[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39794-39828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12772]



[[Page 39793]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 39794]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7214-6]
RIN 2060-AG97


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 
Coating of Metal Coil

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources that 
coat metal coil. The EPA has identified metal coil surface coating as a 
major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions such as methyl 
ethyl ketone, glycol ethers, xylenes (isomers and mixtures), toluene, 
and isophorone. Each of these major HAP can cause reversible or 
irreversible toxic effects following sufficient exposure. The potential 
toxic effects include eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation, and blood 
cell, heart, liver, and kidney damage.
    The final rule implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
and will require all new and existing metal coil coating operations 
that are major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the 
application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The 
EPA estimates that the final rule will reduce nationwide HAP emissions 
from metal coil coating operations by approximately 53 percent. The 
emissions reductions achieved by these NESHAP, when combined with the 
emissions reductions achieved by other similar standards, will provide 
protection to the public and achieve a primary goal of the CAA.

DATES: Effective June 10, 2002. The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications in this rule is approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register as of June 10, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-97-47 contains supporting information used in 
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall 
(ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning 
applicability and rule determinations, contact your State or local 
representative or the appropriate EPA Regional Office representative. 
For information concerning the analyses performed in developing these 
NESHAP, contact Ms. Rhea Jones, Coatings and Consumer Products Group 
(C539-03), Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2940, facsimile number (919) 
541-5689; electronic mail address: jones.rhea@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket is an organized and 
complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in the 
development of the final rule. The docket is a dynamic file because 
material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing 
system is intended to allow members of the public and industries 
involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can 
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the 
proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of 
the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. 
(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other 
materials related to the final rule are available for review in the 
docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by 
calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
docket materials.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the final rule will also be available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of the final rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 
areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN 
is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. If a metal coil coating line is operated at 
your facility, it may be a regulated entity. Categories and entities 
potentially regulated by this action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Examples of potentially
                     Category                                NAICS codes                 regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Coil Coating Industry.......................  332812a, 323122, 339991,       Those facilities that perform
                                                     326113, 32613, 32614,          surface coating of metal
                                                     331112, 331221, 33121,         coil using HAP-containing
                                                     331312, 331314, 331315,        materials.
                                                     331319, 332312, 332322,
                                                     332323, 332311, 33637,
                                                     332813, 332999, 333293,
                                                     336399, 325992, 42183.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The majority of facilities are included in NAICS 332812.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.5090 of the 
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate EPA 
Regional Office representative.
    Judicial Review. The NESHAP for Metal Coil Coating were proposed on 
July 18, 2000 (65 FR 44616). The final rule announces the EPA's final 
decision on the rule. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of these NESHAP is available by filing a petition for review in 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by 
August 9, 2002. Only those objections to the rule which were raised 
with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment may be 
raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements that are the subject of the final rule may not be 
challenged later in civil or criminal court brought by the EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. What are the background and public participation for the rule?
II. What are the final standards?
    A. What facilities are subject to the rule?
    B. What is the affected source?
    C. What are the emission limits and operating limits?
    D. What pollutants are limited by the rule?
    E. When do I show initial compliance with the standards?
    F. How do I demonstrate compliance?
    G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
III. What are the major changes we have made to the rule since 
proposal?
    A. Rule applicability
    B. Emission standards
    C. Operating limits

[[Page 39795]]

