the storage tank between the time the 240 hr/
yr limit is exceeded and the control device is again operational, and 
it must be submitted at least 60 days before the 240 hr/yr limit will 
be exceeded.
    (d) Vapor balancing alternative. As an alternative to the emission 
limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you may elect to implement 
vapor balancing in accordance with Sec.  63.1253(f), except as 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) To comply with Sec.  63.1253(f)(6)(i), the owner or operator of 
an offsite cleaning and reloading facility must comply with Sec. Sec.  
63.7995 through 63.8105 instead of complying with Sec.  
63.1253(f)(7)(ii).
    (2) You may elect to set a pressure relief device to a value less 
than the 2.5

[[Page 69189]]

psig required in Sec.  63.1253(f)(5) if you provide rationale in your 
notification of compliance status report explaining why the alternative 
value is sufficient to prevent breathing losses at all times.


Sec.  63.8015  What requirements apply to my equipment leaks?

    (a) You must meet each requirement in Table 3 to this subpart that 
applies to your equipment leaks, except as specified in paragraphs (b) 
through (d) of this section.
    (b) The requirement in Sec.  63.424(a) to inspect each piece of 
equipment during the loading of a gasoline cargo tank means when the 
equipment is operating in organic HAP service for the purposes of this 
subpart.
    (c) When Sec.  63.1036 refers to batch processes, any part of the 
miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations applies for the purposes 
of this subpart.
    (d) For the purposes of this subpart, pressure testing for leaks in 
accordance with Sec.  63.1036(b) is not required after reconfiguration 
of an equipment train if flexible hose connections are the only 
disturbed equipment.


Sec.  63.8020  What requirements apply to my wastewater streams?

    (a) You must meet each requirement in Table 4 to this subpart that 
applies to your wastewater streams, and you must meet each applicable 
requirement specified in Sec.  63.8000 and paragraphs (b) through (d) 
of this section.
    (b) For each wastewater stream that you generate, you must either 
designate the wastewater stream as a Group 1 wastewater stream 
according to the procedures in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or you 
must determine whether the wastewater stream is a Group 1 wastewater 
stream according to the procedures in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (1) You may designate any wastewater stream as a Group 1 wastewater 
stream. You do not have to determine the concentration for any 
designated Group 1 wastewater stream.
    (2) For wastewater streams that you do not designate as Group 1 
wastewater streams, you must use the procedures specified in Sec.  
63.144(b) to establish the concentrations, except as specified in 
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) References to Table 8 compounds in Sec.  63.144 do not apply 
for the purposes of this subpart.
    (ii) Alternative test methods. (A) As an alternative to the test 
methods specified in Sec.  63.144(b)(5)(i), you may use Method 8260 or 
8270 as specified in Sec.  63.1257(b)(10)(iii).
    (B) As an alternative to using the methods specified in Sec.  
63.144(b)(5)(i), you may conduct wastewater analyses using Method 1666 
or 1671 of 40 CFR part 136, appendix A, and comply with the sampling 
protocol requirements specified in Sec.  63.144(b)(5)(ii). The 
validation requirements specified in Sec.  63.144(b)(5)(iii) do not 
apply if you use Method 1666 or 1671 of 40 CFR part 136, appendix A.
    (c) For each enhanced biological treatment unit used to comply with 
the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must monitor total 
suspended solids (TSS), biological oxygen demand (BOD), and the biomass 
concentration. In the precompliance report you must identify and 
provide rationale for proposed operating limits for these parameters, 
methods for monitoring, the frequency of monitoring, and recordkeeping 
and reporting procedures that will demonstrate proper operation of the 
enhanced biological treatment unit. Alternatively, you may use the 
precompliance report to request to monitor other parameters, and you 
must include a description of planned reporting and recordkeeping 
procedures and the basis for the selected monitoring frequencies and 
the methods that will be used.
    (d) If you transfer the wastewater offsite for enhanced biological 
treatment, you must obtain written certification from the offsite 
facility stating that the offsite facility will comply with the 
requirements of this subpart. The certifying entity may revoke the 
certification by providing 90 days notice. Upon expiration of the 
notice period, you may not transfer wastewater to that treatment 
facility.


Sec.  63.8025  What requirements apply to my transfer operations?

    (a) You must comply with each emission limit and work practice 
standard in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to your transfer 
operations, and you must meet all applicable requirements specified in 
Sec.  63.8000(b). For each control device used to comply with Table 5 
to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS of this part 63 as 
specified in Sec.  63.8000(c), except as specified in Sec.  63.8000(d) 
and paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) If you have Group 1 transfer operations, as defined in Sec.  
63.8105, then all transfer racks used for bulk loading coatings must 
meet the requirements for high throughput transfer racks in subpart SS 
of this part.


Sec.  63.8030  What requirements apply to my heat exchange systems?

    (a) You must comply with the requirements specified in Table 6 to 
this subpart that apply to your heat exchange systems, except as 
specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
    (b) The phrase a chemical manufacturing process unit meeting the 
conditions of Sec.  63.100(b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section in 
Sec.  63.104(a) means the miscellaneous coating manufacturing 
operations defined in Sec.  63.7985(b) for the purposes of this 
subpart.
    (c) The reference to Sec.  63.100(c) in Sec.  63.104(a) does not 
apply for the purposes of this subpart.
    (d) The reference to Sec.  63.103(c)(1) in Sec.  63.104(f)(1) does 
not apply. For the purposes of this subpart, records must be retained 
as specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (e) The reference to the periodic report required by Sec.  
63.152(c) of subpart G of this part means the compliance report 
required by Sec.  63.8075(e) for the purposes of this subpart.

Alternative Means of Compliance


Sec.  63.8050  How do I comply with emissions averaging for stationary 
process vessels at existing sources?

    (a) As an alternative to complying with the requirements in Table 1 
to this subpart for each individual stationary process vessel, you may 
elect to comply with emissions averaging for stationary process vessels 
greater than or equal to 250 gallons (gal) at your existing affected 
source as specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
    (b) General requirements. (1) A State may prohibit averaging of HAP 
emissions and require the owner or operator of an existing affected 
source to comply with the emission limits and work practice standards 
in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (2) All stationary process vessels in an emissions averaging group 
must be equipped with a tightly-fitting vented cover.
    (c) Initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emissions averaging alternative, you must comply with the provisions in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Estimate uncontrolled emissions from each affected stationary 
process vessel in pounds per batch using the procedures specified in 
Sec.  63.1257(d)(2), except as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and 
(ii) of this section. For the purposes of this section, uncontrolled 
emissions means the emissions from the vessel if it were equipped only 
with a tightly-fitting vented cover. You must identify the range of 
typical operating parameters and perform the calculation using the 
values that result in the highest emissions, and you must document the 
operating parameters and

