[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 103 (Monday, June 1, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26142-26159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12563]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053; FRL-8910-9]
RIN 2060-AN47
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area
Source Standards for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national emission standards for control of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for the Paints and Allied Products
Manufacturing area source category. The proposed emissions standards
for new and existing sources are based on EPA's proposed determination
as to what constitutes the generally available control technology or
management practices (GACT) for the area source category.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2009, unless a
public hearing is requested by June 11, 2009. If a hearing is requested
on this proposed rule, written comments must be received by July 16,
2009. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information
collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and
Budget on or before July 1, 2009.
ADDRESSES: EPA will accept comment on the proposal for 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Submit your comments, identified
by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov:
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and
Radiation Docket Web site.
E-mail: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0053 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: Send comments to (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053.
Mail: Area Source NESHAP for Paints and Allied Products
Manufacturing Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0053. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available Online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment.
[[Page 26143]]
If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters or any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Area Source NESHAP for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing
Docket, at the EPA Docket and Information Center, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The 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 Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Payne, Regulatory Development
and Policy Analysis Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(C404-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-3609; fax number:
(919) 541-0242; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary information in this
preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for
the proposed standards?
B. What source category is affected by the proposed standards?
C. What are the production processes, emissions sources,
baseline emissions, and available controls?
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?
B. When must I comply with the proposed standards?
C. What are the proposed standards?
D. What are the compliance requirements?
E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
IV. Rationale for this Proposed Rule
A. How did we select the source category?
B. How did we select the affected source?
C. How are the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing metal
and volatile HAP addressed by this rule?
D. How did we determine GACT?
E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
F. How did we decide to propose to exempt this area source
category from title V permit requirements?
V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Standards
A. What are the air impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy
impacts?
VI. 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 Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations.
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
proposed action are shown in the table below. You are subject to this
subpart if you own or operate a facility that performs paints and
allied products manufacturing that is an area source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions and processes, uses, or generates materials
containing the following HAP: benzene, methylene chloride, and
compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel. If the proposed
standards are applicable to a paints and allied product manufacturing
area source, the standards apply to all organic HAP emissions and all
metal HAP emissions from all paints and allied products manufacturing
operations at the area source.
The paints and allied products manufacturing area source rule
(CCCCCCC) would cover all coatings, but does not include resin
manufacturing, which is covered by the chemical manufacturing area
source standard (VVVVVV). Facilities that manufacture both resins and
coatings would be required to comply with both rules. Paints and allied
products are defined in Sec. 63.11606 as 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 and are
produced by physical means, such as blending and mixing, as opposed to
chemical synthesis means, such as reactions and distillation. The
source category does not include the following: (1) The manufacture of
products that do not leave a dried film of solid material on the
substrate, such as thinners, paint removers, brush cleaners, and mold
release agents; (2) the manufacture of electroplated and electroless
metal films; and (3) the manufacture of raw materials, such as resins,
pigments, and solvents used in the production of paints and allied
products. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Paint thinners and paint remover are covered under the
Industrial Organic Chemical Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP, and
electroplated and electroless metal films are covered under the
Plating and Polishing Operations Area Source NESHAP. Resins
manufacturing is covered under the Plastic Materials and Resins
Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP and pigments manufacturing is
covered under the Inorganic Pigment Manufacturing Area Source
NESHAP.
[[Page 26144]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code \2\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paint & Coating Manufacturing................. 325510 Area source facilities engaged in mixing
pigments, solvents, and binders into paints and
other coatings, such as stains, varnishes,
lacquers, enamels, shellacs, and water
repellant coatings for concrete and masonry.
Adhesive Manufacturing........................ 325520 Area source facilities primarily engaged in
manufacturing adhesives, glues, and caulking
compounds.
Printing Ink Manufacturing.................... 325910 Area source facilities primarily engaged in
manufacturing printing inkjet inks and inkjet
cartridges.
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and 325998 Area source facilities primarily engaged in
Preparation Manufacturing. manufacturing indelible ink, India ink writing
ink, and stamp pad ink.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.11599, subpart CCCCCCC (NESHAP for Area Sources: Paints and Allied
Products Manufacturing). If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the
State delegated authority or the EPA regional representative as listed
in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ North American Industry Classification System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments to EPA?
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this
proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
D. When Would a Public Hearing Occur?
If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing
concerning this proposed rule by June 11, 2009, we will hold a public
hearing on June 16, 2009. Persons interested in presenting oral
testimony at the hearing, or inquiring as to whether a hearing will be
held, should contact Ms. Christine Adams at (919) 541-5590 at least two
days in advance of the hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be
held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive
in Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
A. What Is the Statutory Authority and Regulatory Approach for the
Proposed Standards?
Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under
CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit
10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of
any combination of HAP. An area source is a stationary source that is
not a major source.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas.
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to
regulation. We implemented these requirements through the Integrated
Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A primary goal
of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer
incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of
generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT)
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.''
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the
legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which
describes GACT as:
* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.
Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT. This is particularly important
when developing regulations, like this one, that may include many small
businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration.
Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control
technologies and management practices that are generally available to
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate
[[Page 26145]]
circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area
and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such
technologies and practices could be considered generally available for
the area source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in
determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the
costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and
management practices on that category.
We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for
categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by August 17,
2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). Other
rulemakings will include standards for the remaining source categories
that are due in June 2009.
B. What Source Category Is Affected by the Proposed Standards?
These proposed standards would affect any facility that
manufactures paints, inks, adhesives, stains, varnishes, shellacs,
putties, sealers, caulks, and other coatings, the intended use of which
is to leave a dried film of solid material on a substrate. The paints
and allied products manufacturing process may include, but is not
limited to, any one or combination of the following steps: weighing,
mixing, grinding, tinting, thinning, heating, cooking, flushing, and
packaging. The paints and allied products may be manufactured in liquid
or solid form.
We listed the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing area source
category under CAA section 112(c)(3) in one of a series of amendments
(November 22, 2002, 67 FR 70427) to the original source category list
included in the 1999 Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. EPA listed
this area source category for regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3),
based on emissions of the following six urban HAP: benzene, methylene
chloride, and compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel.
The definition of containing HAP is identical to the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) definitions specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4), i.e. a concentration of 0.1 percent by mass or more
for carcinogens, as shown in formulation data provided by the
manufacturer or supplier, such as the Material Safety Data Sheet for
the material. The six Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing HAP are
classified as carcinogens.
Throughout this proposed rule, we refer to compounds of cadmium,
chromium, lead, and nickel as the ``Paints and Allied Products
Manufacturing metal HAP.'' We refer to benzene and methylene chloride
as the ``Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing volatile HAP.''
Based on 2002 U.S. Census data, we estimate that 2,510 paints and
allied products manufacturing facilities are currently operating in the
U.S. Independent estimates by the industry trade association confirm
our calculations. Nearly all (97 percent) of the paints and allied
products manufacturing facilities are in urban areas. Our analyses also
indicate that the 2,190 facilities that comprise the Paints and Allied
Products Manufacturing area source category are small businesses, which
the Small Business Administration generally defines as facilities with
less than 500 employees. The 2002 Census data also show that nearly 50
percent of the facilities in this source category have less than 10
employees.
C. What Are the Production Processes, Emission Sources, Baseline
Emissions, and Available Controls?
1. Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Processes
Paints and allied products manufacturing can be classified as a
batch process and generally involves the blending and mixing of resins,
pigments, solvents, and additives. Traditional coatings manufacturing
consists of four major steps:
Preassembly and premix;
Pigment grinding, milling, and dispersing;
Product finishing and blending; and
Product filling and packaging.
The Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing volatile HAP emissions
are a result of solvents that evaporate during the manufacturing
process, and include benzene and methylene chloride. The Paints and
Allied Products Manufacturing metal HAP emissions occur from the
handling of solid materials such as pigments and resins during the
manufacturing process. The metal HAP for this listing are cadmium,
chromium, lead, and nickel compounds.
The preassembly and premix step involves the collection of raw
materials that will be used to produce the desired coating product.
These materials are added to a high speed dispersion or mixing vessel.
The types of raw materials that are used for solvent-based coatings
include resins, organic solvents, plasticizers, dry pigment, and
pigment extenders; water, ammonia, dispersant, pigment, and pigment
extenders are used for water-based coatings.
