VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78629 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules 6 See http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ nata. 7 See http:// www. atsdr. cdc. gov/ toxpro2. html. 8 `` A Tiered Modeling Approach for Assessing the Risks due to Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' EPA   450/ 4   92   001. David E. Guinnup, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, March 1992. 9 `` Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.'' NCEA   F   0644. USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, July 1999. pp 3   9ff. http:// www. epa. gov/ ncea/ raf/ pdfs/ cancer_ gls. pdf. possibly on a national or regional basis. These data would be used to estimate the exposures to HAP from activities other than automobile and light duty truck surface coating operations. For example, EPA's National Scale Air Toxics Assessment ( NATA) 6 and ATSDR's Toxicological Profiles 7 contain information about background concentrations of some HAP in the atmosphere and other media. The combined exposures from an affected source and from background emissions ( as determined from the literature or studies) would then not be allowed to exceed a HI limit of 1.0. The EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of setting the HI limit at one for such an analysis. A fourth option is to allow facilities to estimate or measure their own facility specific background HAP concentrations for use in their analysis. With regard to the third and fourth options, EPA requests comment on how these analyses could be structured. Specifically, EPA requests comment on how the analyses should take into account background exposure levels from air, water, food, and soil encountered by the individuals exposed to emissions from this source category. In addition, we request comment on how such analyses should account for potential increases in exposures due to the use of a new HAP or the increased use of a previously emitted HAP, or the effect of other nearby sources that release HAP. The EPA requests comment on the feasibility and scientific validity of each of these or other options. Finally, EPA requests comment on how we should implement the section 112( d)( 4) applicability cutoffs, including appropriate mechanisms for applying cutoffs to individual facilities. For example, would the title V permit process provide an appropriate mechanism? Tiered analytical approach for predicting exposure. Establishing that a facility meets the cutoffs established under section 112( d)( 4) will necessarily involve combining estimates of pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. The EPA envisions that we would promote a tiered analysis for these determinations. A tiered analysis involves making successive refinements in modeling methodologies and input data to derive successively less conservative, more realistic estimates of pollutant concentrations in air and estimates of risk. As a first tier of analysis, EPA could develop a series of simple look up tables based on the results of air dispersion modeling conducted using conservative input assumptions. By specifying a limited number of input parameters, such as stack height, distance to property line, and emission rate, a facility could use these look up tables to determine easily whether the emissions from their sources might cause a HI limit to be exceeded. A facility that does not pass this initial conservative screening analysis could implement increasingly more sitespecific and resource intensive tiers of analysis using EPA approved modeling procedures in an attempt to demonstrate that exposure to emissions from the facility does not exceed the HI limit. Existing EPA guidance could provide the basis for conducting such a tiered analysis. 8 The EPA requests comment on methods for constructing and implementing a tiered analysis for determining applicability of the section 112( d)( 4) criteria to specific automobile and light duty truck surface coating sources. Ambient monitoring data could possibly be used to supplement or supplant the tiered modeling analysis described above. We envision that the appropriate monitoring to support such a determination could be extensive. The EPA requests comment on the appropriate use of monitoring in the determinations described above. Accounting for dose response relationships. In the past, EPA routinely treated carcinogens as non threshold pollutants. The EPA recognizes that advances in risk assessment science and policy may affect the way EPA differentiates between threshold and non threshold HAP. The EPA's draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 9 suggest that carcinogens be assigned non linear dose response relationships where data warrant. Moreover, it is possible that doseresponse curves for some pollutants may reach zero risk at a dose greater than zero, creating a threshold for carcinogenic effects. It is possible that future evaluations of the carcinogens emitted by this source category would determine that one or more of the carcinogens in the category is a threshold carcinogen or is a carcinogen that exhibits a non linear dose response relationship but does not have a threshold. The dose response assessment for formaldehyde is currently undergoing revision by EPA. As part of this revision effort, EPA is evaluating formaldehyde as a potential non linear carcinogen. The revised dose response assessment will be subject to review by the EPA Science Advisory Board, followed by full consensus review, before adoption into the EPA's IRIS. At this time, EPA estimates that the consensus review will be completed by the end of 2003. The revision of the dose response assessment could affect the potency factor of formaldehyde, as well as its status as a threshold or non threshold pollutant. At this time, the outcome is not known. In addition to the current reassessment by EPA, there have been several reassessments of the toxicity and carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in recent years, including work by the World Health Organization and the Canadian Ministry of Health. The EPA requests comment on how we should consider the state of the science as it relates to the treatment of threshold pollutants when making determinations under section 112( d)( 4). In addition, EPA requests comment on whether there is a level of emissions of a non threshold carcinogenic HAP at which it would be appropriate to allow a facility to use the scenarios discussed under the section 112( d)( 4) approach. Risk assessment results. The results of the human health risk assessments described below are based on approaches for quantifying exposure, risk, and cancer incidence that carry significant assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations. For example, in conducting these types of analyses, there are typically many uncertainties regarding dose response functions, levels of exposure, exposed populations, air quality modeling applications, emission levels, and control effectiveness. Because the estimates derived from the various scoping approaches are necessarily rough, we are concerned that they not convey a false sense of precision. Any point estimates of risk reduction or benefits generated by these approaches should be considered as part of a range of potential estimates. If the final rule is implemented as proposed at all automobile and lightduty truck surface coating facilities, the number of people exposed to HI values equal to, or greater than, one was estimated to be reduced from about 100 to about ten. The number of people exposed to HI values of 0.2 or greater was predicted to decrease from about VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78630 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules 3,500 to about 1,200. ( Details of these analyses are available in the docket.) Based on the results of this rough assessment, if the section 112( d)( 4) approach is applied only to threshold pollutants, EPA estimates that none of the facilities in this source category could obtain an exemption from regulation, since all, or nearly all, facilities emit some amount of one or more non threshold pollutants. This application of the section 112( d)( 4) approach is estimated to produce minimal potential cost savings. If formaldehyde and EGBE are determined to be threshold carcinogens, these estimates could change. The second scenario under the section 112( d)( 4) provision would apply to both threshold and non threshold pollutants. If this scenario is selected, EPA estimates, using a HI limit of one and treating 10 ¥ 6 as a cancer risk threshold, that as many as 54 of the facilities in the source category may be exempt from the proposed rule. The EPA estimates in this case that the annualized cost of the proposed rule would be about $ 9 million per year, resulting in cost savings of about $ 145 million per year ( as compared to establishing a MACT standard for all plants in the industry). Using a HI limit of 0.2 and treating 10 ¥ 6 as a cancer risk threshold, EPA estimates that as many as 41 facilities may be exempt from the proposed rule. The EPA estimates in this case that the annualized cost of the proposed rule would be about $ 66 million per year, resulting in cost savings of about $ 88 million per year ( as compared to establishing a MACT standard for all plants in the industry). The EPA does not expect the third scenario, which would allow emission point exemptions, to be applicable for the automobile and light duty truck surface coating source category because mixtures of threshold and non threshold pollutants are co emitted, and the same emission controls would apply to both. The risk estimates from this rough assessment are based on typical facility configurations ( i. e., model plants) and, as such, they are subject to significant uncertainties, such that the actual risks at any one facility could be significantly higher or lower. Therefore, while these risk estimates assist in providing a broad picture of impacts across the source category, they should not be the basis for an exemption from the requirements of the proposed rule. Rather, any such exemption should be based on an estimate of the facilityspecific risks which would require sitespecific data and a more refined analysis. For either of the first two approaches described above, the actual number of facilities that would qualify for an exemption would depend upon sitespecific risk assessments and the specified HI limit ( see earlier discussion of HI limit). If the section 112( d)( 4) approach were adopted, the requirements of the proposed rule would not apply to any source that demonstrates, based on a tiered analysis that includes EPA approved modeling of the affected source's emissions, that the anticipated HAP exposures do not exceed the specified HI limit.