[[Page 69190]]

resulting emissions calculations in the precompliance report.
    (i) When you are required to calculate uncontrolled emissions from 
heating, you may not calculate emissions using Equation 13 of subpart 
GGG of this part 63.
    (ii) The statement in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i)(B) that ``the partial 
pressure of HAP shall be assumed to be 25 percent of the saturated 
value if the purge flow rate is greater than 100 scfm'' does not apply. 
For the purposes of this subpart, multiply the HAP partial pressure in 
Equation 12 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG by a HAP-specific saturation 
factor determined in accordance with Equations 1 through 3 of this 
section. Solve equation 1 of this section iteratively beginning with 
saturation factors (in the right-hand side of the equation) of 1.0 for 
each condensable compound. Stop iterating when the calculated 
saturation factors for all compounds are the same to two significant 
figures for subsequent iterations. Note that for multi-component 
emission streams, saturation factors must be calculated for all 
noncondensables in the emission stream.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11DE03.003

where:

S1=saturation factor for individual condensable compounds in 
the emission stream
Pi=partial pressure of individual condensable compounds in 
the emission stream calculated using Raoult's Law or other appropriate 
methods
PT=pressure of the vessel vapor space
A=surface area of liquid
V=purge flow rate as used in Equation 12 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG
Visat=volumetric flowrate of condensable 
compounds in the emission stream
Ki=mass transfer coefficient of individual condensable 
compounds in the emission stream
Ko=mass transfer coefficient of a reference compound (e.g., 
0.83 cm/s for water)
Mo=molecular weight of reference compound (e.g., 18.02 for 
water)
Mi=molecular weight of individual condensable compounds in 
the emission stream
n=number of condensable compounds in the emission stream

    (2) Estimate controlled emissions in pounds per batch for each 
vessel as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Except as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this 
section, estimate controlled emissions as if the vessel were controlled 
in compliance with entry 2.b.i. in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (ii) Estimate the controlled emissions using the control level 
achieved on November 15, 1990 if that value is greater than the 
applicable control level required by entry 2.b.i in Table 1 to this 
subpart.
    (iii) Estimate the controlled emissions using the control level 
required to comply with a State or Federal rule other than this subpart 
if that level is greater than the applicable control level required by 
entry 2.b.i in Table 1 to this subpart and the other rule was in effect 
before the date when you request approval to comply with emissions 
averaging.
    (3) Determine actual emissions in pounds per batch for each vessel 
in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii), as applicable.
    (i) If emissions are routed through a closed-vent system to a 
condenser control device, determine controlled emissions using the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(3).
    (ii) If emissions are routed through a closed-vent system to any 
control device other than a condenser, determine actual emissions after 
determining the efficiency of the control device using the procedures 
in subpart SS of this part 63 as specified in Sec.  63.8000(c).
    (iii) If the vessel is vented to the atmosphere, then actual 
emissions are equal to the uncontrolled emissions estimated in 
accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (4) Provide rationale in the precompliance report for why the sum 
of the actual emissions will be less than the sum of emissions from the 
vessels if they had been controlled in accordance with Table 1 to this 
subpart. The approved actual emissions calculated according to 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section are emission limits that must be 
incorporated into your operating permit.
    (d) Continuous compliance. (1) Maintain a monthly log of the number 
of batches produced that can be correlated with the emissions estimates 
per batch developed in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Sum the actual emissions for all of the process vessels in the 
emissions averaging group every three months, with the first 3-month 
period beginning on the compliance date, and compare the resulting 
total with the total emissions for the vessels calculated in accordance 
with paragraph (c)(2) of this section. Compliance is demonstrated if 
the sum of the actual emissions is less than the emissions estimated in 
accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
    (3) For control devices, establish operating limits and monitor as 
specified in Sec.  63.8000.
    (e) Recordkeeping and reporting. Comply with Sec. Sec.  63.8070, 
63.8075, and 63.8080.


Sec.  63.8055  How do I comply with a weight percent HAP limit in 
coating products?

    (a) As an alternative to complying with the requirements in Table 1 
to this subpart for each individual stationary process vessel at an 
existing source, you may elect to comply with a 5 weight percent HAP 
limit for process vessels at your affected source that are used to 
manufacture coatings with a HAP content of less than 0.05 kg per kg 
product as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) You may only comply with the alternative during the production 
of coatings that contain less than 5 weight percent HAP, as determined 
using any of the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) 
of this section.
    (1) Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 63).
    (2) Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). You may use Method 24 
to determine the mass fraction of volatile matter and use that value as 
a substitute for the mass fraction of HAP.
    (3) You may use an alternative test method for determining mass 
fraction of HAP if you obtain prior approval by the Administrator. You 
must follow the procedure in Sec.  63.7(f) to submit an alternative 
test method for approval.

Notification, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.8070  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  
63.6(h)(4) and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (6), 63.9(b) 
through (h) that apply to you by the dates specified.
    (b) Initial notification. (1) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if 
you have an existing affected source on December 11, 2003, you must 
submit an initial notification

[[Page 69191]]

not later than 120 calendar days after December 11, 2003.
    (2) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new 
affected source on or after December 11, 2003, you must submit an 
initial notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become 
subject to this subpart.
    (c) Notification of performance test. If you are required to 
conduct a performance test, you must submit a notification of intent to 
conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the 
performance test is scheduled to begin as required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1). 
For any performance test required as part of the initial compliance 
procedures for process vessels in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 
also submit the test plan required by Sec.  63.7(c) and the emission 
profile with the notification of the performance test.