Pigment grinding or milling entails the incorporation of the
pigment into the paint or ink vehicle to yield fine particle
dispersion. The three stages of this process include wetting, grinding,
and dispersion, which may overlap in any grinding operation. The
wetting agent, normally a surfactant, wets the pigment particles by
displacing air, moisture, and gases that are adsorbed on the surface of
the pigment particles. Grinding is the mechanical breakup and
separation of pigment clusters into isolated particles and may be
facilitated by the use of grinding media such as pebbles, balls, or
beads. Finally, dispersion is the movement of wetted particles into the
body of the liquid vehicle to produce a particle suspension.
A wide array of milling equipment is used, depending on the types
of pigments being handled. Commonly-used equipment includes the
following: Roller mills, ball and pebble mills, attritors, sand mills,
bead and shot mills, high-speed stone and colloid mills, high-speed
dispersers, high-speed impingement mills, and horizontal media mills.
Roller and ball mills are considered somewhat outdated methods and are
usually associated with elevated volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions due to their more open design. Lids are commonly used on
milling and mixing vessels to reduce product loss; the types of lids
used range from plywood boards to plastic elasticized covers and, less
often, steel lids.
High-speed dispersers, using disk-type impellers, are the most
common method of mixing, or dispersion, in the industry. Because no
grinding media are present in the mixing vat, pigment disperses on
itself and against the surfaces of the rotor. While high-speed disk
dispersion may work well for products such as undercoats and primers,
it may not be appropriate for high-quality paints and inks, which
instead use the other types of milling equipment as described above.
The finishing step involves adding small amounts of pigments,
solids, or liquids to achieve the required color or consistency of the
final product. The filling step involves packaging the final product
for shipment to the buyer.
The process operations that generate HAP emissions include:
emissions from loading of materials into the mixing tanks; heat-up
losses during operation of the mixers; surface evaporation during
mixing and blending; and filling losses
[[Page 26146]]
that occur during transfer into the receiving container. In addition,
miscellaneous operations generating HAP emissions can include: solvent
reclamation during the purification of dirty or spent solvent; cleaning
of the process equipment; wastewater conveyance and treatment used to
handle and treat contaminated water generated during the manufacturing
process; material storage of solvents, pigments, and resins; leaks from
the transport of stored materials to the process; and emissions from
accidental spills during manufacturing and cleaning activities.
2. Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Area Source HAP Emission
Sources
The National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database was used to
determine the sources of HAP emissions and to estimate the amount of
HAP emissions produced from these sources. A summary of the data is
presented in the following table. Total HAP emissions presented in the
NEI database for the source category are 1,500 Tons per year (tons/yr),
or 1,400 Megagrams per year (Mg/yr). The table shows that over 90
percent of the HAP emissions occur during the paints and allied
products manufacturing process. Product manufacturing generally
includes the addition of raw materials to the process vessels, grinding
of solids, mixing, and packaging of the final product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP Tons/year Percentage of
Category (Mg/year) total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Manufacturing.............. 1,406 (1,275) 90.7
Combustion Processes............... 1.60 (1.45) 0.103
Raw Material Storage............... 14.9 (13.5) 0.961
Equipment Cleaning and Fugitive 40.5 (36.7) 2.61
Emissions.........................
Other Miscellaneous Processes...... 63.8 (57.9) 4.12
Coating Application Testing........ 22.0 (20.0) 1.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2002 NEI Database.
3. Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Baseline HAP Emissions
Baseline HAP emissions were calculated using the HAP emissions from
the 2002 NEI database and extrapolating the emissions data to estimate
the emissions for all paints and allied products manufacturing area
sources. Using this approach, we estimated the 2002 nationwide baseline
HAP emissions (including total metal HAP and volatile HAP) to be 4,800
tons/yr (4,300 Mg/yr).
The total nationwide baseline emissions of the six listed urban HAP
was estimated to be 221 tons/yr. This total includes 213 tons/yr of the
listed urban volatile HAP (benzene, methylene chloride), and 8 tons/yr
of the listed urban metal HAP (cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel).
4. Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing HAP Emission Controls
Emissions reduction approaches were reviewed for the Paints and
Allied Products Manufacturing volatile and metal HAP. The data indicate
that add-on controls to reduce volatile HAP are not commonly used on
process vessels in the paints and allied products manufacturing
industry. An absence of prior Federal regulation or specific State or
local rules, along with the generally high capital investment needed
for add-on control devices, may contribute to these findings.
Management practices currently used by the paints and allied products
manufacturing industry to control volatile HAP emissions include
coating substitution or reformulation from conventional solvent-based
coatings, solvent substitution, use of process vessel covers, and other
measures (e.g., covered storage of cleaning rags). Water-based and
higher solids content coatings have been developed to reduce volatile
HAP emissions.
For the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing metal HAP, our
analysis showed that add-on controls for such emissions from process
vessels are widespread throughout the industry. Particulate controls
are used to capture metal HAP, which are included in particulate
emissions. Typical particulate collection devices used by the industry
include: baghouses, cyclones, and venturi scrubbers. Each of these
mechanical collectors can achieve 98 percent reduction in particulate
emissions. According to our data, 79 percent of facilities use
particulate matter control technology. Along with dust collectors and
other fabric filters, they are used to control airborne dust and
particulate matter, primarily in the pigment loading area and during
the mixing process. Generally, fabric filters and vent systems are used
at facilities that use powdered or dry pigments in their coatings
formulations to protect workers from exposure to hazardous materials in
the pigments. Management practices used to abate particulate emissions
of the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing metal HAP include lower
HAP content coatings, better materials management, use of sandmills
instead of ballmills, and equipment modifications.
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Do the Proposed Standards Apply to My Source?
The proposed subpart CCCCCCC standards would apply to new and
existing affected sources of paints and allied products manufacturing.
The affected source is the new or existing paints and allied products
manufacturing operation that processes, uses, or generates any of the
following urban HAP: benzene, methylene chloride, and compounds of
cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel. An existing source is a paints and
allied products manufacturing operation that processes, uses, or
generates any of the following urban HAP: compounds of cadmium,
chromium, lead, and nickel and benzene and methylene chloride. A new
source is a paints and allied products manufacturing operation that
processes, uses, or generates any of the following urban HAP: compounds
of cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel and benzene and methylene
chloride, and that commences construction or reconstruction of the
affected source on or after the date that this proposed rule is
published in the Federal Register.
We recognize that standards limited to the emission points of the
listed urban HAP in this area source category would be sufficient to
satisfy the requirement in section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) that EPA
regulate sufficient source categories to account for 90 percent of the
urban HAP emissions. However, section 112 of the CAA does not prohibit
EPA from regulating other HAP emitted from area sources listed pursuant
to section 112(c)(3). Section
[[Page 26147]]
112(d)(5) states that for area sources listed pursuant to section
112(c), the Administrator may, in lieu of section 112(d)(2) ``MACT''
standards, promulgate standards or requirements ``applicable to
sources'' which provide for the use of GACT or management practices
``to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' This provision
does not limit EPA's authority to regulate only those urban HAP
emissions for which the category is needed to achieve the 90 percent
requirement in section 112(c)(3). Finally, we do not expect this
requirement to cause significant additional cost to the regulated
facilities, while it will have added environmental benefit.
B. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Standards?
All existing area source facilities subject to this proposed rule
would be required to comply with the rule requirements no later than
two years after the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. New sources would be required to comply with the rule
requirements upon date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register or upon startup of the facility, whichever is later.
C. What Are the Proposed Standards?
We are proposing use of a particulate control device as GACT for
metal HAP and management practices as GACT for volatile HAP emissions.
The standards apply when any operation is being performed that
processes, uses, or generates any HAP.
For metal HAP, this proposed rule would require owners or operators
of all existing and new affected facilities to operate a particulate
control device at all times during the manufacturing process that metal
HAP emissions could be present, based on the Material Safety Data
Sheet, and visible emissions from the particulate control device shall
not exceed 5 percent opacity when averaged over a six-minute period.
The Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing metal HAP emissions can be
present during the preassembly/premix and pigment grinding and milling
manufacturing processes.
New and existing affected sources will be required to comply with
the following management practices for the control of all volatile HAP
emissions during the preassembly/premix and grinding/milling
manufacturing steps:
(1) Process and storage vessels, except for process vessels which
are mixing vessels, must be equipped with covers or lids meeting the
requirements of paragraphs (1)(i) through (iii) of this section. These
vessels must be kept covered when not in use.