3. Subcategory Delisting Under Section 112( c)( 9)( B) of the CAA The EPA is authorized to establish categories and subcategories of sources, as appropriate, pursuant to CAA section 112( c)( 1), in order to facilitate the development of MACT standards consistent with section 112 of the CAA. Further, section 112( c)( 9)( B) allows EPA to delete a category ( or subcategory) from the list of major sources for which MACT standards are to be developed when the following can be demonstrated: ( 1) In the case of carcinogenic pollutants, that ``* * * no source in the category * * * emits ( carcinogenic) air pollutants in quantities which may cause a lifetime risk of cancer greater than 1 in 1 million to the individual in the population who is most exposed to emissions of such pollutants from the source * * *''; ( 2) in the case of pollutants that cause adverse noncancer health effects, that ``* * * emissions from no source in the category or subcategory * * * exceed a level which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin of safety * * *''; and ( 3) in the case of pollutants that cause adverse environmental effects, that `` no adverse environmental effect will result from emissions from any source. * * *'' Given these authorities and the suggestions from the white papers prepared by industry representatives and discussed previously ( see docket A   2001   22), EPA is considering whether it would be possible to establish a subcategory of facilities within the larger source category that would meet the risk based criteria for delisting. Such criteria would likely include the same requirements as described previously for the second scenario under the section 112( d)( 4) approach, whereby a facility would be in the low risk subcategory if its emissions of threshold pollutants do not result in exposures which exceed the HI limits, and if its emissions of non threshold pollutants do not result in exposures which exceed a cancer risk level of 10 ¥ 6. The EPA requests comment on what an appropriate HI limit would be for a determination that a facility be included in the low risk subcategory. Since each facility in such a subcategory would be a low risk facility ( i. e., each would meet these criteria), the subcategory could be delisted in accordance with section 112( c)( 9), thereby limiting the costs and impacts of the proposed MACT rule to only those facilities that do not qualify for subcategorization and delisting. The EPA estimates that the maximum potential of utilizing this approach would be the same as that of applying the section 112( d)( 4) approach for threshold and non threshold pollutants, though the actual impact is likely to be less. For example, with a HI value limit of one and treating 10 ¥ 6 as a cancer risk threshold, as many as 54 of the facilities may be exempted under this approach. Alternatively, with a HI limit of 0.2 and treating 10 ¥ 6 as a cancer risk threshold, as many as 41 facilities may be exempted under this approach. Facilities seeking to be included in the delisted subcategory would be responsible for providing all data required to determine whether they are eligible for inclusion. Facilities that could not demonstrate that they are eligible to be included in the low risk subcategory would be subject to MACT and possible future residual risk standards. The EPA solicits comment on implementing a risk based approach for establishing subcategories of automobile and light duty truck surface coating facilities. Establishing that a facility qualifies for the low risk subcategory under section 112( c)( 9) will necessarily involve combining estimates of pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. The EPA envisions that we would employ the same tiered analysis described earlier in the section 112( d)( 4) discussion for these determinations. One concern that EPA has with respect to the section 112( c)( 9) approach is the effect that it could have on the MACT floors. If many of the facilities in the low risk subcategory are wellcontrolled that could make the MACT floor less stringent for the remaining facilities. One approach that has been suggested to mitigate this effect would be to establish the MACT floor now based on controls in place for the entire category and to allow facilities to become part of the low risk subcategory in the future, after the MACT standards are established. This would allow lowrisk facilities to use the section 112( c)( 9) exemption without affecting the MACT VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78631 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules floor calculation. The EPA requests comment on this suggested approach. Another scenario under the section 112( c)( 9) approach would be to define a subcategory of facilities within the source category based upon technological differences, such as differences in production rate, emission vent flow rates, overall facility size, emissions characteristics, processes, or air pollution control device viability. The EPA requests comment on how we might establish subcategories based on these, or other, source characteristics. If it could then be determined that each source in this technologically defined subcategory presents a low risk to the surrounding community, the subcategory could then be delisted in accordance with section 112( c)( 9). The EPA requests comment on the concept of identifying technologically based subcategories that may include only low risk facilities within the source category. If a section 112( c)( 9) approach were adopted, the requirements of the proposed rule would not apply to any source that demonstrates that it belongs in a subcategory which has been delisted under section 112( c)( 9). Consideration of criteria pollutants. Finally, EPA projects that adoption of the MACT floor level of controls would result in increases in nitrogen oxide ( NOX) emissions. This pollutant is a precursor in the formation of ozone and fine particulate matter ( PM). Ozone has been associated with a variety of adverse health effects such as reduced lung function, respiratory symptoms ( e. g., cough and chest pain) and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory causes. Fine PM has been associated with a variety of adverse health effects such as premature mortality, chronic bronchitis, and increased frequency of asthma attacks. The EPA requests comments on the extent to which consideration should be given to the adverse effects of the possible increase in NOX emissions from applying MACT technology, in the context of implementing our authority under section 112( c)( 9) or other exemptions.