Sec.  63.8075  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 9 to this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
as specified in Table 9 to this subpart and paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) 
of this section.
    (1) The compliance reports must be submitted semiannually. The 
first report must be submitted no later than 240 days after the 
applicable compliance date and shall cover the 6-month period beginning 
on the compliance date. Each subsequent compliance report must cover 
the 6-month period following the preceding period.
    (2) 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 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of according to the dates in Table 9.
    (c) Precompliance report. You must submit a precompliance report to 
request approval of any of the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through 
(4) of this section. We will either approve or disapprove the report 
within 90 days after we receive it. If we disapprove the report, you 
must still be in compliance with the emission limitations and work 
practice standards in this subpart by the compliance date.
    (1) Requests for approval to set operating limits for parameters 
other than those specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8005 through 63.8025, 
including parameters for enhanced biological treatment units. 
Alternatively, you may make these requests according to Sec.  63.8(f).
    (2) Descriptions of daily or per batch demonstrations to verify 
that control devices subject to Sec.  63.8000(d)(3) are operating as 
designed.
    (3) A description of the test conditions, data, calculations, and 
other information used to establish operating limits according to Sec.  
63.8005(e)(1).
    (4) If you comply with emissions averaging in Sec.  63.8050, the 
data and results of emission calculations as specified in Sec.  
63.8050(c)(1) through (3), and rationale for why the sum of actual 
emissions will be less than the sum of emissions if the process vessels 
were controlled in accordance with Table 1 to this subpart as specified 
in Sec.  63.8050(c)(4).
    (d) Notification of compliance status report. You must submit a 
notification of compliance status report according to the schedule in 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, and the notification of compliance 
status report must include the information specified in paragraph 
(d)(2) of this section.
    (1) You must submit the notification of compliance status report no 
later than 150 days after the applicable compliance date specified in 
Sec.  63.7995.
    (2) The notification of compliance status report must include the 
information in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) The results of any applicability determinations (e.g., HAP 
content of coating products; halogenated vent stream determinations; 
group determinations for storage tanks, wastewater, and transfer 
operations; and equipment that is in organic HAP service).
    (ii) The results of performance tests, engineering analyses, design 
evaluations, flare compliance assessments, inspections and repairs, and 
calculations used to demonstrate initial compliance according to 
Sec. Sec.  63.8005 through 63.8025 and 63.8055. For performance tests, 
results must include descriptions of sampling and analysis procedures 
and quality assurance procedures.
    (iii) Descriptions of monitoring devices, monitoring frequencies, 
and the operating limits established during the initial compliance 
demonstrations, including data and calculations to support the levels 
you establish.
    (iv) Identification of parts of the affected source that are 
subject to overlapping requirements described in Sec.  63.8090 and the 
authority under which you will comply.
    (v) Identify storage tanks for which you are complying with the 
vapor balancing alternative in Sec.  63.8010(e).
    (vi) If you transfer Group 1 wastewater stream to an offsite 
facility for treatment, include the name and location of the transferee 
and a description of the Group 1 wastewater stream that is sent to the 
treatment facility. If the offsite facility provides enhanced 
biological treatment, also include the certification required by Sec.  
63.8020(d) that the offsite facility will comply with the requirements 
of this subpart.
    (e) Compliance report. The compliance report must contain the 
information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the 
report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) Applicable records and information for periodic reports as 
specified in referenced subparts F, SS, TT, UU, and WW of this part 63.
    (5) For each SSM during which excess emissions occur, the 
compliance report must include the information specified in paragraphs 
(e)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Records that the procedures specified in your startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) were followed or documentation of 
actions taken that are not consistent with the SSMP.
    (ii) A description of each malfunction.
    (6) The compliance report must contain the information on 
deviations, as defined in Sec.  63.8105, according to paragraphs 
(e)(6)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section.
    (i) If there are no deviations from any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard specified in this subpart, include a 
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limits, 
operating limits, or work practice standards during the reporting 
period.
    (ii) For each deviation from an emission limit, operating limit, 
and work practice standard that occurs at an affected source where you 
are not using a continuous monitoring system (CMS) to comply with the 
emission limit or work practice standards in this subpart, you must 
include the information in paragraphs (e)(6)(ii)(A) through (C) of this 
section.
    (A) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (B) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations

[[Page 69192]]

(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (C) Operating logs for the day(s) during which the deviation 
occurred, except operating logs are not required for deviations of the 
work practice standards for equipment leaks.
    (iii) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit 
occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply 
with the emission limit in this subpart, you must include the 
information in paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(A) through (K) of this section. 
This includes periods of SSM.
    (A) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (B) The date, time, and duration that each CEMS was out-of-control, 
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (C) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (D) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (E) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (F) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the 
reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent 
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (G) An identification of each HAP that is known to be in the 
emission stream or wastewater stream, as applicable.
    (H) A description of the product being produced.
    (I) Identification of the CMS.
    (J) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
    (K) The operating day or operating block average values of 
monitored parameters for each day(s) during which the deviation 
occurred.
    (7) If you use a CEMS, and there were no periods during which it 
was out-of-control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), include a 
statement that there were no periods during which the CEMS was out-of-
control during the reporting period.
    (8) Notification of process change. (i) Except as specified in 
paragraph (e)(8)(ii) of this section, whenever you change any of the 
information submitted in either the notification of compliance status 
report or any previously reported change to the notification of 
compliance status report, you must document the change in your 
compliance report. The notification must include all of the information 
in paragraphs (e)(8)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) Revisions to any of the information reported in the original 
notification of compliance status report under paragraph (d) of this 
section.
    (B) Information required by the notification of compliance status 
report under paragraph (d) of this section for changes involving the 
addition of processes or equipment at the affected source.
    (ii) You must submit a report 60 days before the scheduled 
implementation date of any of the changes identified in paragraphs 
(e)(8)(ii)(A), (B), or (C) of this section.
    (A) Any change to the information contained in either the 
precompliance report or any previously reported change to the 
precompliance report.
    (B) A change in the status of a control device from small to large.
    (C) A change in compliance status.


Sec.  63.8080  What records must I keep?

    You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) 
of this section.
    (a) Each applicable record required by subpart A of this part 63 
and in referenced subparts SS, TT, UU, and WW of this part 63.
    (b) If complying with emissions averaging, records of the monthly 
number of batches for each process vessel, the quarterly actual 
emissions for each process vessel, the quarterly estimated emissions 
for each process vessel if it had been controlled as specified in Table 
1 to this subpart, and comparison of the sums of the quarterly actual 
and estimated emissions as specified in Sec.  63.8050(d).
    (c) A record of each time a safety device is opened to avoid unsafe 
conditions in accordance with Sec.  63.8000(b)(2).
    (d) Records of the results of each CPMS calibration check and the 
maintenance performed, as specified in Sec.  63.8000(d)(5).
    (e) For each CEMS, you must keep the records of the date and time 
that each deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation 
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during 
another period.
    (f) In the SSMP required by Sec.  63.6(e)(3), you are not required 
to include Group 2 or non-affected emission points. For equipment leaks 
only, the SSMP requirement is limited to control devices and is 
optional for other equipment.
    (g) If you establish separate operating limits as allowed in Sec.  
63.8005(e), you must maintain a log of operation or a daily schedule 
indicating the time when you change from one operating limit to 
another.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.8090  What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is 
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?

    (a) Compliance with 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts AA, BB, and/
or CC. (1) After the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.7995, if a 
control device that you use to comply with this subpart is also subject 
to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 
264, subpart AA, BB, or CC; or the monitoring and recordkeeping 
requirements in 40 CFR part 265, subpart AA, BB, or CC; and you comply 
with the periodic reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 264, subpart 
AA, BB, or CC that would apply to the device if your facility had 
final-permitted status, you may elect to comply either with the 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart; 
or with the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part 
264 or 265 and the reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 264, as 
described in this paragraph (a), which constitute compliance with the 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this subpart. 
If you elect to comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements in 40 CFR parts 264 and/or 265, you must report 
the information required for the compliance report in Sec.  63.8075(e), 
and you must identify in the notification of compliance status report 
required by Sec.  63.8075(d) the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting authority under which you will comply.
    (2) After the compliance dates specified in this section, if any 
equipment at an affected source that is subject to this subpart is also 
subject to 40 CFR part 264, subpart BB or to 40 CFR part 265, subpart 
BB, then compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
of 40 CFR part 264 and/or 265 may be used to comply with the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Sec.  63.1255, to the 
extent that the requirements of 40 CFR part 264 and/or 265 duplicate 
the requirements of this subpart. You must identify in the notification 
of compliance status report required by Sec.  63.8075(d) if you will 
comply with the recordkeeping and reporting authority under 40 CFR part 
264 and/or 265.