(i) The covers or lids can be of solid or flexible construction,
provided they do not warp or move around during the manufacturing
process.
(ii) The covers or lids must maintain contact along at least 90
percent of the vessel rim.
(iii) The covers or lids must be maintained in good condition.
(2) Mixing vessels must be equipped with covers that completely
cover the vessel, except for safe clearance of the mixer shaft. The
vessels must be kept covered during the manufacturing process, except
for operator access for quality control testing of the product, and
during the addition of pigments or other materials used to meet the
final product specifications.
(3) Leaks and spills of materials containing volatile HAP must be
immediately minimized and cleaned up.
(4) Waste solvent rags or other materials used for cleaning must be
kept in closed storage vessels.
If the proposed standards are applicable to your paints and allied
products manufacturing area source, then the proposed standards would
apply to all organic HAP emissions from the manufacturing operation and
all metal HAP emissions from the preassembly/premix and grinding/
milling manufacturing steps at the area source, not just the Paints and
Allied Products Manufacturing volatile and metal HAP. We are proposing
that the standards for each type of emission point apply to all of the
emission points of that type in an affected source, including those
that do not emit Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing volatile or
metal HAP. For example, an area source may have two process vessels,
one containing tetrachloroethylene and the other containing methylene
chloride, and, under the proposed rule, both would be part of the
affected source and subject to the process vessel standards.
D. What Are the Compliance Requirements?
To demonstrate initial compliance, this proposed rule would require
a new or existing source to certify that the required control
technologies and management practices have been implemented and that
all equipment associated with the processes will be properly operated
and maintained. In addition, a visual emission test using EPA Method 9
will be required to be performed on the particulate control device on
or before the compliance date and every six months thereafter.
To demonstrate on-going compliance, the proposed rule requires
owners and operators of affected facilities to inspect the particulate
control device monthly to ensure that the unit is operating as
specified in the manufacturer's operating instructions, and to perform
a visual emission test using EPA Method 9 on the particulate control
device every 6 months.
E. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
We are proposing notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements to ensure compliance with this proposed rule. The owner or
operator of a new or existing affected source would be required to
comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 1 of this proposed rule.
Each facility would be required to submit an Initial Notification and a
Notification of Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40
CFR 63.9, General Provisions to part 63. These notifications are needed
for EPA to determine applicability and initial compliance with specific
rule requirements.
The Initial Notification would be required within 120 days of the
effective date of the NESHAP. That report serves to alert appropriate
agencies (State agencies and EPA Regional Offices) of the existence of
each affected source and puts them on notice for future compliance
actions. The notification of compliance status (NOCS) report, which is
due 150 days after the compliance date of the NESHAP, is a more
comprehensive report that describes the affected source, the associated
emissions points, and the strategy being used to comply.
Under this proposed rule, each facility would prepare an annual
compliance certification for the previous calendar year. The annual
compliance certification must be completed no later than January 31 of
each year and kept for five years. Facilities would be required to
submit this annual compliance report if there is any deviation from the
requirements or visual emissions testing during the year, and would
include these deviation reports with their compliance report. We
recognize that most of these facilities are small businesses; therefore
we are requiring the submission of this annual compliance certification
only if deviations occur during the year, so that there is not an undue
economic burden on small businesses.
[[Page 26148]]
The facility must generate a monthly record for the implemented
management practices and the particulate control device inspections
(daily, weekly, monthly and Method 9, as applicable), listed in
Sections C and D above, respectively. For demonstrating ongoing
compliance, the proposed requirements include daily, weekly, and annual
inspections, semi-annual visible emission testing, monthly checklists
and annual certifications that the management practices are being
followed and the particulate control device is being properly operated
according to manufacturer instructions.
A responsible official at the facility must sign off by the 15th
day of the following month that all requirements were met in the
previous month. In implementing the requirements of this rule, sources
can consider including procedures from their existing Standard
Operating Procedures provided the procedures are relevant to
implementing the required management practices.
Owners and operators would be required to maintain all records and
annual certifications that demonstrate initial and ongoing compliance
with this proposed rule, including records of all required
notifications and reports, with supporting documentation; and records
showing compliance with the control technology and management
practices. The records must be kept readily accessible on site for two
years, and may be kept at an offsite location for the remaining three
years.
IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule
A. How Did We Select the Source Category?
As described in section II.B, we listed the Paints and Allied
Products Manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(c)(3) on
November 22, 2002 (67 FR 70427). The inclusion of this source category
on the area source category list was based on its contributions to the
urban HAP emissions in the 1990 CAA section 112(k) inventory (benzene,
methylene chloride, and compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, and
nickel).
For this source category, we collected information on the
production operations, emission sources, and available controls for
both area and major sources using reviews of published literature,
information gathered during the major source NESHAP, and reviews of
operating permits. We also held discussions with industry
representatives and EPA experts. This research confirmed that the
Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing source category continues to
emit the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing volatile and metal
HAP. We found that current emissions of such HAP have been
significantly reduced from the amounts estimated in the section 112(k)
1990 base year inventory due to product reformulation, OSHA controls,
and a shift in end-use and consumer preferences.
Consistent with the record supporting the listing of the Paints and
Allied Products Manufacturing source category, we are proposing that
the category include those area source paints and allied product
manufacturing facilities that process, use, or generate paints and
allied product manufacturing HAP or materials containing these HAP. We
are defining materials containing HAP in a manner consistent with the
definitions used in other area source categories, e.g., plating and
polishing (73 FR 14126) and metal fabrication (73 FR 42977). Therefore,
materials containing the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing
volatile and metal HAP, for the purposes of this category, means a
material containing methylene chloride, benzene and compounds of
cadmium, chromium, lead, and/or nickel in amounts greater than or equal
to 0.1 percent by weight, as shown in formulation data provided by the
manufacturer or supplier, such as in the Material Safety Data Sheet.
B. How Did We Select the Affected Source?
Affected source, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2, means 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 is
established. In selecting the affected source for regulation for the
paints and allied products manufacturing area source category, we
identified the sources of HAP emissions, which include HAP-emitting
colorants and cleaning products. We also identified the quantity of HAP
emissions from the individual or groups of emissions points. We are
proposing to designate all of the blending and mixing processes in the
manufacturing operation, within a single contiguous area and under
common control, as the affected source. This proposed designation is
consistent with the approach EPA employed for other paints and allied
product manufacturing regulations, i.e., the major source NESHAP and
the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). This proposed rule
includes requirements for the control of primary and fugitive emissions
from paints and allied products manufacturing operations.
C. How Are the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Metal and
Volatile HAP Addressed by This Rule?
For this proposed rule, we have selected particulate matter (PM) as
a surrogate for paints and allied products manufacturing metal HAP.
When emitted, each of the metal HAP compounds behaves as PM. The
control technologies used for the control of PM emissions achieve
comparable levels of performance for these metal HAP emissions, i.e.
when PM is captured, HAP metals are captured non-preferentially as part
of the PM. We also determined that it was not practical to establish
individual standards for each specific type of metal HAP that could be
present in the emissions, e.g., separate standards for compounds of
cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel, because the types and quantities
of metal HAP can vary widely in the raw materials. Therefore, emission
standards requiring control of PM would also achieve comparable control
of metal HAP emissions.
D. How Did We Determine GACT?
As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards
representing GACT for the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing area
source HAP emissions. As noted in section II of this preamble, the
statute requires the Agency to establish standards for area sources
listed pursuant to section 112(c). The statute does not set any
condition precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5),
other than that the area source category or subcategory at issue must
be one that EPA listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case
here.
Most of the facilities in this source category have good
operational controls in place for particulate matter. Furthermore, we
believe that almost all of the area source paints and allied products
manufacturing facilities are small businesses. Below, we explain in
detail our proposed GACT determinations.
1. GACT for New and Existing Sources
We gathered background information on paints and allied products
manufacturing facilities from a review of operating permits, the NEI
database, and discussions with industry representatives to identify the
emission controls and management practices that are currently used to
control volatile and metal HAP emissions. We identified the control
technologies and management practices that minimize
[[Page 26149]]
emissions from paints and allied products during the manufacturing
process and that are commonly used in the industry.
a. Management Practices for Volatile HAP
The data indicate that add-on controls to reduce volatile HAP are
used only sparingly on process vessels, as reported in both the State
permits and the NEI database. This is probably due to the absence of
Federal regulation of this industry and a lack of specific State or
local rules. We believe that in the time since the data were collected
for the 2002 NEI, most facilities have begun to produce low-VOC and low
volatile HAP paints. This is a result of a shift in market demand due
to the recent Federal paint and coating rules for other sources, such
as the Boat Manufacturing, Fabric Surface Coating, Large Appliance
Surface Coating, Metal Can Surface Coating, Metal Furniture Surface
Coating, Plastic Parts, Aerospace, and Wood Furniture NESHAPs. Consumer
demand for low-VOC paints may also be a factor.