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

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

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

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

VII. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78632 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules that the proposed rule is a `` significant regulatory action'' because it could have an annual impact on the economy of over $ 100 million. Consequently, this action was submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. As stipulated in Executive Order 12866, in deciding how or whether to regulate, EPA is required to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating. To this end, EPA prepared a detailed benefit cost analysis in the `` Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Automobile and Light Duty Truck Coatings NESHAP,'' which is contained in the docket. The following is a summary of the benefitcost analysis: It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the rule as proposed, HAP emissions will be reduced from 10,000 tpy to 4,000 tpy. This represents a 60 percent reduction ( or 6,000 tpy) of toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. Based on scientific studies conducted over the past 20 years, the EPA has classified ethylene glycol monobutyl ether ( EGBE), one of the glycol ethers, as a `` possible human carcinogen,'' while ethylbenzene, MEK, toluene, and xylenes are considered by the EPA as `` not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.'' At this time, we are unable to provide a comprehensive quantification and monetization of the HAP related benefits of this proposal. Exposure to HAP can result in the incidence of respiratory irritation, chest constriction, gastric irritation, eye, nose, and throat irritation as well as neurological and blood effects. Specifically, exposure to EGBE may result in neurological and blood effects, including fatigue, nausea, tremor, and anemia. Though no reliable human epidemiological study is available to address the potential carcinogenicity of EGBE, a draft report of a 2 year rodent inhalation study reported equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity in female rats and male mice. Exposure to MEK may lead to eye, nose, and throat irritation while methanol may lead to blurred vision, headache, dizziness, and nausea. Toluene may cause effects to the central nervous system, such as fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and nausea. In addition, chronic exposure to this HAP can lead to tremors, decreased brain size, involuntary eye movements, and impairment of speech, hearing, and vision. Xylenes, a mixture of three closely related compounds, may cause nose and throat irritation, nausea, vomiting, gastric irritation, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and tremors. The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from automobile and light duty truck coating operations are also expected to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, particularly VOC. Specifically, the proposed rule achieves a 12,000 to 18,000 tpy reduction in VOC. The VOC is a precursor to tropospheric ( ground level) ozone and a small percentage also precipitate in the atmosphere to form PM. Although we have not estimated the monetary value associated with VOC reductions, the benefits can be substantial. Health and welfare effects from exposure to ground level ozone are well documented. Elevated concentrations of ground level ozone primarily may result in acute respiratory related impacts such as coughing and difficulty breathing. Chronic exposure to ground level ozone may lead to structural damage to the lungs, alterations in lung capacity and breathing frequency, increased sensitivity of airways, eye, nose, and throat irritation, malaise, and nausea. Adverse ozone welfare effects include damage to agricultural crops, ornamental plants, and materials damage. Though only a small fraction of VOC forms PM, exposure to PM can result in human health and welfare effects including excess deaths, morbidity, soiling and materials damage, as well as reduced visibility. To the extent that reduced exposure to HAP and VOC reduces the instances of the above described health effects, benefits from the proposed rule are realized by society through an improvement in environmental quality. Benefit cost comparison ( net benefits) is a tool used to evaluate the reallocation of society's resources used to address the pollution externality created by the coatings operations at automobile and light duty truck plants. The additional costs of internalizing the pollution produced at major sources of emissions from automobile and lightduty truck manufacturing facilities can be compared to the improvement in society's well being from a cleaner and healthier environment. Comparing benefits of the proposed rule to the costs imposed by the alternative methods to control emissions optimally identifies a strategy that results in the highest net benefit to society. In the case of the proposed automobiles and light duty trucks coating NESHAP, we are proposing only one option, the minimum level of control mandated by the CAA or the MACT floor. Based on estimated compliance costs associated with this proposed rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected industry, the estimated social costs of this proposed rule are $ 161 million ( 1999 dollars).

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

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' ( 65 FR VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78633 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules 10 U. S. Department of Energy. 1999. Electric Power Annual, Volume I. Table A2: Industry Capability by Fuel Source and Industry Sector, 1999 and 1998 ( Megawatts). 11 U. S. Department of Energy. 1999. Natural Gas Annual. Table 1: Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, 1995   1999. 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own or operate automobile and light duty truck surface coating facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule.

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

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

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104   4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. We have determined that the proposed rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Accordingly, we have prepared a written statement ( titled `` Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis for the Proposed Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks Coating NESHAP'') under section 202 of the UMRA which is summarized below.

1. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for this rulemaking is section 112 of the CAA, enacted to reduce nationwide air toxic emissions. In compliance with UMRA section 205( a), we identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. Additional information on the costs and environmental impacts of these VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78634 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules regulatory alternatives is presented in the docket. The regulatory alternative upon which the proposed rule is based represents the MACT floor for automobile and light duty truck coating operations and, as a result, is the least costly and least burdensome alternative.

2. Social Costs and Benefits The RIA prepared for the proposed rule, including EPA's assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the `` Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks Coating NESHAP'' in the docket. Based on the estimated compliance costs associated with the proposed rule and the predicted changes in prices and production in the affected industry, the estimated annual social costs of the proposed rule is projected to be $ 161 million ( 1999 dollars). It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the rule as proposed, HAP will be reduced from 10,000 tpy to 4,000 tpy. This represents a 60 percent reduction ( 6,000 tpy) of toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. Based on scientific studies conducted over the past 20 years, EPA has classified EGBE as a `` possible human carcinogen,'' while ethylbenzene, MEK, toluene, and xylenes are considered by the Agency as `` not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.'' The studies upon which these classifications are based have worked toward the determination of a relationship between exposure to these HAP and the onset of cancer. However, there are several questions remaining on how cancers that may result from exposure to these HAP can be quantified in terms of dollars. Therefore, EPA is unable to provide a monetized estimate of the benefits of HAP reduced by the proposed rule at this time. Exposure to HAP can result in the incidence of respiratory irritation, chest constriction, gastric irritation, eye, nose, and throat irritation, as well as neurological and blood effects, including fatigue, nausea, tremor, and anemia. The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from automobile and light duty truck coating operations is also expected to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, particularly VOC. Specifically, this proposed rule achieves a 12,000 to 18,000 tpy reduction in VOC. The VOC is a precursor to tropospheric ( ground level) ozone and a small percentage also precipitate in the atmosphere to form PM. Although we have not estimated the monetary value associated with VOC reductions, the benefits can be substantial. Health and welfare effects from exposure to ground level ozone are well documented. Elevated concentrations of ground level ozone primarily may result in acute respiratory related impacts such as coughing and difficulty breathing. Chronic exposure to ground level ozone may lead to structural damage to the lungs, alterations in lung capacity and breathing frequency, increased sensitivity of airways, eye, nose, and throat irritation, malaise, and nausea. Adverse ozone welfare effects include damage to agricultural crops, ornamental plants, and materials damage. Though only a small fraction of VOC forms PM, exposure to PM can result in human health and welfare effects, including excess deaths, morbidity, soiling and materials damage, as well as reduced visibility. To the extent that reduced exposure to HAP and VOC reduces the instances of the above described health effects, benefits from the proposed rule would be realized by society through an improvement in environmental quality.

3. Future and Disproportionate Costs The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the proposed rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. We do not believe that there will be any disproportionate budgetary effects of the proposed rule on any particular areas of the country, State, or local governments, types of communities ( e. g., urban, rural), or particular industry segments.

4. Effects on the National Economy The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the proposed rule on the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and international competitiveness of United States goods and services if we determine that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible and that such effect is relevant and material. The nationwide economic impact of the proposed rule is presented in the `` Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks Coating NESHAP.'' That analysis provides estimates of the effect of the proposed rule on some of the categories mentioned above. The estimated direct cost to the automobile and light duty truck manufacturing industry of compliance with the proposed rule is approximately $ 154 million ( 1999 dollars) annually. Indirect costs of the proposed rule to industries other than the automobile and light duty truck manufacturing industry, governments, tribes, and other affected entities are expected to be minor. The estimated annual costs is minimal when compared to the nominal gross domestic product of $ 9,255 billion reported for the Nation in 1999. The proposed rule is expected to have little impact on domestic productivity, economic growth, full employment, energy markets, creation of productive jobs, and the international competitiveness of United States goods and services.