    D. Compliance demonstration
IV. What are the responses to major comments?
    A. Impact analysis
    B. Rule applicability
    C. Definitions
    D. MACT floor determination
    E. Achievability of the Standards
    F. Monitoring
    G. Administrative Requirements
V. What are the environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts?
    A. What are the HAP emissions reductions?
    B. What are the secondary environmental impacts?
    C. What are the energy impacts?
    D. What are the cost impacts?
    E. What are the economic impacts?
VI. What are the administrative requirements?
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, 
et seq.
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. What Are the Background and Public Participation for the Rule?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires EPA to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Major 
sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 
9.07 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year (tpy)) of any one HAP 
or 22.68 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any combination of HAP.
    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT 
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all 
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as 
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting 
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the 
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for 
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of 
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing 
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources) 
(CAA section 112(d)(3)).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards that are more 
stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of 
achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements (CAA section 112(d)(2)).
    On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), we published a list of source 
categories slated for regulation under section 112(c). The source 
category list included the metal coil coating (surface coating) source 
category regulated by the standards being promulgated today. We 
proposed standards for the metal coil coating sources covered by the 
rule on July 18, 2000 (65 FR 44616).
    The preamble for the proposed standards described the rationale for 
the proposed standards. Public comments were solicited at the time of 
the proposal. The public comment period lasted from July 18, 2000 to 
September 18, 2000. Industry representatives, regulatory agencies, 
environmental groups, and the general public were given the opportunity 
to comment on the proposed rule and to provide additional information 
during and after the public comment period. Although we offered at 
proposal the opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or 
arguments concerning the proposed rule, no one requested a public 
hearing, and a public hearing was not held.
    We received a total of 17 letters containing comments on the 
proposed rule. Commenters included individual companies with coil 
coating operations, industry trade associations, State regulatory 
agencies, and an association of air pollution control vendors. Today's 
final rule reflects our full consideration of all of the comments 
received. Major public comments on the proposed rule, along with our 
responses to those comments, are summarized in this preamble. See the 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses document for a more detailed 
discussion of public comments and our responses (docket number A-97-
47).

II. What Are the Final Standards?

A. What Facilities Are Subject to This Rule?

    Metal coil surface coating is a process-specific rather than a 
product-specific operation. Accordingly, the final rule applies to you 
if you own or operate any coil coating line at a facility that is a 
major source of HAP emissions. We have defined a coil coating line as a 
process and the collection of equipment used to apply an organic 
coating to the surface of metal coil that is at least 0.15 millimeter 
(0.006 inch) thick. A coil coating line includes a web unwind or feed 
section, a series of one or more work stations, any associated curing 
oven, wet section, and quench station. A coil coating line does not 
include ancillary operations such as mixing/thinning, cleaning, 
wastewater treatment, and storage of coating material.
    You are not subject to the final rule if your coil coating line is 
located at an area source. An area source of HAP is any facility that 
has the potential to emit HAP but is not a major source. You may 
establish area source status by limiting the source's potential to emit 
HAP through appropriate mechanisms available through your permitting 
authority.
    The requirements of the final rule do not apply to a coil coating 
line that is part of research or laboratory equipment, coats metal coil 
for use in flexible packaging, or is a coil coating line on which 85 
percent or more of the metal coil coated, based on surface area, is 
less than 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) thick. If you operate a coil 
coating line on which 85 percent or more of the metal coil coated, 
based on surface area, is less than 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) thick, 
it would be subject to the Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart JJJJ) currently under development. However, you may 
choose to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of today's rule 
instead of those of subpart JJJJ if either of the following two 
criteria applies: (1) The coating line is used to coat metal coil of 
thicknesses both less than and greater than or equal to 0.15 millimeter 
(0.006 inch) thick, regardless of the percentage of surface area of 
each thickness coated, or (2) the coating line is used to coat only 
metal coil that is less than 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) thick and the 
coating line is controlled by a common control device that also 
receives organic

[[Page 39796]]

HAP emissions from a coil coating line that is subject to the 
requirements of this subpart. Compliance with the requirements of 
today's rule in accordance with either of the above criteria 
constitutes compliance with the Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP (40 
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ), therefore, you would not be subject to the 
compliance demonstration requirements of subpart JJJJ.
    This rule does not apply to facilities that print a company logo 
for identification purposes or other markings for inventory control 
purposes onto bare, uncoated metal coils using flexographic printing 
equipment, where no other coating is applied.
    A major source is also subject to all other applicable NESHAP for 
the various source categories, other than metal coil coating and paper 
and other web coating, that may be present at the facility. This means 
your facility may be subject to multiple NESHAP, and you are 
responsible for complying with the standards set for each NESHAP.