[[Page 69193]]

    (b) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. After the 
compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.7995, you are in compliance with 
this subpart for any storage tank that is assigned to miscellaneous 
coating manufacturing operations and that is both controlled with a 
floating roof and in compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Kb. You are in compliance with this subpart if you have a 
storage tank with a fixed roof, closed-vent system, and control device 
in compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, you must comply with the 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this subpart. 
You must also identify in your notification of compliance status report 
required by Sec.  63.8075(d) which storage tanks are in compliance with 
40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.


Sec.  63.8095  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 10 to this subpart shows which parts of the General 
Provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.


Sec.  63.8100  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated authority 
such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal 
agency, then that agency also has the authority to implement and 
enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office 
to find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or 
tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) 
of this section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and are 
not delegated to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission limits and 
work practice standards in Sec.  63.8000(a) 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.  63.8105  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    (a) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 
subpart SS of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and in 
subpart SS of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec.  63.981, 
except as specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8000(d)(5)(ii) and (7), 
63.8010(c)(2), 63.8025(b), and paragraph (g) of this section.
    (b) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 
subpart TT of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and in 
subpart TT of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec.  
63.1001.
    (c) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 
subpart UU of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and in 
subpart UU of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec.  
63.1020.
    (d) For an affected source complying with the requirements in 
subpart WW of this part 63, the terms used in this subpart and subpart 
WW of this part 63 have the meaning given them in Sec.  63.1061, except 
as specified in Sec. Sec.  63.8000(d)(7), 63.8010(c)(2), and paragraph 
(g) of this section.
    (e) For an affected source complying with requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  63.1253, 63.1257, and 63.1258, the terms used in this 
subpart and in Sec. Sec.  63.1253, 63.1257, and 63.1258 have the 
meaning given them in Sec.  63.1251, except as specified in Sec.  
63.8000(d)(7) and paragraph (g) of this section.
    (f) For an affected source complying with the requirements of Sec.  
63.104, the terms used in this subpart and in Sec.  63.104 have the 
meaning given them in Sec.  63.101, except as specified in Sec.  
63.8000(d)(7) and paragraph (g) of this section.
    (g) All other terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in 
40 CFR 63.2, and in this paragraph (g). If a term is defined in Sec.  
63.2, Sec.  63.981, Sec.  63.1001, Sec.  63.1020, Sec.  63.1061, or 
Sec.  63.1251 and in this paragraph (g), the definition in this 
paragraph (g) applies for the purposes of this subpart.
    Bulk loading means the loading, into a tank truck or rail car, of 
liquid coating products that contain one or more of the organic HAP, as 
defined in section 112 of the CAA, from a loading rack. A loading rack 
is the system used to fill tank trucks and railcars at a single 
geographic site.
    Coating means any material such as a paint, ink, or adhesive that 
is intended to be applied to a substrate and consists of a mixture of 
resins, pigments, solvents, and/or other additives. Typically, these 
materials are described by Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes 
285 or 289 and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
codes 3255 and 3259.
    Construction means the onsite fabrication, erection, or 
installation of an affected source. Addition of new equipment to an 
affected source does not constitute construction, but it may constitute 
reconstruction of the affected source if it satisfies the definition of 
reconstruction in Sec.  63.2.
    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;
    (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, 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.
    Enhanced biological treatment system means an aerated, thoroughly 
mixed treatment unit(s) that contains biomass suspended in water 
followed by a clarifier that removes biomass from the treated water and 
recycles recovered biomass to the aeration unit. The mixed liquor 
volatile suspended solids (biomass) is greater than 1 kilogram per 
cubic meter throughout each aeration unit. The biomass is suspended and 
aerated in the water of the aeration unit(s) either by submerged air 
flow or mechanical agitation. A thoroughly mixed treatment unit is a 
unit that is designed and operated to approach or achieve uniform 
biomass distribution and organic compound concentration throughout the 
aeration unit by quickly dispersing the recycled biomass and the 
wastewater entering the unit.
    Excess emissions means emissions greater than those allowed by the 
emission limit.
    Group 1a storage tank means a storage tank at an existing source 
with a capacity greater than or equal to 20,000 gal storing material 
that has a maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP greater 
than or equal to 1.9 pounds per square inch, absolute (psia). Group 1a 
storage tank also means a storage tank at a new source with either a 
capacity greater than or equal to 25,000 gal storing material that has 
a maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP greater than or equal to 0.1 
psia or a capacity

[[Page 69194]]

greater than or equal to 20,000 gal and less than 25,000 gal storing 
material that has a maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP greater 
than or equal to 1.5 psia.
    Group 1b storage tank means a storage tank at a new source that has 
a capacity greater than or equal to 10,000 gal, stores material that 
has a maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP greater than or 
equal to 0.02 psia, and is not a Group 1a storage tank.
    Group 2 storage tank means a storage tank that does not meet the 
definition of a Group 1a or Group 1b storage tank.
    Group 1 transfer operations means all bulk loading of coating 
products if the coatings contain greater than or equal to 3.0 million 
gallons per year (gal/yr) of HAP with a weighted average HAP partial 
pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 psia.
    Group 2 transfer operations means bulk loading of coating products 
that does not meet the definition of Group 1 transfer operations.
    Group 1 wastewater stream means a wastewater stream that contains 
total partially soluble and soluble HAP at an annual average 
concentration greater than or equal to 4,000 parts per million by 
weight (ppmw) and load greater than or equal to 750 pounds per year 
(lb/yr) at an existing source or greater than or equal to 1,600 ppmw 
and any partially soluble and soluble HAP load at a new source.
    Group 2 wastewater stream means a wastewater stream that does not 
meet the definition of a Group 1 wastewater stream.
    Halogenated vent stream means a vent stream determined to contain 
halogen atoms in organic compounds at a concentration greater than or 
equal to 20 ppmv as determined by the procedures specified in Sec.  
63.8000(b).
    Hydrogen halide and halogen HAP means hydrogen chloride, chlorine, 
and hydrogen fluoride.
    In organic HAP service means that a piece of equipment either 
contains or contacts a fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 5 percent 
by weight of total organic HAP as determined according to the 
provisions of Sec.  63.180(d). The provisions of Sec.  63.180(d) also 
specify how to determine that a piece of equipment is not in organic 
HAP service.
    Large control device means a control device that controls total HAP 
emissions of greater than or equal to 10 tpy, before control.
    Maximum true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial pressure 
exerted by the total organic HAP in the stored or transferred liquid at 
the temperature equal to the highest calendar-month average of the 
liquid storage or transfer temperature for liquids stored or 
transferred above or below the ambient temperature or at the local 
maximum monthly average temperature as reported by the National Weather 
Service for liquids stored or transferred at the ambient temperature, 
as determined:
    (1) In accordance with methods described in American Petroleum 
Institute Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss From External Floating-
Roof Tanks (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  63.14 of 
subpart A of this part 63); or
    (2) As obtained from standard reference texts; or
    (3) As determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials 
Method D2879-83 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  63.14 
of subpart A of this part); or
    (4) Any other method approved by the Administrator.
    Partially soluble HAP means HAP listed in Table 7 of this subpart.
    Point of determination (POD) means each point where process 
wastewater exits the miscellaneous coating operations.