5. Consultation With Government Officials Although this proposed rule does not affect any State, local, or tribal governments, EPA has consulted with State and local air pollution control officials. The EPA has held meetings on the proposed rule with many of the stakeholders from numerous individual companies, environmental groups, consultants and vendors, and other interested parties. The EPA has added materials to the docket to document these meetings.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601, et seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For the automobile and light duty truck surface coating industry, a small entity is defined as: ( 1) A small business according to Small Business Administration size standards for companies identified by NAICS codes 33611 ( automobile manufacturing) and 33621 ( light duty truck and utility vehicle manufacturing) with 1,000 or fewer employees; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Based on the above definition, there are no small entities presently engaged in automobile and light duty truck surface coating. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that the proposed VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78635 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the observation that the proposed rule affects no small entities since none are engaged in the surface coating of automobiles and lightduty trucks.

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

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

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78636 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules The VCS ASTM D5066   91 ( 2001), `` Standard Test Method for Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions for Spray Application of Automotive Paints Weight Basis,'' is cited in the proposed rule as an acceptable procedure to measure transfer efficiency of spray coatings. Currently, no EPA method is available to measure transfer efficiency. The two VCS, ASTM D6266   00a, `` Test Method for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound ( VOC) Released from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device ( Abatement)'' and ASTM D5087   91 ( 1994), `` Standard Test Method for Determining Amount of Volatile Organic Compound ( VOC) Released from Solventborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device ( Abatement),'' are cited in the proposed rule as acceptable procedures to measure solvent loading ( similar to capture efficiency) for the heated flash zone for waterborne basecoats and for bake ovens. Currently, no EPA method is available to measure solvent release potential from automobile and light duty truck coatings in order to determine the potential solvent loading from the coatings used. Six VCS: ASTM D1475   90, ASTM D2369   95, ASTM D3792   91, ASTM D4017   96a, ASTM D4457   85 ( Reapproved 91), and ASTM D5403   93 are already incorporated by reference in EPA Method 24. Five VCS: ASTM D1979   91, ASTM D3432   89, ASTM D4747   87, ASTM D4827   93, and ASTM PS9   94 are incorporated by reference in EPA Method 311. In addition to the VCS EPA proposes to use, the search for emissions measurement procedures identified 14 other VCS. The EPA determined that 10 of these 14 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the proposed rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this purpose. ( See docket A   2001   22 for further information on the methods.) Four of the 14 VCS identified in this search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the purposes of the proposed rule because they are under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/ BSR MFC 13M, `` Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 ( and possibly 1); ASME/ BSR MFC 12M, `` Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; ISO/ DIS 12039, `` Stationary Source Emissions Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen   Automated Methods,'' for EPA Method 3A; and ISO/ PWI 17895, `` Paints and Varnishes Determination of the Volatile Organic Compound Content of Water based Emulsion Paints,'' for EPA Method 24. Sections 63.3161 and 63.3166 to the proposed standards list the EPA testing methods included in the proposed rule. Under § 63.7( f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods in place of any of the EPA testing methods. During the development of the proposed rulemaking, EPA searched for VCS that might be applicable and included ASTM test methods as appropriate for determination of volume fraction of coating solids.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 264 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds.

40 CFR Part 265 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds, Water supply.

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

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

PART 63   [ AMENDED]

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

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart IIII to read as follows: Subpart IIII   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks Sec.

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

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

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

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

Compliance Requirements for Adhesive, Sealer, and Deadener 63.3150 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? 63.3151 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? 63.3152 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations?

Compliance Requirements for the Combined Electrodeposition Primer, Primer Surfacer, Topcoat, Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission Rates 63.3160 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.3161 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? 63.3162 [ Reserved] 63.3163 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? 63.3164 What are the general requirements for performance tests? 63.3165 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency? 63.3166 How do I determine the add on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency?

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78637 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 Proposed December 4, 2002 ( 67 FR 72275). 2 Proposed August 13, 2002 ( 67 FR 52780). 63.3167 How do I establish the add on control device operating limits during the performance test? 63.3168 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance?

Compliance Requirements for the Combined Primer Surfacer, Topcoat, Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission Rates and the Separate Electrodeposition Primer Emission Rates 63.3170 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.3171 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? 63.3172 [ Reserved] 63.3173 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations?

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

Tables to Subpart IIII of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart IIII of Part 63   Operating Limits for Capture Systems and Add On Control Devices Table 2 to Subpart IIII of Part 63   Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart IIII of Part 63 Table 3 to Subpart IIII of Part 63   Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Solvents and Solvent Blends Table 4 to Subpart IIII of Part 63   Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Petroleum Solvent Groups Subpart IIII   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks What This Subpart Covers § 63.3080 What is the purpose of this subpart? This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for facilities which surface coat new automobile or light duty truck bodies or collections of body parts for new automobiles or new light duty trucks. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations.

§ 63.3081 Am I subject to this subpart? ( a) Except as provided in paragraph ( c) of this section, the source category to which this subpart applies is automobile and light duty truck surface coating. ( b) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a new, reconstructed, or existing affected source, as defined in § 63.3082, that is located at a facility which surface coats new automobile or new light duty truck bodies or collections of body parts for new automobiles or new light duty trucks, and that is a major source, is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of emissions of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP). A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams ( Mg) ( 10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 Mg ( 25 tons) or more per year. ( c) This subpart does not apply to surface coating, surface preparation, or cleaning activities that meet the criteria of paragraph ( c)( 1) or ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Surface coating subject to any other NESHAP in this part as of [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], including plastic parts and products surface coating 1 and miscellaneous metal parts surface coating .2 ( 2) Surface coating that occurs at research or laboratory facilities or that is part of janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations, including maintenance spray booths used for painting production equipment, furniture, signage, etc., for use within the plant.

§ 63.3082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

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

§ 63.3083 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

The date by which you must comply with this subpart is called the compliance date. The compliance date for each type of affected source is specified in paragraphs ( a) through ( c) of this section. The compliance date begins the initial compliance period during which you conduct the initial compliance demonstrations described in § § 63.3150, 63.3160 and 63.3170. ( a) For a new or reconstructed affected source, the compliance date is the applicable date in paragraph ( a)( 1) or ( 2) of this section: ( 1) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source is before [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the compliance date is [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ( 2) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source occurs after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the compliance date is the date of initial startup of your affected source. ( b) For an existing affected source, the compliance date is the date 3 years after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ( c) For an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP emissions, the compliance date is specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) For any portion of the source that becomes a new or reconstructed affected source subject to this subpart, the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78638 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules compliance date is the date of initial startup of the affected source or [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later. ( 2) For any portion of the source that becomes an existing affected source subject to this subpart, the compliance date is the date 1 year after the area source becomes a major source or 3 years after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later. ( d) You must meet the notification requirements in § 63.3110 according to the dates specified in that section and in subpart A of this part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before the compliance dates described in paragraphs ( a) through ( c) of this section.