A common management practice that is used to reduce volatile HAP
emissions is through the use of process vessel covers. The
Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP estimated that 95 percent of the major
source facilities in the paints and allied products manufacturing NAICS
code use process vessel covers. We believe that the same percentage of
the area source facilities in the paints and allied products
manufacturing category are currently using process vessel covers; this
information agrees with estimates provided by industry. Therefore, we
propose the use of process vessel covers as GACT for volatile HAP in
the paints and allied products manufacturing industry according to the
following requirements:
(1) During the preassembly/premix and grinding/milling
manufacturing steps, process and storage vessels, except for process
vessels which are mixing vessels, must be equipped with covers or lids
meeting the requirements of paragraphs (A)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section. These vessels must be kept covered when not in use.
(i) The covers or lids can be of solid or flexible construction,
provided they do not warp or move around during the manufacturing
process.
(ii) The covers or lids must maintain contact along at least 90
percent of the vessel rim.
(iii) The covers or lids must be maintained in good condition.
(2) During the preassembly/premix and grinding/milling
manufacturing steps, mixing vessels must be equipped with covers that
completely cover the vessel, except for safe clearance of the mixer
shaft. The vessels must be kept covered during the manufacturing
process, except for operator access for quality control testing of the
product, and during the addition of pigments or other materials used to
meet the final product specifications.
(3) Leaks and spills of materials containing volatile HAP must be
immediately minimized and cleaned up.
(4) Waste solvent rags or other materials used for cleaning must be
kept in closed storage vessels.
The facility must use a monthly checklist as a record for the
implemented work practices as listed above. A responsible official at
the facility must sign off that all work practice requirements have
been met. Existing written standard operating procedures may be used as
the work practices plan if those procedures include the activities
required by the final rule for a work practices plan.
b. Technology Control for Metal HAP
Paints and allied products manufacturing operating permits were
obtained from State agency Web sites to determine the prevalence of
add-on controls for metal HAP. The permit information, as well as
discussions with the industry, show that add-on controls for metal HAP
emissions from process vessels are commonly used throughout the
industry. We believe that particulate control devices are primarily
used because of concerns with workplace safety and, in some cases, to
satisfy OSHA regulations. Information from the operating permits
indicates that 23 of 29 (79 percent) area source facilities use add-on
controls for particulate emissions. Based on this permit information,
we determined that the use of controls to reduce particulate emissions
during the preassembly/premix and grinding/milling steps of the paints
and allied products manufacturing process commonplace.
To determine an applicable particulate matter standard, we reviewed
the State operating permits for facilities in this source category.
Most of the permits listed a concentration or mass emission particulate
limit that requires testing using an appropriate particulate test
method, in most cases EPA Method 5. We have concerns about the economic
impact of particulate matter emissions testing for smaller facilities.
The typical EPA Method 5 particulate matter emissions test on a stack
costs between $3,000 and $10,000, which would be a significant economic
burden for these area sources. Other area source rules and the States
have used opacity as an effective surrogate for assessing mass
emissions and to assure effective particulate emissions control. The
use of visual emissions or opacity testing, as opposed to emission
testing, is a lower cost method to determine compliance, and
accommodates the different levels of activity that can occur from
facility to facility, from product to product, and day to day within
the same facility. This also reduces the cost impact on small
businesses. There is a correlation between particulate matter
concentration and opacity in the particulate matter control device
outlet stream, and studies have shown that particulate concentrations
are approximately zero at an opacity of zero.\3\ For example, a test at
a wet cement kiln with a fabric filter showed that when outlet
concentrations were less than 0.009 grains/dry standard cubic feet (gr/
dscf), opacity was less than 2 percent. This opacity is low enough that
it would probably be observed as zero under most conditions. This in
turn would result in a very low incidence of visible emissions during
any observation period. A review of area source NESHAP opacity limits
found several examples of particulate control devices being subject to
zero or very low visible emission tests. Therefore, we believe that
establishing a 5 percent opacity limit averaged over a six-minute
period is an appropriate standard to effectively measure the
effectiveness of a source's particulate emission control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Study of Benefits of Opacity Monitors Applied to Portland
Cement Kilns. Prepared by Ronald Meyers, U.S. EPA, May 15, 1991, pp.
3-1-3-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 112(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act gives the Administrator
discretion to distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources in
a category when establishing emissions standards under section 112(d).
EPA is not proposing to subcategorize the paints and allied products
manufacturing source category for purposes of the standards proposed in
today's action based on our conclusion that there are no
distinguishable differences in the grinding and mixing processes, which
produce most of the HAP at paints and allied products manufacturing
facilities. EPA solicits comments on its proposal to establish GACT
standards for this source category without distinguishing among the
sources based on class, type, or size. Commenters who believe EPA
should establish subcategories for this source category should provide
data to support their position.
Another consideration of GACT is the cost of compliance. To
estimate the cost impacts, we used the permit
[[Page 26150]]
information to estimate the percentage of the industry that already
uses an add-on particulate control device. The most prevalent
particulate control device used was a fabric or cartridge-type filter.
Therefore, we used these technologies to estimate the annual cost of
adding a particulate control device to a paints and allied products
manufacturing facility, which was calculated to be $6,700. The total
cost of requiring fabric filters on the estimated number of facilities
that currently do not operate a particulate control device would be $3
million and would reduce metal HAP emission by 4.2 tons/yr (3.8 Mg/yr).
In addition, this regulation as proposed would reduce particulate
matter emissions by 6,300 tons/yr (5,700 Mg/yr), and fine particulate
emissions (PM2.5) by 3,000 tons per year (2,700 Mg/yr).
For metal HAP, this rule proposes that all owners or operators of
existing facilities route emissions from their pigment and solids
addition processes to a particulate control device and that visible
emissions from the particulate control device shall not exceed 5
percent opacity when averaged over a six-minute period. The
manufacturing processes include the addition of pigments and other
solids to the process vessels, and grinding and milling of pigments and
solids. After the addition processes, the pigment and associated metal
HAP are in solution, and metal HAP emissions are minimal.
The manufacturer's specifications for maintenance and all other
functioning parameters must be followed. The particulate control device
must be designed and operated so that visible emissions from the unit
shall not exceed 5 percent opacity when averaged over a six-minute
period.
c. Reduction of All HAP Emissions in the Paints Manufacturing Process
The control technology and management practices proposed in this
rule are equally effective at controlling emissions of HAP other than
the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing volatile and metal HAP.
Applying the proposed standards to only the Paints and Allied Products
Manufacturing HAP would require the facility to speciate HAP, as
opposed to measuring total HAP when demonstrating compliance. This
would require the facility to measure only the Paints and Allied
Products Manufacturing metal HAP, which is mixed in with the other
particulate matter emissions, and is a small percentage of the total.
Applying the proposed standards to only the Paints and Allied Products
Manufacturing urban HAP would require the facility to use different
test methods to quantify these HAP emissions, which would increase
compliance costs with no environmental benefits.
We are proposing to apply the standard to all HAP, as many of the
area sources emit a significant amount of HAP in addition to the paints
and allied products manufacturing urban HAP (for example, the listed
HAP are only four percent of total HAP emissions at paints and allied
products manufacturing facilities). Facilities that process, use, or
generate HAP, but do not process, use, or generate any of the Paints
and Allied Products volatile and metal HAP are not subject to the
requirements of this NESHAP.
We have determined that sources would not have to install different
controls or implement different management practices to implement the
proposed standards for all HAP. Also, as part of the GACT analysis, we
have found that the costs of applying the proposed standards to all HAP
emissions from this source category are reasonable. For all of these
reasons, we propose to apply these standards to all volatile HAP
emissions in the manufacturing process and all metal HAP emissions from
the preassembly/premix and grinding/milling steps of the manufacturing
operations at paints and allied products manufacturing area sources,
once the applicability criteria set forth in CCCCCCC are met. We
request comment on the environmental, cost, and economic impacts of
this approach.