B. What Is the Affected Source?

    We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of 
stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific 
emission standard applies. Within a source category, we select the 
specific emission sources (emission points or groupings of emission 
points) that will make up the affected source for that category.
    For the final metal coil NESHAP, the affected source subject to the 
emission standards is the collection of all of the metal coil coating 
lines at your facility. The portions of the metal coil coating line to 
which the emission limitations apply are the coating application 
stations and associated curing ovens. Wet section/pretreatment and 
quench operations are part of the metal coil coating line, but are not 
subject to the emission limitations. The coil coating line does not 
include ancillary operations such as storage of coating and cleaning 
material, wastewater treatment, coating material mixing/thinning, and 
parts and equipment cleaning and, therefore, the standards do not apply 
to these operations.

C. What Are the Emission Limits and Operating Limits?

    Emission Limits. Today's final rule provides you the option of 
limiting organic HAP emissions to one of the following three specified 
levels: (1) No more than 2 percent of the organic HAP applied (98 
percent overall control efficiency (OCE) limit); (2) no more than 0.046 
kilogram of organic HAP per liter (kg/l) (0.38 pound per gallon (lb/
gal)) of solids applied during each 12-month compliance period 
(emission rate limit); or (3) if you are using an oxidizer to control 
organic HAP emissions, operate the oxidizer such that an outlet organic 
HAP concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by volume 
(ppmv) on a dry basis is achieved and the efficiency of the capture 
system is 100 percent (outlet concentration limit).
    You may choose from several compliance options in the final rule to 
achieve the emission limits. You may comply through a pollution 
prevention approach by applying only coating materials that meet the 
emission rate limit, either individually or collectively. Second, you 
may use a capture system and add-on control device to either reduce 
emissions by 98 percent or by the degree needed to meet the emission 
rate limit. Third, you may use a 100 percent efficient capture system 
and an oxidizer that reduces organic HAP emissions to no more than 20 
ppmv.
    Operating Limits. If you reduce emissions by using a capture system 
and add-on control device (other than a solvent recovery system for 
which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance), the final 
operating limits would apply to you. These limits are site-specific 
parameter limits that you determine during the initial performance test 
of the system. For capture systems, you must develop a capture system 
monitoring plan. The monitoring plan must identify the operating 
parameter to be monitored, explain why this parameter is appropriate 
for demonstrating ongoing compliance, and identify the specific 
monitoring procedures. In the plan you must specify operating limits 
for the capture system operating parameter that demonstrate compliance 
with the emission limits. The monitoring plan must be available for 
inspection by your permitting authority upon request.
    For thermal oxidizers, you must monitor the combustion temperature. 
For catalytic oxidizers, you must either monitor the temperature 
immediately before and after the catalyst bed, or you must monitor the 
temperature before the catalyst bed and prepare and implement an 
inspection and maintenance plan that includes periodic catalyst 
activity checks.
    The site-specific operating limits that you establish must reflect 
operation of the capture system and control device during a performance 
test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limits during 
representative operating conditions.
    If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you 
are required to develop and operate according to a startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan (SSMP) during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction of the capture system and control device.
    The NESHAP General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A codify 
certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP and also 
apply to you, as indicated in Table 2 to subpart SSSS. The General 
Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review 
procedures for new sources, and procedures for conducting compliance-
related activities such as notifications, reporting and recordkeeping, 
performance testing, and monitoring. Subpart SSSS refers to individual 
sections of the General Provisions to highlight key sections that are 
relevant. However, unless specifically overridden in Table 2 to subpart 
SSSS of Part 63, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements 
apply to you.
    In addition to the metal coil surface coating NESHAP, you may also 
be subject to other future or existing rules, such as State rules 
requiring reasonably available control technology limits on volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) emissions or the new source performance 
standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TT. You must comply with 
all rules that apply to you. Compliance with different standards should 
be resolved through your title V permit.