Emission Limitations § 63.3090 What emission limits must I meet for a new or reconstructed affected source? ( a) Except as provided in paragraph ( b) of this section, you must limit combined organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from electrodeposition primer, primer surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer and glass bonding adhesive application to no more than 0.036 kilogram ( kg)/ liter ( 0.30 pound ( lb)/ gallon ( gal)) of coating solids deposited during each month, determined according to the requirements in § 63.3161. ( b) If you meet the operating limits of § 63.3092( a) and ( b), you must either meet the emission limits of paragraph ( a) of this section or limit combined organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from primer surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application to no more than 0.060 kg/ liter ( 0.50 lb/ gal) of applied coating solids used during each month, determined according to the requirements in § 63.3171. If you do not have an electrodeposition primer system, you must limit combined organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from primer surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application to no more than 0.060 kg/ liter ( 0.50 lb/ gal) of applied coating solids used during each month, determined according to the requirements in § 63.3171. ( c) You must limit average organic HAP emissions from all adhesive and sealer materials other than materials used as components of glass bonding systems to no more than 0.010 kg/ kg ( lb/ lb) of adhesive and sealer material used during each month. ( d) You must limit average organic HAP emissions from all deadener materials to no more than 0.010 kg/ kg ( lb/ lb) of deadener material used during each month.

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

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

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

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

§ 63.3093 What operating limits must I meet?

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

§ 63.3094 What work practice standards must I meet?

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

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78639 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 1) All organic HAP containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be stored in closed containers. ( 2) The risk of spills of organic HAPcontaining coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized. ( 3) Organic HAP containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be conveyed from one location to another in closed containers or pipes. ( 4) Mixing vessels, other than day tanks equipped with continuous agitation systems, which contain organic HAP containing coatings and other materials must be closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the contents. ( 5) Emissions of organic HAP must be minimized during cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment. ( c) You must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from cleaning and from purging of equipment associated with all coating operations for which emission limits are established under § 63.3090( a) through ( d) or § 63.3091( a) through ( d). ( 1) The plan shall, at a minimum, address each of the operations listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( i) through ( viii) of this section in which you use organic HAPcontaining materials or in which there is a potential for emission of organic HAP. ( i) The plan must address vehicle body wipe emissions through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( i)( A) through ( E) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Use of solvent moistened wipes. ( B) Keeping solvent containers closed when not in use. ( C) Keeping wipe disposal/ recovery containers closed when not in use. ( D) Use of tack wipes. ( E) Use of solvents containing less than 1 percent organic HAP by weight. ( ii) The plan must address coating line purging emissions through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( ii)( A) through ( D) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Air/ solvent push out. ( B) Capture and reclaim or recovery of purge materials ( excluding applicator nozzles/ tips). ( C) Block painting to the maximum extent feasible. ( D) Use of low HAP or no HAP solvents for purge. ( iii) The plan must address emissions from flushing of coating systems through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( iii)( A) through ( D) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Keeping solvent tanks closed. ( B) Recovering and recycling solvents. ( C) Keeping recovered/ recycled solvent tanks closed. ( D) Use of low HAP or no HAP solvents. ( iv) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth grates through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( iv)( A) through ( E) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Controlled burn off. ( B) Rinsing with high pressure water ( in place). ( C) Rinsing with high pressure water ( off line). ( D) Use of spray on masking or other type of liquid masking. ( E) Use of low HAP or no HAP content cleaners. ( v) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth walls through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( v)( A) through ( E) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Use of masking materials ( contact paper, plastic sheet, or other similar type of material). ( B) Use of spray on masking. ( C) Use of rags and manual wipes instead of spray application when cleaning walls. ( D) Use of low HAP or no HAP content cleaners. ( E) Controlled access to cleaning solvents. ( vi) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth equipment through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( vi)( A) through ( E) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Use of covers on equipment ( disposable or reusable). ( B) Use of parts cleaners ( off line submersion cleaning). ( C) Use of spray on masking or other protective coatings. ( D) Use of low HAP or no HAP content cleaners. ( E) Controlled access to cleaning solvents. ( vii) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of external spray booth areas through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( vii)( A) through ( F) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Use of removable floor coverings ( paper, foil, plastic, or similar type of material). ( B) Use of manual and/ or mechanical scrubbers, rags, or wipes instead of spray application. ( C) Use of shoe cleaners to eliminate coating track out from spray booths. ( D) Use of booties or shoe wraps. ( E) Use of low HAP or no HAP content cleaners. ( F) Controlled access to cleaning solvents. ( viii) The plan must address emissions from housekeeping measures not addressed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( i) through ( vii) of this section through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( viii)( A) through ( C) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Keeping solvent laden articles ( cloths, paper, plastic, rags, wipes, and similar items) in covered containers when not in use. ( B) Storing new and used solvents in closed containers. ( C) Transferring of solvents in a manner to minimize the risk of spills. ( 2) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs ( c)( 1)( i) through ( viii) of this section, if the type of coatings used in any facility with surface coating operations subject to the requirements of this section are of such a nature that the need for one or more of the practices specified under paragraphs ( c)( 1)( i) through ( viii) is eliminated, then the plan may include approved alternative or equivalent measures that are applicable or necessary during cleaning of storage, conveying, and application equipment. ( d) As provided in § 63.6( g), we, EPA, may choose to grant you permission to use an alternative to the work practice standards in this section.

General Compliance Requirements § 63.3100 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? ( a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations in § § 63.3090 and 63.3091 at all times, as determined on a monthly basis. ( b) The coating operations must be in compliance with the operating limits for emission capture systems and add on control devices required by § 63.3093 at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( c) You must be in compliance with the work practice standards in § 63.3094 at all times. ( d) You must always operate and maintain your affected source including all air pollution control and monitoring equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 1)( i). ( e) You must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the emission capture systems, add on control devices, and continuous parameter monitors ( CPM) during the period between the compliance date specified for your affected source in § 63.3083 and the date when the initial VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78640 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules emission capture system and add on control device performance tests have been completed, as specified in § 63.3160. ( f) If your affected source uses emission capture systems and add on control devices, you must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3). The plan must address startup, shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission capture system or the add on control devices.

§ 63.3101 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 2 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in § § 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.