E. How Did We Select the Compliance Requirements?
We are proposing notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements to ensure compliance with this proposed rule. We are
requiring an Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance Status
because these requirements are consistent with Sec. 63.9 of the
General Provisions of this part.
For demonstrating ongoing compliance, the proposed requirements
include daily, weekly, and annual inspections, semi-annual visible
emission testing, monthly checklists and annual certifications that the
management practices are being followed and the particulate control
device is being properly operated according to manufacturer
instructions. Based on our data, most facilities currently operate at
the GACT level of control and almost all of the affected facilities are
small businesses. Therefore, we are proposing a requirement that would
ensure compliance without placing an undue burden on the affected
facilities. We believe the proposed requirements for monthly
checklists, particulate control device inspections, visible emissions
testing, and annual certifications achieve that objective, and can be
adequately done by facility employees.
Under this proposed rule, each facility would prepare an annual
compliance certification and keep it on site in a readily-accessible
location. Facilities would be required to submit this annual compliance
certification as a report only if there are any deviations from the
work practice requirements during the year, and would include a
description of the deviation with their compliance certification
report. Deviations may include, but are not limited to, exceeding the
opacity standard or failure to meet any requirements or management
practices established in this proposed rule. We recognize that most of
these facilities are small businesses; therefore we are requiring the
submission of this annual compliance certification report only if
deviations occur during the year so that there is not an undue economic
burden.
We are proposing that existing affected sources must achieve
compliance two years after the final rule is published in the Federal
Register. Because some facilities may be subject to EPA rules for the
first time and because most of these facilities are small businesses,
with 50 percent of them having less than 10 employees, we believe the
2-year period would provide ample time for facilities to identify any
changes that are needed to comply with the control technology,
management practices, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements and
institute those changes. All new affected sources would be required to
comply upon the date of publication of the final rule, or startup,
whichever is later.
F. How Did We Decide To Propose To Exempt This Area Source Category
From Title V Permitting Requirements?
We are proposing to exempt affected facilities in the Paint and
Allied Products Manufacturing area source category from title V
permitting requirements for the reasons described below.
Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA
[[Page 26151]]
section 502 and developed a four-factor balancing test for determining
whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area
source category, such that an exemption from title V is appropriate.
See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements,
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that are proposed
for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70
FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR
75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the
proposed NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title
V permits (70 FR 75326).
In discussing these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further
explained that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to
which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for
a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered
together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V
requirements would be `unnecessarily burdensome' on the category,
consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in
the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the four factors must
weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category.
Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA
determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption
from title V for a particular source category.
In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether
exempting the area source category would adversely affect public
health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25,
2005. We propose that requiring compliance with title V for this area
source category would be unnecessarily burdensome. We further propose
that the exemption from title V would not adversely affect public
health, welfare or the environment. Our rationale for this decision
follows.
In considering the proposed exemption from title V requirements for
sources in the category affected by this proposed rule, we first
compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements (factor one) to the requirements in this proposed NESHAP
for the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing area source category.
Title V requires periodic testing or monitoring to ensure compliance.
One way that title V may improve compliance is by requiring monitoring
(including recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring) to assure
compliance with the emissions limitations and control technology
requirements imposed in the standard. This proposed standard would
provide for monitoring in the form of visual emissions and opacity
testing that would assure compliance with the requirements of this
proposed rule. This proposed NESHAP would also require the preparation
of an annual compliance certification report and submission of this
report if there are any deviations during the year, which will identify
for the agency implementing this rule those facilities with compliance
issues, in the same way as a title V permit. Records would be required
to ensure that the compliance requirements are followed and any needed
corrective actions are taken, including such records as results of the
visual emissions and opacity tests and the resulting corrective actions
such as replacing a torn fabric filter bag. Therefore, this proposed
rule contains monitoring sufficient to assure compliance with the
requirements of this proposed rule.
In addition, title V imposes a number of recordkeeping and
reporting requirements that may be important for assuring compliance.
These include requirements for a monitoring report at least every 6
months, prompt reports of deviations, and an annual compliance
certification. See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3), 40 CFR
70.6(c)(1) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(1), and 40 CFR 70.6(c)(5) and 40 CFR
71.6(c)(5). This proposed NESHAP would also require an annual
compliance certification report and submission of this report if there
are any deviations during the year, which should call attention to
those facilities in need of supervision to the State agency in the same
way as a title V permit. Records would be required to ensure that the
control technology requirements and management practices are followed,
including records about particulate matter control maintenance and
Material Safety Data Sheets for all HAP and materials containing HAP as
processed, used, or generated in the manufacturing process.
We also considered the extent to which title V could potentially
enhance compliance for area sources covered by this NESHAP through
recordkeeping or reporting requirements. For any affected paints and
allied products manufacturing area source facility, the proposed NESHAP
would require an initial notification and a compliance status report,
which would include certifications by responsible officials that the
facilities are in compliance and will continue to comply with the
NESHAP. In addition, the affected facilities must maintain records
showing compliance. The required records are similar to the information
that must be provided in the deviation reports required under 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
We believe the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in this proposed rule are sufficient to assure compliance
with the requirements of this proposed rule. Therefore, we conclude
that title V would not result in significant improvements to the
compliance requirements we are proposing for this area source category.
Under the second factor, we determined whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency.
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated
that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit
was $65,700 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See
Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit
Regulations, June 2007, EPA ICR Number 1587.07.
EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens and costs of
permitting Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing area sources;
however, there are certain activities associated with the part 70 and
71 rules. These activities are mandatory and impose burdens on any
facility subject to title V. They include reading and understanding
permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and understanding
permit application forms;
[[Page 26152]]
answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the
application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit;
collecting records; preparing monitoring reports on a 6-month or more
frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as
defined by the State, which may include a combination of written,
verbal, and other communications methods; collecting information,
preparing, and submitting the annual compliance certification;
preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as
needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit revisions. In
addition, although not required by the permit rules, many sources
obtain the contractual services of consultants to help them understand
and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR for part 70
provides additional information on the overall burdens and costs, as
well as the relative burdens of each activity described here. Also, for
a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources
(hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5,
70.6, and 70.7.
We found that almost all of the approximately 2,190 paints and
allied products manufacturing facilities that would be affected by this
proposed rule are small entities; over half have nine or fewer
employees. As discussed previously, title V permitting would impose
significant costs on these area sources, and, accordingly, we conclude
that title V is a significant burden for sources in this category. More
than 90 percent of the facilities that would be subject to this
proposed rule are small entities with limited resources, and under
title V they would be subject to numerous mandatory activities with
which they would have difficulty complying, whether they were issued a
standard or a general permit. Furthermore, given the number of sources
in the category and the relatively small size of many of those sources,
it would likely be difficult for them to obtain sufficient assistance
from the permitting authority. Thus, we conclude that factor two
supports title V exemption for paints and allied products manufacturing
facilities.
The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. We explained above under the second
factor that the economic and non-economic costs of compliance with
title V would impose a significant burden on many paint and allied
products manufacturing facilities. We also conclude in considering the
first factor that, while title V might impose additional requirements,
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the
proposed NESHAP are adequate to assure compliance with the control
technology and management practices proposed in the NESHAP. In
addition, in our consideration of the fourth factor as discussed below,
we find that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs
in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both
economic and non-economic, of compliance with title V are high, and the
potential for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is not
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor
supports title V exemptions for paints and allied products
manufacturing area sources.
The fourth factor we considered in determining whether title V
permitting for this area source category is unnecessarily burdensome is
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that
are sufficient to assure compliance with this NESHAP without relying on
title V permits. EPA has implemented regulations that provide States
the opportunity to take delegation of area source NESHAP, and we
believe that State-delegated programs are sufficient to assure
compliance with this NESHAP. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E; States must
have adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and
provide assurances that they will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will
delegate the program. Furthermore, EPA retains authority to enforce
this NESHAP at any time under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. In
addition, small business assistance programs required by CAA section
507 may be used to assist area sources that have been exempted from
title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary
compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance
assistance programs), which are not required by statute. These
additional programs would supplement and enhance the success of
compliance with this area source NESHAP. We believe that the statutory
requirements for implementation and enforcement of this NESHAP by the
delegated States and EPA and the additional assistance programs
described above together are sufficient to assure compliance with this
area source NESHAP without relying on title V permitting.