    Note to definition for point of determination: The regulation 
allows determination of the characteristics of a wastewater stream 
at the point of determination or downstream of the point of 
determination if corrections are made for changes in flow rate and 
annual average concentration of partially soluble and soluble HAP 
compounds as determined in Sec.  63.144. Such changes include losses 
by air emissions; reduction of annual average concentration or 
changes in flow rate by mixing with other water or wastewater 
streams; and reduction in flow rate or annual average concentration 
by treating or otherwise handling the wastewater stream to remove or 
destroy HAP.

    Process vessel means any stationary or portable tank or other 
vessel with a capacity greater than or equal to 250 gal and in which 
mixing, blending, diluting, dissolving, temporary holding, and other 
processing steps occur in the manufacturing of a coating.
    Process vessel vent means a vent from a process vessel or vents 
from multiple process vessels that are manifolded together into a 
common header, through which a HAP-containing gas stream is, or has the 
potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Emission streams that are 
undiluted and uncontrolled containing less than 50 ppmv HAP, as 
determined through process knowledge that no HAP are present in the 
emission stream or using an engineering assessment as discussed in 
Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(ii), test data using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, or any other test method that has been validated according 
to the procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of this part, are not 
considered process vessel vents. Flexible elephant trunk systems when 
used with closed vent systems and drawing ambient air (i.e., the system 
is not ducted, piped, or otherwise connected to the unit operations) 
away from operators when vessels are opened are not process vessel 
vents. Process vessel vents do not include vents on storage tanks, 
wastewater emission sources, or pieces of equipment subject to the 
requirements in Table 3 of this subpart. A gas stream going to a fuel 
gas system is not a process vessel vent. A gas stream routed to a 
process for a process purpose is not a process vessel vent.
    Recovery device, as used in the wastewater provisions, means an 
individual unit of equipment used for the purpose of recovering 
chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive heating value), use, 
reuse, or for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. Examples of equipment 
that may be recovery devices include organic removal devices such as 
decanters, strippers, or thin-film evaporation units. To be a recovery 
device, a decanter and any other equipment based on the operating 
principle of gravity separation must receive only multi-phase liquid 
streams. A recovery device is considered part of the miscellaneous 
coating manufacturing operations.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2.
    Safety device means a closure device such as a pressure relief 
valve, frangible disc, fusible plug, or any other type of device which 
functions exclusively to prevent physical damage or permanent 
deformation to a unit or its air emission control equipment by venting 
gases or vapors directly to the atmosphere during unsafe conditions 
resulting from an unplanned, accidental, or emergency event. For the 
purposes of this subpart, a safety device is not used for routine 
venting of gases or vapors from the vapor headspace underneath a cover 
such as during filling of the unit or to adjust the pressure in 
response to normal daily diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations. A 
safety device is designed to remain in a closed position during normal 
operations and open only when the internal pressure, or another 
relevant parameter, exceeds the device threshold setting applicable to 
the air emission control equipment as determined by the owner or 
operator based on manufacturer recommendations, applicable regulations, 
fire protection and prevention codes and practices, or other

[[Page 69195]]

requirements for the safe handling of flammable, combustible, 
explosive, reactive, or hazardous materials.
    Shutdown means the cessation of operation of an affected source, 
any process vessels within an affected source, or equipment required or 
used to comply with this subpart if steps taken to cease operation 
differ from those under routine procedures for removing the vessel or 
equipment from service. Shutdown also applies to the emptying and 
degassing of storage tanks.
    Small control device means a control device that controls total HAP 
emissions of less than 10 tpy, before control.
    Soluble HAP means the HAP listed in Table 8 of this subpart.
    Startup means the setting in operation of a new affected source. 
For new equipment added to an affected source, including equipment 
required or used to comply with this subpart, startup means the first 
time the equipment is put into operation. Startup includes the setting 
in operation of equipment any time the steps taken differ from routine 
procedures for putting the equipment into operation.
    Storage tank means a tank or other vessel that is used to store 
organic liquids that contain one or more HAP as raw material feedstocks 
or products. The following are not considered storage tanks for the 
purposes of this subpart:
    (1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks, 
railcars, barges, or ships;
    (2) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 
kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere;
    (3) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain HAP only as 
impurities;
    (4) Wastewater storage tanks; and
    (5) Process vessels.
    Total organic compounds or (TOC) means the total gaseous organic 
compounds (minus methane and ethane) in a vent stream.
    Wastewater storage tank means a stationary structure that is 
designed to contain an accumulation of wastewater and is constructed 
primarily of nonearthen materials (e.g., wood, concrete, steel, 
plastic) which provide structural support.
    Wastewater stream means water that is discarded from miscellaneous 
coating manufacturing operations through a POD, and that contains an 
annual average concentration of total partially soluble and soluble HAP 
compounds of at least 1,600 ppmw at any flow rate. For the purposes of 
this subpart, noncontact cooling water is not considered a wastewater 
stream.
    Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, 
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated 
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

Tables to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63

    As required in Sec.  63.8005, you must meet each emission limit and 
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your 
process vessels:

 Table 1 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
                      Standards for Process Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      And you must . . .
         For each . . .             You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Portable process vessel at an  Equip the vessel    Non applicable
 existing source.                  with a cover or
                                   lid that must be
                                   in place at all
                                   times when the
                                   vessel contains a
                                   HAP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Stationary process vessel at   a. Equip the        i. Considering
 an existing source.               vessel with a       both capture and
                                   cover or lid that   any combination
                                   must be in place    of control
                                   at all times when   (except a flare),
                                   the vessel          reduce emissions
                                   contains a HAP;     by =75
                                   or.                 percent by weight
                                                       for each HAP with
                                                       a vapor pressure
                                                       =0.6
                                                       kPa and by =60
                                                       percent for each
                                                       HAP with a vapor
                                                       pressure <0.6
                                                       kPa.
                                  b. Equip the        i. Reduce
                                   vessel with a       emissions of each
                                   tightly fitting     HAP with a vapor
                                   vented cover or     pressure =0.6 kPa by
                                   closed at all       =75
                                   times when the      percent by weight
                                   vessel contains     and each HAP with
                                   HAP.                a vapor pressure
                                                       <0.6 kPa by =60
                                                       percent by weight
                                                       by venting
                                                       emissions through
                                                       a closed-vent
                                                       system to any
                                                       combination of
                                                       control devices
                                                       (except a flare);
                                                       or
                                                      ii. Reduce
                                                       emissions of
                                                       total organic HAP
                                                       by venting
                                                       emissions from a
                                                       non-halogenated
                                                       vent stream
                                                       through a closed-
                                                       vent system to a
                                                       flare; or
                                                      iii. Reduce
                                                       emissions of
                                                       total organic HAP
                                                       by venting
                                                       emissions through
                                                       a closed-vent
                                                       system to a
                                                       condenser that
                                                       reduces the
                                                       outlet gas
                                                       temperature to:
                                                       <10[deg]C if the
                                                       process vessel
                                                       contains HAP with
                                                       a partial
                                                       pressure <0.6
                                                       kPa, or
                                                       <2[deg]C if the
                                                       process vessel
                                                       contains HAP with
                                                       a partial
                                                       pressure =0.6 kPa and
                                                       <17.2 kPa, or
                                                       <-5[deg]C if the
                                                       process vessel
                                                       contains HAP with
                                                       a partial
                                                       pressure =17.2 kPa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69196]]