Notifications, Reports, and Records § 63.3110 What notifications must I submit? ( a) General. You must submit the notifications in § § 63.7( b) and ( c), 63.8( f)( 4), and 63.9( b) through ( e) and ( h) that apply to you by the dates specified in those sections, except as provided in paragraphs ( b) and ( c) of this section. ( b) Initial notification. You must submit the Initial Notification required by § 63.9( b) for a new or reconstructed affected source no later than 120 days after initial startup or 120 days after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later. For an existing affected source, you must submit the Initial Notification no later than 1 year after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ( c) Notification of compliance status. You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.9( h) no later than 30 calendar days following the end of the initial compliance period described in § 63.3160 that applies to your affected source. The Notification of Compliance Status must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 12) of this section and in § 63.9( h). ( 1) Company name and address. ( 2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the content of the report. ( 3) Date of the report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. The reporting period is the initial compliance period described in § 63.3160 that applies to your affected source. ( 4) Identification of the compliance option specified in § 63.3090( a) or ( b) or § 63.3091( a) or ( b) that you used for electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application in the affected source during the initial compliance period. ( 5) Statement of whether or not the affected source achieved the emission limitations for the initial compliance period. ( 6) If you had a deviation, include the information in paragraphs ( c)( 6)( i) and ( ii) of this section. ( i) A description and statement of the cause of the deviation. ( ii) If you failed to meet any of the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090 or § 63.3091, include all the calculations you used to determine the applicable emission rate or applicable average organic HAP content for the emission limit( s) that you failed to meet. You do not need to submit information provided by the materials suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports. ( 7) All data and calculations used to determine the monthly average mass of organic HAP emitted per volume of applied coating solids from: ( i) The combined primer surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations if you were eligible for and chose to comply with the emission limits of § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b); or ( ii) The combined electrodeposition primer, primer surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations. ( 8) All data and calculations used to determine compliance with the separate limits for electrodeposition primer in § 63.3092( a) or ( b) if you were eligible for and chose to comply with the emission limits of § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b). ( 9) All data and calculations used to determine the monthly mass average HAP content of materials subject to the emission limits of § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d). ( 10) All data and calculations used to determine the transfer efficiency for primer surfacer and topcoat coatings. ( 11) You must include the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 11)( i) through ( iii) of this section. ( i) For each emission capture system, a summary of the data and copies of the calculations supporting the determination that the emission capture system is a permanent total enclosure ( PTE) or a measurement of the emission capture system efficiency. Include a description of the procedure followed for measuring capture efficiency, summaries of any capture efficiency tests conducted, and any calculations supporting the capture efficiency determination. If you use the data quality objective ( DQO) or lower confidence limit ( LCL) approach, you must also include the statistical calculations to show you meet the DQO or LCL criteria in appendix A to subpart KK of this part. You do not need to submit complete test reports. ( ii) A summary of the results of each add on control device performance test. You do not need to submit complete test reports unless requested. ( iii) A list of each emission capture system's and add on control device's operating limits and a summary of the data used to calculate those limits. ( 12) A statement of whether or not you developed and implemented the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b) and ( c).

§ 63.3120 What reports must I submit? ( a) Semiannual compliance reports. You must submit semiannual compliance reports for each affected source according to the requirements of paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 7) of this section. The semiannual compliance reporting requirements may be satisfied by reports required under other parts of the CAA, as specified in paragraph ( a)( 2) of this section. ( 1) Dates. Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under § 63.10( a), you must prepare and submit each semiannual compliance report according to the dates specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1)( i) through ( iv) of this section. ( i) The first semiannual compliance report must cover the first semiannual reporting period which begins the day after the end of the initial compliance period described in § 63.3160 that applies to your affected source and ends on June 30 or December 31, whichever occurs first following the end of the initial compliance period. ( ii) Each subsequent semiannual compliance report must cover the subsequent semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31. ( iii) Each semiannual compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period. ( iv) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78641 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to the date specified in paragraph ( a)( 1)( iii) of this section. ( 2) Inclusion with title V report. If you have obtained a title V operating permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A). If you submit a semiannual compliance report pursuant to this section along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A), and the semiannual compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice in this subpart, its submission shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a semiannual compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority. ( 3) General requirements. The semiannual compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( a)( 3)( i) through ( iv) of this section, and the information specified in paragraphs ( a)( 4) through ( 9) and ( c)( 1) of this section that are applicable to your affected source. ( i) Company name and address. ( ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the content of the report. ( iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. The reporting period is the 6 month period ending on June 30 or December 31. ( iv) Identification of the compliance option specified in § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b) that you used for electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application in the affected source during the initial compliance period. ( 4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission limitations, operating limits, or work practices in § § 63.3090, 63.3091, 63.3092, 63.3093, and 63.3094 that apply to you, the semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. If you used control devices to comply with the emission limits, and there were no periods during which the continuous parameter monitoring systems ( CPMS) were out of control as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), the semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were no periods during which the CPMS were out of control during the reporting period. ( 5) Deviations: adhesive, sealer, and deadener. If there was a deviation from the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( a)( 5)( i) through ( iv) of this section. ( i) The beginning and ending dates of each month during which the monthly average organic HAP content exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d). ( ii) The volume and organic HAP content of each material used that is subject to the applicable organic HAP content limit. ( iii) The calculation used to determine the average monthly organic HAP content for the month in which the deviation occurred. ( iv) The reason for the deviation. ( 6) Deviations: combined electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer and glass bonding adhesive, or combined primer surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. If there was a deviation from the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090( a) or ( b) or § 63.3091( a) or ( b), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( a)( 6)( i) through ( xiv) of this section. ( i) The beginning and ending dates of each month during which the monthly organic HAP emission rate from combined electrodeposition primer, primer surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( a) or § 63.3091( a); or the monthly organic HAP emission rate from combined primer surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b). ( ii) The calculation used to determine the monthly organic HAP emission rate in accordance with § 63.3161 or § 63.3171. You do not need to submit the background data supporting these calculations, for example information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports. ( iii) The date and time that any malfunctions of the capture system or add on control devices used to control emissions from these operations started and stopped. ( iv) A brief description of the CPMS. ( v) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit. ( vi) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for zero ( low level) and high level checks. ( vii) The date and time period that each CPMS was out of control, including the information in § 63.8( c)( 8). ( viii) The date and time period of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and time period of each bypass of an add on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. ( ix) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total source operating time of the deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and the bypass of each add on control device during the semiannual reporting period. ( x) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of each add on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. ( xi) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total source operating time of the downtime for each CPMS during the semiannual reporting period. ( xii) A description of any changes in the CPMS, coating operation, emission capture system, or add on control devices since the last semiannual reporting period. ( xiii) For each deviation from the work practice standards, a description of the deviation, the date and time period of the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the deviation. ( xiv) A statement of the cause of each deviation. ( 7) Deviations: separate electrodeposition primer organic HAP content limit. If you used the separate electrodeposition primer organic HAP content limits in § 63.3092( a), and there was a deviation from these limits, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( a)( 7)( i) through ( iii) of this section. ( i) Identification of each material used that deviated from the emission limit,