In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data demonstrating that States were not only enforcing the
provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted, but that the
States were also providing compliance assistance to assure that the
area sources were in the best position to comply with the NESHAP. See
70 FR 75325-75326. Although we do not have similar data in this case
because the paints and allied products manufacturing area source NESHAP
has yet to be promulgated and enforced, we have no reason to think that
States will be less diligent in enforcing this NESHAP. In fact, States
must have adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and
provide assurances that they will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will
delegate the program. See 40 CFR part 63, General Provisions, subpart
E.
In light of all of the information presented here, we conclude that
there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are
sufficient to assure compliance with the paint and allied products
manufacturing NESHAP without relying on title V permitting. Balancing
the four factors for this area source category strongly supports the
proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome. While title
V might add additional compliance requirements if imposed, we believe
that there would not be significant improvements to compliance with the
NESHAP, because the requirements in this proposed rule are sufficient
to assure compliance with the standards and management practices
imposed on this area source category. Thus, we propose that title V
permitting is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' for the paints and allied
products manufacturing area source category.
In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA also considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting this area source category from title V
requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment. Exemption of the paints and allied products manufacturing
category from the title V requirements would not have an adverse affect
on public health, welfare, or the environment because the level of
control would remain the same if a permit were required. The title V
permit program does not impose new substantive air quality control
requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural
measures be followed, particularly with
[[Page 26153]]
respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As
stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V
would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance
requirements applicable to existing or new area sources.
One of the primary purposes of the title V permitting program is to
clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes complex
regulations that apply to sources in order to improve understanding of
these requirements and to help sources to achieve compliance with the
requirements. In this case, however, we do not believe that a title V
permit is necessary to understand the requirements that would be
applicable to these area sources because the requirements of the rule
are not difficult to implement. The vast majority of NSPS and NESHAP
standards apply only to major sources, with only a small number of such
standards regulating any activities at area sources. Because there are
so few standards that regulate areas sources, the likelihood that
multiple NSPS or NESHAP would apply to these area sources is low. We
also have no reason to think that new sources would be substantially
different from the existing sources. In addition, we explained in the
Exemption Rule that requiring permits could, at least in the first few
years of implementation, potentially adversely affect public health,
welfare, or the environment by shifting State agency resources away
from ensuring compliance for major sources with existing permits to
issuing new permits for these area sources, potentially reducing
overall air program effectiveness. We therefore conclude that title V
exemptions for the paints and allied products manufacturing area
sources will not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment for all of the reasons explained above.
For the reasons stated here, we are proposing to exempt the Paints
and Allied Products Manufacturing area source category from title V
permitting requirements.
V. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Standards
A. What Are the Air Impacts?
Area sources in the paints and allied products manufacturing
category have made significant emission reductions since 1990 through
product reformulation, process and cleaning changes, installation of
control equipment, and as a result of OSHA regulations. Affected
sources appear to be well-controlled, and our proposed GACT
determination reflects such controls. For the sources that would be
required to install emission controls to meet the emission limits
specified in this proposed rule, we estimated the 2002 nationwide
emissions of all of the paints and allied products manufacturing HAP
(including total metal HAP and volatile HAP) to be 4,800 tons/yr (4,300
Mg/yr).
Based on our data, we estimate that 21 percent of the facilities,
or 460 area sources, do not have particulate controls installed.
Through compliance with this rule as proposed, these facilities would
reduce total PM emissions by 6,300 tons/yr (5,700 Mg/yr), total metal
HAP emissions by 4.2 tons/yr (3.8 Mg/yr), and listed urban metal HAP
(cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel) emissions by 0.13 tons/yr (0.11 Mg/
yr).
We estimate that requiring the use of covers on process vessels as
proposed in this rule would reduce nationwide volatile HAP emissions of
the paints and allied products manufacturing area source category by
about 169 tons/yr (153 Mg/yr), and listed urban volatile HAP (benzene,
methylene chloride) emissions by 5.1 tons/yr (4.6 Mg/yr). These
emission reduction estimates are based on the assumption that 5 percent
of the existing paints and allied products manufacturing facilities
would add covers to their process vessels, and that the covers will
achieve a 40 percent reduction in volatile HAP emissions.
We do not anticipate any indirect or secondary air impacts of this
rule as proposed. The use of process vessel covers does not require any
energy to be employed at existing paints and allied products
manufacturing facilities.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
In this analysis, two types of control options were investigated.
The first type looked at potential control options for controlling
volatile HAP. The second type looked at potential control options for
controlling metal HAP. Costs for these options were developed for two
model plants that are typical of the paints and allied products
manufacturing industry.
Based on the cost effectiveness calculations, process covers are
the most cost effective option of reducing volatile HAP emissions from
process vessels. The cost effectiveness of applying covers to the
process vessels was calculated to be $34 per ton of volatile HAP
reduced for a small model plant and $28 per ton of volatile HAP reduced
for a large model plant. These costs were conservatively estimated
assuming that 15 percent of the process vessels would be required to be
covered. When all VOC emissions are taken into account, the total cost
was considerably lower at $3 per ton of VOC removed for both small and
large model plants.
Per industry feedback, we know that 2-percent of the product will
evaporate during the manufacturing process if the vessels are not
covered. We estimated that it would cost $38,000 in total capital costs
and $5,500 annually for the 110 facilities that will be required to
install process vessel covers to meet the requirements of this rule.
However the rule would also provide a cost savings to these same
facilities, because they will have more coatings product at the end of
the manufacturing process.
We determined that a particulate control device is GACT for
reducing metal HAP emissions. The cost effectiveness was calculated to
be $1.6 million per ton of metal HAP removed for a small model plant,
and $330,000 per ton of metal HAP removed for the large model plant.
For particulate emissions, the cost effectiveness for a small model
plant was calculated to be $1,200 per ton of PM removed, and $200 per
ton of PM removed for the large model plant. For fine particulate
emissions, the cost effectiveness was determined to be $2,500 per ton
of PM2.5 removed for small model plants, and $500 per ton of
PM2.5 removed for large model plants. Even though the metal
HAP cost effectiveness values are high, we believe that the PM and
PM2.5 cost effectiveness values are reasonable.
Additionally, the reduction of particulate matter would improve
workplace safety and reduce the cross contamination of coating
products.
The estimated total capital costs of this proposed rule for
existing sources are $8.1 million for installing particulate control
devices. The estimated annualized cost of the proposed rule for
existing sources would be $3.1 million per year. The annualized costs
account for the annualized capital costs of purchasing disposable
process vessel covers for the existing facilities that would be
required to install new emission controls, and the annualized cost of
installing a particulate control device to facilities that currently do
not have particulate control. The other affected facilities would incur
costs only for submitting the notifications and for annual control
device inspections because those facilities already meet the control,
monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements that would be required under
the proposed rule. The cost associated with recordkeeping and the one-
time reporting requirements is estimated to be $147 per facility.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with the rule and the
[[Page 26154]]
distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role
in determining how the market will change in response to a rule. Total
annualized costs for the rule are estimated to be $3.1 million. Four
hundred and sixty facilities are projected to incur costs because of
the proposed rule (79% of the 2,190 facilities are projected to incur
no costs because they already meet the control requirements).
The cost to sales ratio is estimated to assess the impact on the
affected facilities. Two sizes were used for the facilities and high,
average, and low prices were used for the product. Cost to sales ratios
range from 0.19 percent for the small model plant with the lowest
($3.50 per gallon price) to 0.001 percent for the large model plant
with the highest price ($19.91 per gallon). Thus all of the 2,190
facilities are projected to have a cost to sales ratio below 1.0
percent. The average cost to sales ratio is expected to be around 0.13
percent. Thus this regulation is not expected to have significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The costs are so
small that the impact is not expected to be significant. These small
costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact whether
they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed.
In terms of economic impacts, this proposed standard is estimated
to impact a total of 2,190 area source facilities, which are all small
entities. Our analysis indicates that this proposed rule would not
impose a significant adverse impact on any facilities, large or small.
D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts?
To comply with the rule as proposed, we expect that affected
facilities would control emissions by installing, operating, and
maintaining a particulate control device, and using process vessel
covers; none of these controls generate wastewater. Therefore, we
project that this rule as proposed would have no impact on water
emissions.