D. What Pollutants Are Limited by the Rule?

    Today's final rule limits total organic HAP emissions from coil 
coating lines. These organic HAP are included on the list of HAP in 
section 112(b) of the CAA.

E. When Do I Show Initial Compliance With the Standards?

    Existing sources will have to comply with today's final rule no 
later than 3 years after June 10, 2002. New or reconstructed sources 
must comply immediately upon startup of the affected source or by June 
10, 2002, whichever is later.
    The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance 
date described above for an existing source or a new or reconstructed 
source and ends on the last day of the 12th month following the 
compliance date. If the compliance date falls on any day other than the 
first day of the month, then the initial compliance period extends 
through that month plus the next 12 months. For the purpose of 
demonstrating continuous compliance, a compliance period consists of 12 
months. Each month after the end of the

[[Page 39797]]

initial compliance period is the end of a compliance period consisting 
of that month and the preceding 11 months. We have defined ``month'' as 
a calendar month or a pre-specified period of 28 to 35 days to allow 
for flexibility at sources where data are based on a business 
accounting period.

F. How Do I Demonstrate Compliance?

    You must account for all coating materials used in the affected 
source when determining compliance with the applicable emission limit. 
To make this determination, you must use at least one of the following 
compliance options: use of ``as purchased'' individually compliant 
coating materials (compliance option 1); use of ``as applied'' 
compliant coating materials (compliance option 2); use of a capture 
system and control device to achieve 98 percent OCE or 20 ppmv outlet 
(compliance option 3); and use of a capture system and control devices 
to maintain an acceptable emission rate (compliance option 4). You may 
apply any of the compliance options to an individual coil coating line, 
or to multiple lines as a group, or to the entire affected source. You 
may use different compliance options for different coil coating lines, 
or at different times on the same line. However, you may not use 
different compliance options at the same time on the same coil coating 
line. If you switch between compliance options for any coil coating 
line or group of lines, you must document this switch, and you must 
report it in your next semiannual compliance report.
    If you use compliance option 1, then you must demonstrate that the 
organic HAP in each coating material used during each compliance period 
does not exceed 0.046 kg/l (0.38 lb/gal) of solids, as purchased.
    There are two procedures for demonstrating compliance through the 
use of compliance option 2. You may either demonstrate that the organic 
HAP in each coating material used does not exceed 0.046 kg/l (0.38 lb/
gal) of solids, as applied for each compliance period or demonstrate 
that the average of all coating materials used does not exceed this 
limit for each compliance period.
    If you use compliance option 3, then you must demonstrate that 
either the overall organic HAP control efficiency is at least 98 
percent on a monthly basis for individual or groups of coil coating 
lines; or overall organic HAP control efficiency is at least 98 percent 
during the initial performance test for individual coil coating lines; 
or oxidizer organic HAP outlet concentration is no greater than 20 ppmv 
and there is 100 percent capture efficiency during the initial 
performance test. When using emission capture and add-on controls to 
demonstrate compliance, you must also demonstrate that applicable 
operating limits are achieved continuously.
    If you use compliance option 4, then you must demonstrate that the 
average organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.046 kg/l (0.38 lb/
gal) of solids applied during each compliance period.
    In addition to the testing and monitoring requirements specified 
below for the affected source to demonstrate compliance, the final rule 
adopts the testing requirements specified in Sec. 63.7.
1. Test Methods and Procedures
    If you demonstrate compliance with compliance option 1 or 2 based 