 
3. Portable and stationary        a. Equip the        i. Reduce
 process vessel at a new source.   vessel with a       emissions of
                                   tightly fitting     total HAP by =95
                                   lid that must be    percent by weight
                                   closed at all       by venting
                                   times when the      emissions through
                                   vessel contains     a closed-vent
                                   HAP.                system to any
                                                       combination of
                                                       control devices
                                                       (except a flare);
                                                       or
                                                      ii. Reduce
                                                       emissions of
                                                       total organic HAP
                                                       by venting
                                                       emissions from a
                                                       non-halogenated
                                                       vent stream
                                                       through a closed-
                                                       vent system to a
                                                       flare; or
                                                      iii. Reduce
                                                       emissions of
                                                       total organic HAP
                                                       by venting
                                                       emissions through
                                                       a closed-vent
                                                       system to a
                                                       condenser that
                                                       reduces the
                                                       outlet gas
                                                       temperature to:
                                                       <-4[deg]C if the
                                                       process vessel
                                                       contains HAP with
                                                       a partial
                                                       pressure <0.7
                                                       kPa, or
                                                       <20[deg]C if the
                                                       process vessel
                                                       contains HAP with
                                                       a partial
                                                       pressure =0.7 kPa and
                                                       <17.2 kPa, or
                                                       <-30[deg]C if the
                                                       process vessel
                                                       contains HAP with
                                                       a partial
                                                       pressure =17.2 kPa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Halogenated vent steam from a  a. Use a halogen    i. Reduce overall
 process vessel subject to the     reduction device    emissions of
 requirements of item 2 or 3 of    after the           hydrogen halide
 this table for which you use a    combustion          and halogen HAP
 combustion control device to      control device;     by =95
 control organic HAP emissions.    or                  percent; or
                                                      ii. Reduce overall
                                                       emissions of
                                                       hydrogen halide
                                                       and halogen HAP
                                                       to <=0.45
                                                       kilogram per hour
                                                       (kg/hr).
                                  b. Use a halogen    Reduce the halogen
                                   reduction device    atom mass
                                   before the          emission rate to
                                   combustion          <=0.45 kg/hr.
                                   control device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.8010, you must meet each emission limit in 
the following table that applies to your storage tanks:

 Table 2 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits for Storage Tanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For each . . .                    Then you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1a storage tank.....  a. Comply with the requirements of
                                subpart WW of this part, except as
                                specified in Sec.   63.8010(b); or
                               b. Reduce total organic HAP emissions
                                from the storage tank by =90
                                percent by weight by venting emissions
                                through a closed-vent system to any
                                combination of control devices
                                (excluding a flare); or
                               c. Reduce total organic HAP emissions
                                from the storage tank by venting
                                emissions from a non-halogenated vent
                                stream through a closed-vent system to a
                                flare.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Group 1b storage tank.....  a. Comply with the requirements of
                                subpart WW of this part, except as
                                specified in Sec.   63.8010(b); or
                               b. Reduce total organic HAP emissions
                                from the storage tank by =80
                                percent by weight by venting emissions
                                through a closed-vent system to any
                                combination of control devices
                                (excluding a flare); or
                               c. Reduce total organic HAP emissions
                                from the storage tank by venting
                                emissions from a non-halogenated vent
                                stream through a closed-vent system to a
                                flare.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.8015, you must meet each requirement in the 
following table that applies to your equipment leaks:

  Table 3 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Equipment Leaks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For all . . .                        You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Equipment that is in        a. Comply with the requirements in Sec.
 organic HAP service at an      Sec.   63.424(a) through (d) and
 existing source.               63.428(e), (f), and (h)(4), except as
                                specified in Sec.   63.8015(b); or
                               b. Comply with the requirements of
                                subpart TT of this part; or
                               c. Comply with the requirements of
                                subpart UU of this part, except as
                                specified in Sec.   63.8015(c) and (d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Equipment that is in        a. Comply with the requirements of
 organic HAP service at a new   subpart TT of this part; or
 source.                       b. Comply with the requirements of
                                subpart UU of this part, except as
                                specified in Sec.   63.8015(c) and (d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.8020, you must meet each emission limit and 
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your 
wastewater streams:

[[Page 69197]]



 Table 4 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
                    Standards for Wastewater Streams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wastewater tank used to     Maintain a fixed roof, which may have
 store a Group 1 wastewater     openings necessary for proper venting of
 stream.                        the tank, such as pressure/vacuum vent
                                or j-pipe vent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Group 1 wastewater stream.  a. Convey using hard-piping and treat the
                                wastewater as a hazardous waste in
                                accordance with 40 CFR part 264, 265, or
                                266 either onsite or offsite; or
                               b. If the wastewater contains <50 ppmw of
                                partially soluble HAP, you may elect to
                                treat the wastewater in an enhanced
                                biological treatment system that is
                                located either onsite or offsite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.8025, you must meet each emission limit and 
work practice standard in the following table that applies to your 
transfer operations:

 Table 5 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
                    Standards for Transfer Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For each . . .                      You must. . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Group 1 transfer operation  a. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP
 vent stream.                   by =75 percent by weight by
                                venting emissions through a closed-vent
                                system to any combination of control
                                devices (except a flare); or
                               b. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP
                                by venting emissions from a non-
                                halogenated vent stream through a closed-
                                vent system to a flare; or
                               c. Use a vapor balancing system designed
                                and operated to collect organic HAP
                                vapors displaced from tank trucks and
                                railcars during loading and route the
                                collected HAP vapors to the storage tank
                                from which the liquid being loaded
                                originated or to another storage tank
                                connected by a common header.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Halogenated Group 1         a. Use a halogen reduction device after
 transfer operation vent        the combustion device to reduce
 stream for which you use a     emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen
 combustion device to control   HAP by =95 percent by weight
 organic HAP emissions.         or to <=0.45 kg/hr; or
                               b. Use a halogen reduction device before
                                the combustion device to reduce the
                                halogen atom mass emission rate to
                                <=0.45 kg/hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.8030, you must meet each requirement in the 
following table that applies to your heat exchange systems:

   Table 6 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Heat Exchange
                                 Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat exchange system, as       Comply with the requirements in Sec.
 defined in Sec.   63.101.      63.104, except as specified in Sec.
                                63.8030.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As specified in Sec.  63.8020, the partially soluble HAP in 
wastewater that are subject to management and treatment requirements in 
this subpart are listed in the following table:

  Table 7 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Partially Soluble Hazardous Air
                               Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Chemical name . . .                        CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)...............        71556
2. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane...............................        79345
3. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane...................................        79005
4. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride)..............        75354
5. 1,2-Dibromoethane.......................................       106934
6. 1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)................       107062
7. 1,2-Dichloropropane.....................................        78875
8. 1,3-Dichloropropene.....................................       542756
9. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol...................................        95954
10. 2-Butanone (MEK).......................................        78933
11. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene....................................       106467
12. 2-Nitropropane.........................................        79469
13. 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)............................       108101
14. Acetaldehyde...........................................        75070
15. Acrolein...............................................       107028

[[Page 69198]]

 
16. Acrylonitrile..........................................       107131
17. Allyl chloride.........................................       107051
18. Benzene................................................        71432
19. Benzyl chloride........................................       100447
20. Biphenyl...............................................        92524
21. Bromoform (tribromomethane)............................        75252
22. Bromomethane...........................................        74839
23. Butadiene..............................................       106990
24. Carbon disulfide.......................................        75150
25. Chlorobenzene..........................................       108907
26. Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)..........................        75003
27. Chloroform.............................................        67663
28. Chloromethane..........................................        74873
29. Chloroprene............................................       126998
30. Cumene.................................................        98828
31. Dichloroethyl ether....................................       111444
32. Dinitrophenol..........................................        51285
33. Epichlorohydrin........................................       106898
34. Ethyl acrylate.........................................       140885
35. Ethylbenzene...........................................       100414
36. Ethylene oxide.........................................        75218
37. Ethylidene dichloride..................................        75343
38. Hexachlorobenzene......................................       118741
39. Hexachlorobutadiene....................................        87683
40. Hexachloroethane.......................................        67721
41. Methyl methacrylate....................................        80626
42. Methyl-t-butyl ether...................................      1634044
43. Methylene chloride.....................................        75092
44. N-hexane...............................................       110543
45. N,N-dimethylaniline....................................       121697
46. Naphthalene............................................        91203
47. Phosgene...............................................        75445
48. Propionaldehyde........................................       123386
49. Propylene oxide........................................        75569
50. Styrene................................................       100425
51. Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene)................        79345
52. Tetrachloromethane (carbon tetrachloride)..............        56235
53. Toluene................................................       108883
54. Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-)..............................       120821
55. Trichloroethylene......................................        79016
56. Trimethylpentane.......................................       540841
57. Vinyl acetate..........................................       108054
58. Vinyl chloride.........................................        75014
59. Xylene (m).............................................       108383
60. Xylene (o).............................................        95476
61. Xylene (p).............................................       106423
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As specified in Sec.  63.8020, the soluble HAP in wastewater that 
are subject to management and treatment requirements of this subpart 
are listed in the following table:

  Table 8 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Soluble Hazardous Air Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Chemical name . . .                        CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Acetonitrile............................................        75058
2. Acetophenone............................................        98862
3. Diethyl sulfate.........................................        64675
4. Dimethyl hydrazine (1,1)................................        58147
5. Dimethyl sulfate........................................        77781
6. Dinitrotoluene (2,4)....................................       121142
7. Dioxane (1,4)...........................................       123911
8. Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether..........................       110714
9. Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate.................       112072
10. Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate...............       110496
11. Isophorone.............................................        78591
12. Methanol...............................................        67561
13. Nitrobenzene...........................................        98953
14. Toluidine (o-).........................................        95534

[[Page 69199]]

 
15. Triethylamine..........................................       121448
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec.  63.8075(a) and (b), you must submit each 
report that applies to you on the schedule shown in the following 
table:

      Table 9 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    The report must     You must submit
     You must submit a . . .         contain . . .     the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Precompliance report.........  The information     At least 6 months
                                   specified in Sec.   prior to the
                                     63.8075(c).       compliance date;
                                                       or for new
                                                       sources, with the
                                                       application for
                                                       approval of
                                                       construction or
                                                       reconstruction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Notification of compliance     The information     No later than 150
 status report.                    specified in Sec.   days after the
                                     63.8075(d).       compliance date
                                                       specified in Sec.
                                                         63.7995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Compliance report............  The information     Semiannually
                                   specified in Sec.   according to the
                                     63.8075(e).       requirements in
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.8075(b).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As specified in Sec.  63.8095, the parts of the General Provisions 
that apply to you are shown in the following table:

           Table 10 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart HHHHH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Citation                            Subject                           Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1.............................  Applicability..............  Yes.
Sec.   63.2.............................  Definitions................  Yes.
Sec.   63.3.............................  Units and Abbreviations....  Yes.
Sec.   63.4.............................  Prohibited Activities......  Yes.
Sec.   63.5.............................  Construction/Reconstruction  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(a)..........................  Applicability..............  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)...................  Compliance Dates for New     Yes.
                                           and Reconstructed sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(5).......................  Notification...............  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6).......................  [Reserved].................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7).......................  Compliance Dates for New     Yes.
                                           and Reconstructed Area
                                           Sources That Become Major.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)...................  Compliance Dates for         Yes.
                                           Existing Sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)...................  [Reserved].................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5).......................  Compliance Dates for         Yes.
                                           Existing Area Sources That
                                           Become Major.
Sec.   63.6(d)..........................  [Reserved].................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)-(2)...................  Operation & Maintenance....  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(i), (ii), and (v)       SSMP.......................  Yes, except information regarding Group 2
 through (viii).                                                        emission points and equipment leaks is
                                                                        not required in the SSMP, as specified
                                                                        in Sec.   63.8080(f).
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)(iii) and (iv).........  Recordkeeping and Reporting  No, Sec.  Sec.   63.998(d)(3) and
                                           During Startup, Shutdown,    63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) specify
                                           and Malfunction (SSM).       the recordkeeping requirement for SSM
                                                                        events, and Sec.   63.8075(e)(5)
                                                                        specifies reporting requirements.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).......................  Compliance Except During     Yes.
                                           SSM.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)...................  Methods for Determining      Yes.
                                           Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)...................  Alternative Standard.......  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(h)..........................  Opacity/Visible Emission     Only for flares for which Method 22
                                           (VE) Standards.              observations are required as part of a
                                                                        flare compliance assessment.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14)..................  Compliance Extension.......  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(j)..........................  Presidential Compliance      Yes.
                                           Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)...................  Performance Test Dates.....  Yes, except substitute 150 days for 180
                                                                        days.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3).......................  CAA Section 114 Authority..  Yes, and this paragraph also applies to
                                                                        flare compliance assessments as
                                                                        specified under Sec.   63.997(b)(2).
Sec.   63.7(b)(1).......................  Notification of Performance  Yes.
                                           Test.