There were few data available on the amount of solid and hazardous
waste disposed of from the paints and allied products manufacturing
industry. The main source of solid waste comes from the collected
particulate from the particulate control device. Other sources of solid
waste include rags used for cleaning and coatings that do not meet
customer specifications. If facilities switch to producing low HAP
coatings or use low HAP cleaning materials, the amount of hazardous
waste would greatly decrease. The actual amount depends on several
variables, including the type of manufactured coatings, the cleaners
used, and number of facilities switching to low HAP or wetted pigments.
It was assumed that there would be no significant waste disposal
impacts because many of the facilities are producing low HAP coatings.
The few facilities required to install and operate monitoring devices
or systems would collect small amounts of metal HAP. Therefore, minimal
additional solid waste would be generated as a result of the metal HAP
emissions collected. If a facility switches from solvent-based coating
to a water-based coating there should be a reduction in the amount of
solid waste produced due to the use of nonvolatile materials.
Energy impacts consist of the fuel (natural gas) needed to operate
the combustion-based control device (thermal oxidizer) that is used to
comply with the regulatory alternatives. It also includes the amount of
electricity to operate the control devices. The estimated electricity
and fuel impacts are already included in the annual cost of the control
technologies. No additional energy is required for the process vessel
covers or other management practices.
No detrimental secondary impacts are expected to occur because 79
percent of all existing facilities are currently achieving the GACT
level of control. There are no additional energy impacts associated
with operation of the control devices or monitoring systems.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
the OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2348.01.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule
are based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40
CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements
in the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data
submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements
for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according
to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40
CFR part 2, subpart B.
This proposed NESHAP would require Paints and Allied Product
Manufacturing area sources to submit an Initial Notification and a
Notification of Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40
CFR 63.9 of the General Provisions (subpart A). The annual burden for
this information collection averaged over the first three years of this
ICR is estimated to be a total of 2,887 labor hours per year at a cost
of $322,009 or approximately $147 per facility.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0053]. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after June 1, 2009, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it by July 1, 2009. The final rule will respond
to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
[[Page 26155]]
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201; (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 this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule is estimated to impact a total of almost 2,200 area
source paints and allied products manufacturing facilities; over ninety
percent of these facilities are estimated to be small entities. We have
determined that small entity compliance costs, as assessed by the
facilities' cost-to-sales ratio, are expected to be approximately 0.13
percent for the estimated 460 facilities that would not initially be in
compliance. Although this proposed rule contains requirements for new
area sources, we are not aware of any new area sources being
constructed now or planned in the next 3 years, and consequently, we
did not estimate any impacts for new sources.
Although this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. The
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout
the paints and allied products industry. The standards also require
only the essential recordkeeping and reporting needed to demonstrate
and verify compliance. These standards were developed in consultation
with small business representatives on the State and national level and
the trade associations that represent small businesses.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any
one year. This proposed rule is not expected to impact State, local, or
tribal governments. The nationwide annualized cost of this proposed
rule for affected industrial sources is $3.1 million/yr. Thus, this
proposed rule would not be subject to the requirements of sections 202
and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
This proposed rule would also not be subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed
rule would not apply to such governments and would impose no
obligations upon them.
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 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.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule does not
impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have
Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This
proposed rule imposes no requirements on Tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
Tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology
performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed 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. Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. Existing energy
requirements for this industry would not be significantly impacted by
the additional controls or other equipment that may be required by this
rule.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
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, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, we
[[Page 26156]]
identified no such standards, and none were brought to our attention in
comments. Therefore, EPA has decided to use EPA Method 9.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This proposed rule would establish national
standards for the Paints and Allied Products area source category. The
nationwide standards would reduce HAP emissions and thus decrease the
amount of emissions to which all affected populations are exposed.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 22, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--[AMENDED]
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart CCCCCCC to read as follows:
Subpart CCCCCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec.
63.11599 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11600 What are my compliance dates?
Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements
63.11601 What are the standards for new and existing paints and
allied products manufacturing facilities?
63.11602 What are the performance test and compliance requirements
for new and existing sources?
63.11603 What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?
63.11604 [RESERVED]
Other Requirements and Information
63.11605 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
63.11606 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.11607 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11608--63.11638 [RESERVED]
Tables to Subpart CCCCCCC of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart CCCCCCC of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart CCCCCCC
Subpart CCCCCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Paints and Allied Products
Manufacturing
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.11599 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a
facility that performs paints and allied products manufacturing that is
an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions and
processes, uses, or generates materials containing one or more of the
following HAP: benzene, methylene chloride, and compounds of cadmium,
chromium, lead, and nickel.
(b) The affected source consists of all paints and allied products
manufacturing processes at the facility.
(1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on or before June 1, 2009.
(2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source after June 1, 2009.
(c) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a).
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with
the provisions of this subpart.
Sec. 63.11600 What are my compliance dates?
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with applicable provisions in this subpart by 2
years after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register.
(b) If you start up a new affected source on or before the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, you must achieve
compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by no later
than the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
(c) If you start up a new affected source after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, you must achieve
compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart upon startup
of your affected source.
Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.11601 What are the standards for new and existing paints and
allied products manufacturing facilities?
(a) For each new and affected source, you must capture particulate
emissions and route them to a particulate control device meeting the
requirements of this section during the addition of pigments and other
solids and during the grinding and milling of pigments and solids.
(1) For new and existing affected sources, visible 5 percent
opacity when averaged over a six-minute period.
(2) [RESERVED]
(b) For each new and existing affected source, you must comply with
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Process and storage vessels, except for process vessels which
are mixing vessels, must be equipped with covers or lids meeting the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
These vessels must be kept covered when not in use.
(i) The covers or lids can be of solid or flexible construction,
provided they do not warp or move around during the manufacturing
process.
(ii) The covers or lids must maintain contact along at least 90
percent of the vessel rim.
(iii) The covers or lids must be maintained in good condition.
(2) Mixing vessels must be equipped with covers that completely
cover the vessel, except for safe clearance of the
[[Page 26157]]
mixer shaft. The vessels must be kept covered during the manufacturing
process, except for operator access for quality control testing of the
product, and during the addition of pigments or other materials used to
meet the final product specifications.
(3) Leaks and spills of materials containing volatile HAP must be
immediately minimized and cleaned up.
(4) Waste solvent rags or other materials used for cleaning must be
kept in closed storage vessels.
Sec. 63.11602 What are the performance test and compliance
requirements for new and existing sources?
(a) For each new and existing affected source, you must demonstrate
initial compliance by conducting the inspection and monitoring
activities in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and ongoing compliance
by conducting the inspection and testing activities in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section.
(1) Initial particulate control device inspections and tests. You
must conduct an initial inspection of each particulate control device
according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of
this section and perform a visible emissions test according to the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section. You must record
the results of each inspection and test according to paragraph (b) of
this section and perform corrective action where necessary. You must
conduct each inspection no later than 60 days after your applicable
compliance date for each control device which has been operated within
60 days following the compliance date. For a control device which has
not been installed or operated within 60 days following the compliance
date, you must conduct an initial inspection prior to startup of the
control device.
(i) For each wet particulate control system, you must verify the
presence of water flow to the control equipment. You must also visually
inspect the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks and inspect
the interior of the control equipment (if applicable) for structural
integrity and the condition of the control system.
(ii) For each dry particulate control system, you must visually
inspect the system ductwork and dry particulate control unit for leaks.
You must also inspect the inside of each dry particulate control unit
for structural integrity and condition.
(iii) An initial inspection of the internal components of a wet or
dry particulate control system is not required if there is a record
that an inspection has been performed within the past 12 months and any
maintenance actions have been resolved.
(iv) For each particulate control device, you must conduct an
initial 30 minute visible emission test using Method 9 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-4). If the results of the visible emissions test indicate an
opacity greater than the applicable limitation in Sec. 63.11601(a),
you must take corrective action according to the equipment
manufacturer's specifications or instructions and retest within 15
days.
(2) Ongoing particulate control device inspections and tests.
Following the initial inspections, you must perform periodic
inspections of each PM control device according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section. You must record the
results of each inspection according to paragraph (b) of this section
and perform corrective action where necessary. You must also conduct
tests according to the requirements in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this
section and record the results according to paragraph (b) of this
section.
(i) You must inspect and maintain each wet control system according
to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) through (C) of this
section.
(A) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the presence of
water flow to the wet particulate control system.
(B) You must conduct weekly visual inspections of the system
ductwork and wet particulate control equipment for leaks.
(C) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the wet control
system (if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and
condition of the control equipment every 12 months.