on the application of compliant coating materials on your coil coating 
lines or with compliance option 4 based on the combination of coating 
materials applied and control devices, you must determine the organic 
HAP content or the volatile matter content, and the solids content of 
coating materials ``as purchased'' or ``as applied.'' To determine 
organic HAP content, you may either use EPA Method 311 of appendix A of 
40 CFR part 63, use an alternative method for determining the organic 
HAP content (but only after obtaining EPA approval), or use the 
nonaqueous volatile matter content of the coating materials applied as 
a surrogate for the organic HAP content. The nonaqueous volatile matter 
content, which would include all organic HAP plus all other organic 
compounds (excluding water), must be determined by EPA Method 24 of 
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, or an EPA approved alternative method. 
You may rely on manufacturer's data to determine the organic HAP 
content or volatile matter content. However, if there is any 
inconsistency between the results of the test methods specified above 
(or an approved alternative) and manufacturer's or supplier's data, the 
test method results will prevail for compliance and enforcement 
purposes. You may use the test methods specified in the rule for 
determining volume solids content of the coating materials (ASTM D2697-
86 (Reapproved 1998) or ASTM D6093-97), or you may rely on 
manufacturer's or supplier's data.
    You must determine the mass of each coating material ``as 
purchased'' or ``as applied'' using company records. If diluent 
solvents or other ingredients are added to a coating material prior to 
application, then the total organic HAP fractions and mass of coating 
material ``as applied'' must be adjusted appropriately to account for 
such additions. You must calculate the organic HAP content, solids 
content, and mass of all coating materials applied on the coil coating 
lines for each monthly period. However, only changes in a material 
formulation would require a re-determination of total organic HAP mass 
fraction for that coating material.
    If you use an emission capture and control system to comply with 
compliance option 3 of the standard, you must demonstrate either the 
OCE or the oxidizer outlet HAP concentration is achieved. 
Alternatively, in accordance with compliance option 4, you may use 
capture and control equipment to demonstrate you meet the organic HAP 
emission rate limit specified. To comply using this approach, you must 
determine the OCE of the equipment and the organic HAP and solids 
content of the coating materials applied. These values must be 
determined for each monthly period and combined to determine the 
emission rate for each rolling 12-month compliance period.
    If you use a capture system and add-on control device other than a 
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material 
balances, you would use the specified test methods to determine both 
the efficiency of the capture system and the emission reduction 
efficiency of the control device (or the oxidizer outlet organic HAP 
concentration). To determine the capture efficiency, you must either 
verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure (PTE) using EPA 
Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M (and all coating materials 
must be applied and dried within the enclosure); or use EPA Method 204A 
through F of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, to measure capture efficiency. 
If you have a PTE and all materials are applied and dried within the 
enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a 
control device, you assume 100 percent capture. To demonstrate 
compliance using the oxidizer outlet organic HAP concentration limit, 
100 percent capture is required.
    You must determine the emission reduction efficiency of a control 
device or the oxidizer outlet organic HAP concentration by conducting a 
performance test or using a continuous emission monitoring system 
(CEMS). If you use CEMS to calculate the control efficiency, you must 
measure both the inlet and outlet concentrations. The CEMS must comply 
with performance specification 8 or 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    If you conduct a performance test, we are requiring that the 
emission

[[Page 39798]]