[[Page 69200]]

 
Sec.   63.7(b)(2).......................  Notification of              Yes.
                                           Rescheduling.
Sec.   63.7(c)..........................  Quality Assurance/Test Plan  Yes, except the test plan must be
                                                                        submitted with the notification of the
                                                                        performance test if the control device
                                                                        controls process vessels.
Sec.   63.7(d)..........................  Testing Facilities.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).......................  Conditions for Conducting    Yes, except that performance tests for
                                           Performance Tests.           process vessels must be conducted under
                                                                        worst-case conditions as specified in
                                                                        Sec.   63.8005.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2).......................  Conditions for Conducting    Yes.
                                           Performance Tests.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3).......................  Test Run Duration..........  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(f)..........................  Alternative Test Method....  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(g)..........................  Performance Test Data        Yes.
                                           Analysis.
Sec.   63.7(h)..........................  Waiver of Tests............  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1).......................  Applicability of Monitoring  Yes.
                                           Requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2).......................  Performance Specifications.  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3).......................  [Reserved].................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).......................  Monitoring with Flares.....  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1).......................  Monitoring.................  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)...................  Multiple Effluents and       Yes.
                                           Multiple Monitoring
                                           Systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1).......................  Monitoring System Operation  Yes.
                                           and Maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)....................  Maintain and operate CMS...  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)...................  Routine repairs............  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)..................  SSMP for CMS...............  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)...................  Monitoring System            Yes.
                                           Installation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).......................  Requirements...............  Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
                                                                        specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
                                                                        CFR part 63. This subpart does not
                                                                        contain requirements for continuous
                                                                        opacity monitoring systems (COMS).
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(i)....................  CMS Requirements...........  No. This subpart does not require COMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(ii)...................  CMS requirements...........  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).......................  COMS Minimum Procedures....  No. This subpart does not contain opacity
                                                                        or VE limits.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6).......................  CMS Requirements...........  Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
                                                                        specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
                                                                        CFR part 63.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8)...................  CMS Requirements...........  Only for CEMS. Requirements for CPMS are
                                                                        specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
                                                                        CFR part 63.
Sec.   63.8(d)..........................  CMS Quality Control........  Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
                                                                        specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
                                                                        CFR part 63.
Sec.   63.8(e)..........................  CMS Performance Evaluation.  Section 63.8(e)(6)(ii) does not apply
                                                                        because this subpart does not require
                                                                        COMS. Other sections apply only for
                                                                        CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
                                                                        specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
                                                                        CFR part 63.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)...................  Alternative Monitoring       Yes, except you may also request approval
                                           Method.                      using the precompliance report.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).......................  Alternative to Relative      Only for CEMS.
                                           Accuracy Test.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1)-(4)...................  Data Reduction.............  Only when using CEMS, except Sec.
                                                                        63.8(g)(2) does not apply because data
                                                                        reduction requirements for CEMS are
                                                                        specified in Sec.   63.8000(d)(4)(iv).
                                                                       The requirements for COMS do not apply
                                                                        because this subpart has no opacity or
                                                                        VE limits.
Sec.   63.8(g)(5).......................  Data Reduction.............  No. Requirements for CEMS are specified
                                                                        in Sec.   63.8000(d)(4).
                                                                       Requirements for CPMS are specified in
                                                                        referenced subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63.
Sec.   63.9(a)..........................  Notification Requirements..  Yes.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5)...................  Initial Notifications......  Yes.
Sec.   63.9(c)..........................  Request for Compliance       Yes.
                                           Extension.
Sec.   63.9(d)..........................  Notification of Special      Yes.
                                           Compliance Requirements
                                           for New Source.
Sec.   63.9(e)..........................  Notification of Performance  Yes.
                                           Test.
Sec.   63.9(f)..........................  Notification of VE/Opacity   No. This subpart does not contain opacity
                                           Test.                        or VE limits.
Sec.   63.9(g)..........................  Additional Notifications     Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
                                           When Using CMS.              specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
                                                                        CFR part 63.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(6)...................  Notification of Compliance   Yes, except this subpart has no opacity
                                           Status.                      or VE limits, and Sec.   63.9(h)(2) does
                                                                        not apply because Sec.   63.8075(d)
                                                                        specifies the required contents and due
                                                                        date of the notification of compliance
                                                                        status report.
Sec.   63.9(i)..........................  Adjustment of Submittal      Yes.
                                           Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j)..........................  Change in Previous           No, Sec.   63.8075(e)(8) specifies
                                           Information.                 reporting requirements for process
                                                                        changes.
Sec.   63.10(a).........................  Recordkeeping/Reporting....  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)......................  Recordkeeping/Reporting....  Yes.

[[Page 69201]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(iv)..............  Records related to SSM.....  No, Sec.  Sec.   63.998(d)(3) and
                                                                        63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) specify
                                                                        recordkeeping requirements for periods
                                                                        of SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii).................  Records related to           Yes.
                                           maintenance of air
                                           pollution control
                                           equipment.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), and (xi)...  CMS Records................  Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
                                                                        specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
                                                                        CFR part 63.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)............  Records....................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii).................  Records....................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)................  Records....................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv).................  Records....................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)......................  Records....................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6),(9)-(15).........  Records....................  Only for CEMS; requirements for CPMS are
                                                                        specified in referenced subpart SS of 40
                                                                        CFR part 63.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8)..................  Records....................  No. Recordkeeping requirements are
                                                                        specified in Sec.   63.8080.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)......................  General Reporting            Yes.
                                           Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)......................  Report of Performance Test   Yes.
                                           Results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)......................  Reporting Opacity or VE      No. This subpart does not contain opacity
                                           Observations.                or VE limits.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)......................  Progress Reports...........  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i)...................  SSM Reports................  No, Sec.   63.8075(e)(5) and (6) specify
                                                                        the SSM reporting requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii)..................  Immediate SSM reports......  No.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2)..................  Additional CMS Reports.....  Only for CEMS, but Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(ii)
                                                                        does not apply because this subpart does
                                                                        not require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)......................  Reports....................  No. Reporting requirements are specified
                                                                        in Sec.   63.8075.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii).............  Reports....................  No. Reporting requirements are specified
                                                                        in Sec.   63.8075.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v)..............  Excess Emissions Reports...  No. Reporting requirements are specified
                                                                        in Sec.   63.8075.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)(vi-viii).............  Excess Emissions Report and  No. Reporting requirements are specified
                                           Summary Report.              in Sec.   63.8075.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)......................  Reporting COMS data........  No. This subpart does not contain opacity
                                                                        or VE limits.
Sec.   63.10(f).........................  Waiver for Recordkeeping/    Yes.
                                           Reporting.
Sec.   63.11............................  Flares.....................  Yes.
Sec.   63.12............................  Delegation.................  Yes.
Sec.   63.13............................  Addresses..................  Yes.
Sec.   63.14............................  Incorporation by Reference.  Yes.
Sec.   63.15............................  Availability of Information  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 03-22928 Filed 12-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U