(ii) You must inspect and maintain each dry particulate control
unit according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) and (B)
of this section.
(A) You must conduct weekly visual inspections of the system
ductwork for leaks.
(B) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the dry
particulate control unit for structural integrity and to determine the
condition of the fabric filter (if applicable) every 12 months.
(iii) For each particulate control device, you must conduct a 30
minute visible emission test every 6 months using Method 9 (40 CFR part
60, appendix A-4). If the results of the visible emissions test
indicate an opacity greater than the applicable limitation in Sec.
63.11601(a), you must take corrective action according to the equipment
manufacturer's specifications or instructions and retest within 15
days.
(b) You must record the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (6) of this section for each inspection and testing activity.
(1) The date, place, and time;
(2) Person conducting the activity;
(3) Technique or method used;
(4) Operating conditions during the activity;
(5) Results; and
(6) Description of correction actions taken.
Sec. 63.11603 What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?
(a) Notifications. You must submit the notifications identified in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Initial Notification of Applicability. If you own or operate an
existing affected source, you must submit an initial notification of
applicability required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2) no later than 120 days after
the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. If
you own or operate a new affected source, you must submit an initial
notification of applicability required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2) no later
than 120 days after initial start-up of the operations or 120 days
after the date of publication in the Federal Register, whichever is
later. The notification of applicability must include the information
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The name and address of the owner or operator;
(ii) The address (i.e., physical location) of the affected source;
and
(iii) An identification of the relevant standard, or other
requirement, that is the basis of the notification and the source's
compliance date.
(2) Notification of Compliance Status. If you own or operate an
existing affected source, you must submit a Notification of Compliance
Status in accordance with Sec. 63.9(h) of the General Provisions
within 2 years and 120 days after the date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. If you are the owner of a new affected
source, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status within 120
days after initial start-up, or by 120 days after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, whichever is
later. This Notification of Compliance Status must include the
information specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Your company's name and address;
(ii) A statement by a responsible official with that official's
name, title, phone number, e-mail address and
[[Page 26158]]
signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the
notification, a description of the method of compliance (i.e.,
compliance with management practices, installation of a wet or dry
scrubber) and a statement of whether the source has complied with all
the relevant standards and other requirements of this subpart.
(b) Annual Compliance Certification Report. You must prepare an
annual compliance certification report according to the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section. This report does not
need to be submitted unless a deviation from the requirements of this
subpart has occurred. When a deviation from the requirements of this
subpart has occurred, the annual compliance certification report must
be submitted along with the deviation report.
(1) Dates. You must prepare and, if applicable, submit each annual
compliance certification report according to the dates specified in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The first annual compliance report must cover the first annual
reporting period which begins the day of the compliance date and ends
on December 31.
(ii) Each subsequent annual compliance report must cover the annual
reporting period from January 1 through December 31.
(iii) Each annual compliance report must be prepared no later than
January 31 and kept in a readily-accessible location for inspector
review. If a deviation has occurred during the year, each annual
compliance report must be submitted along with the deviation report,
and postmarked no later than February 15.
(2) General Requirements. The annual compliance certification
report must contain the information specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) Company name and address;
(ii) A statement in accordance with Sec. 63.9(h) of the General
Provisions that is signed by a responsible official with that
official's name, title, phone number, e-mail address and signature,
certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the notification
and a statement of whether the source has complied with all the
relevant standards and other requirements of this subpart; and
(iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period. The reporting period is the 12-month period beginning
on January 1 and ending on December 31.
(3) Deviation Report. If a deviation has occurred during the
reporting period, you must include a description of deviations from the
applicable requirements, the time periods during which the deviations
occurred, and the corrective actions taken. This deviation report must
be submitted along with your annual compliance report, as required by
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.
(c) Records. You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (4) of this section in accordance with paragraphs (c)(5)
through (7) of this section, for five years after the date of each
recorded action.
(1) As required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv), you must keep a copy of
each notification that you submitted in accordance with paragraph (a)
of this section, and all documentation supporting any Notification of
Applicability and Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted.
(2) You must keep a copy of each Annual Compliance Certification
Report prepared in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) You must keep a copy of the particulate control device
manufacturer specifications and recommendations on site at all times.
(4) You must keep records of all inspections and tests as required
by Sec. 63.11602(b).
(5) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(6) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each recorded action.
(7) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the
date of each recorded action according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You may
keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Sec. 63.11604 [RESERVED]
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.11605 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
Table 1 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.
Sec. 63.11606 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or
a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the
U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or
tribal agency pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, then that Agency
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 the U.S. EPA and
are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of an alternative nonopacity emissions standard under
Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in
Sec. 63.90
(3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f). A
''major change to monitoring'' is defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is
defined in Sec. 63.90. As required in Sec. 63.11432, you must comply
with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A) as shown in the following table.
Sec. 63.11607 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, Sec.
63.2, and in this section as follows:
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 management practices
established by this subpart;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement a 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 emissions limitation or management practice
in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of
whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
Fabric filter means an air collection and control system that that
utilizes a bag filter to reduce the emissions of metal HAP and other
particulate matter.
Material containing HAP means a material containing benzene,
methylene chloride, or compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, and/or
nickel, in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight, as
shown in formulation data provided by the
[[Page 26159]]
manufacturer or supplier, such as the Material Safety Data Sheet for
the material.
Paints and allied product means a material such as 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.
Paints and allied product manufacturing means the production of
paints, inks, adhesives, stains, varnishes, shellacs, putties, sealers,
caulks, and other coatings, the intended use of which is to leave a
dried film of solid material on a substrate. Paints and allied product
manufacturing does not include the manufacture of:
(1) Products that do not leave a dried film of solid material on
the substrate, such as thinners, paint removers, brush cleaners, and
mold release agents;
(2) Electroplated and electroless metal films; and
(3) Raw materials, such as resins, pigments, and solvents used in
the production of paints and coatings.
Paints and allied product manufacturing process means all the
equipment which collectively function to produce a paints or allied
product. A process may consist of one or more unit operations. For the
purposes of this subpart, the manufacturing process includes any, all,
or a combination of, weighing, blending, mixing, grinding, tinting,
dilution or other formulation. Cleaning operations are considered part
of the manufacturing process. Quality assurance and quality control
laboratories are not considered part of a paints and allied product
manufacturing process.
Particulate control device means the air pollution control
equipment used to remove PM from the effluent gas stream generated by a
reaction vessel.
Process vessel means any stationary or portable tank or other
vessel of any capacity and in which mixing, blending, diluting,
dissolving, temporary holding, and other processing steps occur in the
manufacturing of a coating.
Storage vessel means a tank, container or other vessel that is used
to store organic liquids that contain one or more of the listed HAP as
raw material feedstocks or products. It also includes objects, such as
rags or other containers which are stored in the vessel. The following
are not considered storage vessels 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.
Sec. 63.11608-63.11638 [RESERVED]
Table 1 to Subpart CCCCCCC of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Area Sources
As required in Sec. 63.11599, you must meet each requirement in
the following table that applies to you.
Part 63 General Provisions to be incorporated for Paints and Allied
Products Manufacturing Area Sources:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Citation Subject subpart CCCCCCC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1 \1\....................... Applicability......... Yes.
63.2........................... Definitions........... Yes.
63.3........................... Units and Yes.
abbreviations.
63.4........................... Prohibited activities. Yes.
63.5........................... Preconstruction review No.
and notification
requirements.
63.6(a),(b)(1)-(b)(5),(c), Compliance with Yes.
(e)(1),(f)(2), (f)(3),(g),(i), standards and
(j). maintenance
requirements.
63.7........................... Performance testing No.
requirements.
63.8........................... Monitoring No.
requirements.
63.9(a)-(d),(i), and (j)....... Notification Yes.
requirements.
63.10(a),(b)(1),(d)(1)......... Recordkeeping and Yes.
reporting.
63.11.......................... Control device and No.
work practice
requirements.
63.12.......................... State authority and Yes.
delegations.
63.13.......................... Addresses of State air Yes.
pollution control
agencies and EPA
regional offices.
63.14.......................... Incororation by Yes.
reference.
63.15.......................... Availability of Yes.
information and
confidentiality.
63.16.......................... Performance track Yes.
provisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sec. 63.11599(c), ``Am I subject to this subpart?'' exempts
affected sources from the obligation to obtain title V operating
permits.
[FR Doc. E9-12563 Filed 5-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P