reduction efficiency of a control device or the oxidizer outlet organic 
HAP concentration be determined based on three runs, each run lasting 1 
hour. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is used for 
selection of the sampling sites. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine the gas volumetric flow 
rate. Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used for 
gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also use as an 
alternative to Method 3B, the manual method for measuring the oxygen, 
carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas in ASME PTC 
19-10-1981-Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses.'' Method 4 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine stack moisture. Method 25 
or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine organic 
volatile matter concentration. You must use Method 25A to demonstrate 
compliance with the oxidizer outlet organic HAP concentration limit 
because the limit is less than 50 ppmv. Alternatively, any other test 
method or data that have been validated according to the applicable 
procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, may be used 
upon obtaining approval by the Administrator. If you use a solvent 
recovery system, you may choose to determine the OCE using a liquid-
liquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance 
test. If you use the material balance alternative, you must measure the 
amount of all coating materials applied in the controlled coating 
operations served by the solvent recovery system during each month and 
determine the total volatile matter content of these materials. You 
must also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the 
solvent recovery system during the month and compare the amount 
recovered to the amount used to determine the OCE.
2. Monitoring Requirements
    Monitoring is required by the standards to ensure that an affected 
source that does not use CEMS to demonstrate compliance is in 
continuous compliance. Monitoring requirements apply if you comply with 
the rule using emission capture and control devices to meet compliance 
option 3 or 4.
    You must establish operating limits as part of the initial 
performance test of a capture system and control device other than a 
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material 
balances. The operating limits are the minimum or maximum (as 
applicable) values achieved for capture systems and control devices 
during the most recent performance test, conducted under representative 
conditions, that demonstrated compliance with the emission limits.
    The final rule specifies the parameters to monitor for oxidizers, 
the type of add-on control device most commonly used in the industry. 
You must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all 
monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and 
ensure that the continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) meet the 
requirements in Sec. 63.5150 of today's final rule. If you use control 
devices other than oxidizers, you must submit the operating parameters 
to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. The authority to 
approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by the Administrator 
and is not delegated to States.
    If you use a capture and control system to meet the emission limits 
and you do not use liquid-liquid material balances to demonstrate 
compliance, you are required to develop a capture system monitoring 
plan identifying the operating parameter(s) to be monitored, explaining 
the appropriateness of the parameter(s) for demonstrating ongoing 
compliance, and identifying the specific monitoring procedures. The 
monitoring plan also must establish operating limits at the capture 
system operating parameter value, or range of values, that demonstrates 
compliance with the emission limits. The plan must be available for 
inspection by the permitting authority upon request. You must monitor 
in accordance with your plan.
    After proposal of this NESHAP, we developed criteria to be used for 
setting operating parameter limits for monitoring capture systems and 
proposed them in other surface coating NESHAP (see, for an example, the 
proposal of Subpart NNNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances (65 FR 81133). These or 
similar criteria will be included in implementation materials we are 
developing for today's final rule as an example that facilities may 
follow in developing their monitoring plans.
    If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you must continuously 
monitor the appropriate temperature and record it at least every 15 
minutes. For thermal oxidizers, the temperature monitor is placed in 
the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before 
any substantial heat exchange occurs. The operating limit is the 
average temperature measured during each performance test; for each 
consecutive 3-hour period, the average temperature must be at or above 
this limit. For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed 
immediately before and after the catalyst bed. The operating limits are 
the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the average 
temperature difference across the catalyst bed during the performance 
test. For each 3-hour period, the average temperature and the average 
temperature difference are required to be at or above these limits. 
Alternatively, you are allowed to meet only the temperature limit 
before the catalyst bed if you develop and implement an inspection and 
maintenance plan for the catalytic oxidizer.
    If you operate metal coil coating lines with intermittently-
controllable work stations, you must demonstrate that captured organic 
HAP emissions within the affected source are being routed to the 
control device by monitoring for potential bypass of the control 
device. You may choose from the following four monitoring options:
    (1) Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether 
the exhaust stream is directed to the control device;
    (2) Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures to secure the bypass 
line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating;
    (3) Valve closure continuous monitoring to ensure any bypass line 
valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating; or
    (4) Automatic shutdown system to stop the coil coating operation 
when flow is diverted from the control device.
    A deviation would occur for any period of time the bypass 
monitoring indicates that emissions are not routed to the control 
device.
    If you use a solvent recovery system, you must conduct monthly 
liquid-liquid material balances or operate CEMS as described above in 
the test methods and procedures section of this preamble.
    If you use a capture system and add-on control device other than a 
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material 
balances, you are required to achieve on a continuous basis the 
operating limits you establish during the performance test. In 
addition, to demonstrate continuos compliance with compliance option 4, 
you must record data on the organic HAP and solids content of the 
coating materials applied to determine the organic HAP emission rate 
for each compliance period.