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78642 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules and the dates and time periods each was used. ( ii) The determination of mass fraction of each organic HAP for each material identified in paragraph ( a)( 7)( i) of this section. You do not need to submit background data supporting this calculation, for example, information provided by material suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports. ( iii) A statement of the cause of each deviation. ( 8) Deviations: separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture and control limitations. If you used the separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture and control limitations in § 63.3092( b), and there was a deviation from these limitations, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( a)( 8)( i) through ( xii) of this section. ( i) The beginning and ending dates of each month during which there was a deviation from the separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture and control limitations in § 63.3092( b). ( ii) The date and time that any malfunctions of the capture systems or control devices used to control emissions from the electrodeposition primer bake oven started and stopped. ( iii) A brief description of the CPMS. ( iv) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit. ( v) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for zero ( lowlevel and high level checks. ( vi) The date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out of control, including the information in § 63.8( c)( 8). ( vii) The date and time period of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and time period of each bypass of an add on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. ( viii) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total source operating time of the deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and the bypasses of each addon control device during the semiannual reporting period. ( ix) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of each add on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. ( x) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total source operating time of the downtime for each CPMS during the semiannual reporting period. ( xi) A description of any changes in the CPMS, coating operation, emission capture system, or add on control devices since the last semiannual reporting period. ( xii) A statement of the cause of each deviation. ( 9) Deviations: work practice plans. If there was a deviation from an applicable work practice plan developed in accordance with § 63.3094( b) or ( c), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( a)( 9)( i) through ( iii) of this section. ( i) The time period during which each deviation occurred. ( ii) The nature of each deviation. ( iii) The corrective action( s) taken to bring the applicable work practices into compliance with the work practice plan. ( b) Performance test reports. If you use add on control devices, you must submit reports of performance test results for emission capture systems and add on control devices no later than 60 days after completing the tests as specified in § 63.10( d)( 2). ( c) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. If you used add on control devices and you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) If your actions were consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, you must include the information specified in § 63.10( d) in the semiannual compliance report required by paragraph ( a) of this section. ( 2) If your actions were not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report as described in paragraphs ( c)( 2)( i) and ( ii) of this section. ( i) You must describe the actions taken during the event in a report delivered by facsimile, telephone, or other means to the Administrator within 2 working days after starting actions that are inconsistent with the plan. ( ii) You must submit a letter to the Administrator within 7 working days after the end of the event, unless you have made alternative arrangements with the Administrator as specified in § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii). The letter must contain the information specified in § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii).

§ 63.3130 What records must I keep?

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

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78643 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 5) A record, for each month, of the calculation of the average monthly mass organic HAP content of: ( i) Sealers and adhesives; and ( ii) Deadeners. ( d) A record of the name and volume of each cleaning material used during each month. ( e) A record of the mass fraction of organic HAP for each cleaning material used during each month. ( f) A record of the density for each cleaning material used during each month. ( g) A record of the date, time, and duration of each deviation, and for each deviation, a record of whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. ( h) The records required by § 63.6( e)( 3)( iii) through ( v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( i) For each capture system that is a PTE, the data and documentation you used to support a determination that the capture system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for a PTE and has a capture efficiency of 100 percent. ( j) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the requirements specified in § 63.3164, including the records specified in paragraphs ( j)( 1) through ( 4) of this section that apply to you. ( 1) Records for a liquid touncaptured gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure. Records of the mass of total volatile hydrocarbon ( TVH), as measured by Method 204A or F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, for each material used in the coating operation, and the total TVH for all materials used during each capture efficiency test run, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run, as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. ( 2) Records for a gas to gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. Records of the mass of TVH emissions captured by the emission capture system, as measured by Method 204B or C of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, at the inlet to the addon control device, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run, as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. ( 3) Records for panel tests. Records needed to document a capture efficiency determination using a panel test as described in § 63.3165( e), including a copy of the test report and calculations performed to convert the panel test results to percent capture efficiency values. ( 4) Records for an alternative protocol. Records needed to document a capture efficiency determination using an alternative method or protocol, if applicable. ( k) The records specified in paragraphs ( k)( 1) and ( 2) of this section for each add on control device organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency determination as specified in § 63.3166. ( 1) Records of each add on control device performance test conducted according to § § 63.3164 and 63.3166. ( 2) Records of the coating operation conditions during the add on control device performance test showing that the performance test was conducted under representative operating conditions. ( l) Records of the data and calculations you used to establish the emission capture and add on control device operating limits as specified in § 63.3167 and to document compliance with the operating limits as specified in Table 1 to this subpart. ( m) Records of the data and calculations you used to determine the transfer efficiency for primer surfacer and topcoat application. ( n) A record of the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b) and ( c) and documentation that you are implementing the plan on a continuous basis.

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

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

Compliance Requirements for Adhesive, Sealer, and Deadener § 63.3150 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements of § 63.3151. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3083 and ends on the last day of the month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next month. You must determine the mass average organic HAP content of the materials used each month for each group of materials for which an emission limitation is established in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d). The initial compliance demonstration includes the calculations according to § 63.3151 and supporting documentation showing that during the initial compliance period, the mass average organic HAP content for each group of materials was equal to or less than the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d).

§ 63.3151 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? You must separately calculate the mass average organic HAP content of the materials used during the initial compliance period for each group of materials for which an emission limit is established in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d). If every individual material used within a group of materials meets the emission limit for that group of materials, you may demonstrate compliance with that emission limit by documenting the name and the organic HAP content of each material used during the initial compliance period. If any individual material used within a group of materials exceeds the emission limit for that group of materials, you must determine the mass average organic HAP content according to the procedures of paragraphs ( d) and ( e) of this section. ( a) Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each material used.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78644 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules You must determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each material used during the compliance period by using one of the options in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) Method 311 ( appendix A to 40 CFR part 63). You may use Method 311 for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP. Use the procedures specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1)( i) and ( ii) of this section when performing a Method 311 test. ( i) Count each organic HAP that is measured to be present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for OSHA defined carcinogens, as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200( d)( 4), and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene ( not an OSHA carcinogen) is measured to be 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four places after the decimal point ( e. g., 0.3791). ( ii) Calculate the total mass fraction of organic HAP in the test material by adding up the individual organic HAP mass fractions and truncating the result to three places after the decimal point ( e. g., 0.7638 truncates to 0.763). ( 2) Method 24 ( appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you may use Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic HAP. ( 3) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP once the Administrator has approved it. You must follow the procedure in § 63.7( f) to submit an alternative test method for approval. ( 4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may rely on information other than that generated by the test methods specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 3) of this section, such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic HAP that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for OSHAdefined carcinogens, as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200( d)( 4), and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene ( not an OSHA carcinogen) is 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. If there is a disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted according to paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 3) of this section, then the test method results will take precedence. ( 5) Solvent blends. Solvent blends may be listed as single components for some materials in data provided by manufacturers or suppliers. Solvent blends may contain organic HAP which must be counted toward the total organic HAP mass fraction of the materials. When neither test data nor manufacturer's data for solvent blends are available, you may use the default values for the mass fraction of organic HAP in the solvent blends listed in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart. If you use the tables, you must use the values in Table 3 for all solvent blends that match Table 3 entries, and you may only use Table 4 if the solvent blends in the materials you use do not match any of the solvent blends in Table 3 and you only know whether the blend is aliphatic or aromatic. However, if the results of a Method 311 test indicate higher values than those listed on Table 3 or 4 to this subpart, the Method 311 results will take precedence. ( b) Determine the density of each material used. Determine the density of each material used during the compliance period from test results using ASTM Method D1475   98 or information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. If there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475   98 test results and the supplier's or manufacturer's information, the test results will take precedence. ( c) Determine the volume of each material used. Determine the volume ( liters) of each material used during each month by measurement or usage records. ( d) Determine the mass average organic HAP content for each group of materials. Determine the mass average organic HAP content of the materials used during the initial compliance period for each group of materials for which an emission limit is established in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d), using Equations 1 and 2 of this section. ( 1) Calculate the mass average organic HAP content of adhesive and sealer materials other than components of the glass bonding system used in the initial compliance period using Equation 1 of this section:

C Vol D W Vol D Eq avg as as j as j as j j r as j as j j r , , , ,

, , ( . = ( )( )( )

( )( ) =

=

  1 1 1)

Where: Cavg, as = mass average organic HAP content of adhesives and sealers used, kg/ kg. Volas, j = volume of adhesive or sealer j used, liters. Das, j = Density of adhesive or sealer j used, kg per liter. Was, j = mass fraction of organic HAP in adhesive or sealer, j, kg/ kg. r = number of adhesives and sealers used. ( 2) Calculate the mass average organic HAP content of deadener used in the initial compliance period using Equation 2 of this section:

C Vol D W Vol D Eq avg d d m d m d m m s d m d m m s , , , ,

, , ( . = ( )( )( )

( )( ) =

=

  1 1 2)

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

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 EP24DE02.006</ GPH> EP24DE02.007</ GPH> 78645 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules Dd, m = density of deadener, m, used, kg per liter. Wd, m = mass fraction of organic HAP in deadener, m, kg/ kg. s = number of deadener materials used. ( e) Compliance demonstration. The mass average organic HAP content for the compliance period must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d). You must keep all records as required by § § 63.3130 and 63.3131. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.3110, you must submit a statement that the coating operations were in compliance with the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because the mass average organic HAP content was less than or equal to the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d), determined according to this section.

§ 63.3152 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? ( a) To demonstrate continuous compliance, the mass average organic HAP content for each compliance period, determined according to § 63.3151( a) through ( c), must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d). A compliance period consists of 1 month. Each month after the end of the initial compliance period described in § 63.3150 is a compliance period consisting of that month. ( b) If the mass average organic HAP emission content for any compliance period exceeds the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d), this is a deviation from the emission limitations for that compliance period and must be reported as specified in § § 63.3110( c)( 6) and 63.3120( a)( 5). ( c) You must maintain records as specified in § § 63.3130 and 63.3131.

Compliance Requirements for the Combined Electrodeposition Primer, Primer Surfacer, Topcoat, Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission Rates § 63.3160 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? ( a) New and reconstructed affected sources. For a new or reconstructed affected source, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3083. You must conduct a performance test of each capture system and add on control device according to § § 63.3164 and 63.3166 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3093 no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3083. ( 2) You must develop and begin implementing the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b), ( c), and ( e) no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.3083. ( 3) You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements of § 63.3161. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3083 and ends on the last day of the month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next month. You must determine the mass of organic HAP emissions and volume of coating solids deposited in the initial compliance period. The initial compliance demonstration includes the results of emission capture system and add on control device performance tests conducted according to § § 63.3164 and 63.3166; supporting documentation showing that during the initial compliance period the organic HAP emission rate was equal to or less than the emission limit in § 63.3090( a); the operating limits established during the performance tests and the results of the continuous parameter monitoring required by § 63.3168; and documentation of whether you developed and implemented the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b), ( c), and ( e). ( 4) You do not need to comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and add on control device required by § 63.3093 until after you have completed the performance tests specified in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add on control device, and CPM during the period between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin complying with the operating limits for your affected source on the date you complete the performance tests specified in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section. ( b) Existing affected sources. For an existing affected source, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3083. You must conduct a performance test of each capture system and add on control device according to the procedures in § § 63.3164 and 63.3166 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3093 no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.3083. ( 2) You must develop and begin implementing the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b), ( c), and ( e) no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.3083. ( 3) You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements of § 63.3161. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3083 and ends on the last day of the month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next month. You must determine the mass of organic HAP emissions and volume of coating solids deposited during the initial compliance period. The initial compliance demonstration includes the results of emission capture system and add on control device performance tests conducted according to § § 63.3164 and 63.3166; supporting documentation showing that during the initial compliance period the organic HAP emission rate was equal to or less than the emission limits in § 63.3091( a); the operating limits established during the performance tests and the results of the continuous parameter monitoring required by § 63.3168; and documentation of whether you developed and implemented the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b), ( c), and ( e).

§ 63.3161 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?

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

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78646 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules using the procedures specified in § § 63.3167 and 63.3168. ( c) Compliance with work practice requirements. You must develop, implement, and document your implementation of the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b) and ( c) during the initial compliance period, as specified in § 63.3130. ( d) Compliance with emission limits. You must follow the procedures in paragraphs ( e) through ( o) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( a) or § 63.3091( a). You may also use the guidelines presented in `` Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA   450/ 3   88   018 ( docket A   2001   22) in making this demonstration. ( e) Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP, density and volume used. Follow the procedures specified in § 63.3151( a) through ( c) to determine the mass fraction of organic HAP and the density and volume of each coating and thinner used during each month. ( f) Determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. You must determine the volume fraction of coating solids ( liter of coating solids per liter of coating) for each coating used during the compliance period by a test or by information provided by the supplier or the manufacturer of the material, as specified in paragraphs ( f)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. If test results obtained according to paragraph ( f)( 1) of this section do not agree with the information obtained under paragraph ( f)( 2) of this section, the test results will take precedence. ( 1) ASTM Method D2697   86( 1998) or D6093   97. You may use ASTM Method D2697   86( 1998) or D6093   97 to determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. Divide the nonvolatile volume percent obtained with the methods by 100 to calculate volume fraction of coating solids. ( 2) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may obtain the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating from the supplier or manufacturer. ( g) Determine the transfer efficiency for each coating. You must determine the transfer efficiency for each primersurfacer and topcoat coating using ASTM Method D5066   91( 2001) or the guidelines presented in `` Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA   450/ 3   88   018 ( docket A   2001   22). Those guidelines include provisions for testing representative coatings instead of testing every coating. You may assume 100 percent transfer efficiency for electrodeposition primer coatings, glass bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives. For final repair coatings, you may assume 40 percent transfer efficiency for air atomized spray and 55 percent transfer efficiency for electrostatic spray and high volume, low pressure spray. ( h) Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions before add on controls. Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions before consideration of addon controls from all coatings and thinners used during each month in the combined electrodeposition primer, primer surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations using Equation 1 of this section:

H A B Eq BC= + ( . 1)