[[Page 39799]]

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

    You are required to comply with the applicable requirements in the 
NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as indicated in 
Table 2 to subpart SSSS. The General Provisions notification 
requirements include: initial notifications, notification of 
performance test if you are complying using a capture system and 
control device, notification of compliance status, and additional 
notifications required for affected sources with continuous monitoring 
systems. The General Provisions also require certain records and 
periodic reports.
1. Initial Notification
    If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must send a 
notification to the EPA Regional Office in the region where your 
facility is located and to your State agency no later than 2 years 
after June 10, 2002. For new and reconstructed sources, you must send 
the notification within 120 days after the date of initial startup or 
120 days after June 10, 2002, whichever is later. That report notifies 
us and your State agency that you have an existing affected source that 
is subject to today's NESHAP or that you have constructed a new 
affected source. Thus, it allows you and the permitting authority to 
plan for compliance activities. You also need to send a notification of 
planned construction or reconstruction of a source that will be subject 
to the final rule and apply for approval to construct or reconstruct.
2. Notification of Performance Test
    If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control 
device for which you do not conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, 
you must conduct a performance test. The performance test is required 
no later than the compliance date for an existing affected source. For 
a new or reconstructed affected source, the performance test is 
required no later than 180 days after startup or 180 days after today's 
date, whichever is later. You must notify us (or the delegated State or 
local agency) at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is 
scheduled to begin and submit a report of the performance test results 
no later than 60 days after the test.
3. Notification of Compliance Status
    You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status within 30 days 
after the end of the initial 12-month compliance period. In the 
notification, you must certify whether each affected source has 
complied with the final standards, identify the option(s) you used to 
demonstrate initial compliance, summarize the data and calculations 
supporting the compliance demonstration, and provide information on any 
deviations from the emission limits, operating limits, or other 
requirements.
    If you elect to comply by using a capture system and control device 
for which you conduct performance tests, you must provide the results 
of the tests. Your notification must also include the measured range of 
each monitored parameter, the operating limits established during the 
performance test, and information showing whether the source has 
complied with its operating limits during the initial compliance 
period.
4. Recordkeeping Requirements
    You must keep records of reported information and all other 
information necessary to document compliance with today's final rule 
for 5 years. As required under the General Provisions, records for the 
2 most recent years must be kept on-site; the other 3 years' records 
may be kept off-site. Records pertaining to the design and operation of 
the control and monitoring equipment must be kept for the life of the 
equipment.
    Depending on the compliance option you choose, you may have to keep 
records of one or more of the following:
     Organic HAP, volatile matter, and solids content of the 
coating materials, ``as purchased'' or ``as applied.''
     Monthly usage of coating materials, organic HAP, volatile 
matter, and solids and compliance demonstrations using these data.
     Continuous monitoring system measurements.
     Liquid-liquid material balances.
    If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control 
device, you must keep records of the following:
     All required measurements, calculations, and supporting 
documentation needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards.
     All results of performance tests and parameter monitoring.
     All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with 
the affected source's SSMP when the plan procedures are followed.
     The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction of the emission capture system and control device.
     Actions taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
that are different from the procedures specified in the affected 
source's SSMP.
     Each period during which a CPMS is malfunctioning or 
inoperative (including out-of-control periods).
    Today's final rule requires you to collect and keep records 
according to certain minimum data requirements for the CPMS. Failure to 
collect and keep the specified minimum data would be a deviation that 
is separate from any emission limits or operating limits.
    Deviations, as determined from these records, need to be recorded 
and also reported. A deviation is any instance when any requirement or 
obligation established by the final rule including, but not limited to, 
the emission limits and operating limits, is not met.
    If you use a capture system and control device to reduce organic 
HAP emissions, you must make your SSMP available for inspection if the 
Administrator requests to see it. The plan must stay in your records 
for the life of the affected source or until the source is no longer 
subject to the proposed standards. If you revise the plan, you need to 
keep the previous superseded versions on record for 5 years following 
the revision.
5. Periodic Reports
    Each reporting year is divided into two semiannual reporting 
periods. If no deviations occur during a semiannual reporting period, 
you must submit a semiannual report stating that the affected source 
has been in compliance. If deviations occur, you must include them in 
the report as follows:
     Report each deviation from the emission limit.
     If you use an emission capture system and control device 
other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-
liquid material balances, report each deviation from an operating limit 
and each time a bypass line diverts emissions from the control device 
to the atmosphere.
     Report other specific information on the periods of time 
the deviations occurred.
    You also must include in each semiannual report an identification 
of the compliance option(s) you used for each affected source and the 
beginning dates you used each compliance option.
6. Other Reports
    You are required to submit reports for periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction of the capture system and control device. If 
the procedures you follow during any startup, shutdown, or malfunction 
are inconsistent with your plan, you must report those procedures with 
your semiannual reports in

[[Page 39800]]

addition to immediate reports required by 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii).

III. What Are the Major Changes We Have Made to the Rule Since 
Proposal?

    This section summarizes the major changes we have made to the rule 
since proposal. We made the changes to clarify the rule's requirements 
and to respond to public comments on the proposed rule. A summary of 
responses to major comments regarding rule requirements is presented in 
section IV.B of this preamble.

A. Rule Applicability

    The rule applicability has been clarified through revisions to the 
definition of a coil coating line and related definitions and the 
addition of a paragraph explicitly presenting criteria under which 
today's rule does not apply to a coil coating line. Also, a paragraph 
has been added that gives you compliance options if you operate a 
coating line(s) that coats both coil and foil.
    The revised definition of a coil coating line incorporates the 
proposed definition of coil coating operation (the collection of 
equipment used to apply an organic coating to the surface of metal coil 
that is at least 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) thick). The definition of 
coil coating operation has been removed from the final standard. The 
coating of metal coil for use in flexible packaging (subject to the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) is explicitly exempted 
from the requirements of today's rule through a revision to the 
definition of metal coil stating that metal coil does not include metal 
webs that are coated for use in flexible packaging. A definition of 
flexible packaging has been added to the final rule. A definition of 
protective oil, which is identified as a material not considered to be 
a coating in this subpart, has been added to the final rule to clarify 
what it includes.
    A paragraph that explicitly presents two criteria under which 
today's rule does not apply to a coil coating line has been added. The 
first criterion, for a coil coating line that is part of research or 
laboratory equipment, was proposed in Sec. 63.5100 as an exception to 
the emission sources affected by this subpart, and has been moved to 
the applicability statement of Sec. 63.5090. The second criterion, for 
a coating line that predominantly coats foil (a metal strip that is 
less than 0.006 inch thick), has been added to the final rule.
    The paragraph that has been added provides compliance options for a 
coating line subject to both this subpart and 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
JJJJ which is currently under development. It allows you to comply only 
with this subpart if you operate a coating line that coats both coil 
and foil, regardless of the amount of each coated or if you coat only 
foil but the coating line is controlled by a common control device that 
also receives organic HAP emissions from a coil coating line that is 
subject to the requirements of this subpart. Compliance with this 
subpart would constitute compliance with subpart JJJJ.

B. Emission Standards

    The proposed emission rate limit has been revised in the final 
rule, and an oxidizer outlet concentration limit has been added. Also, 
the language of the emission standards has been revised to reflect the 
change in the compliance period from one month to a 12-month compliance 
period, as is described in section III.D of this preamble.
    The proposed emission rate limit would have limited organic HAP 
emissions to no more than 0.029 kg/l (0.24lb/gal) of solids applied for 
the month. The final emission rate limit requires that the level of 
organic HAP be no more than 0.046 kg/l (0.38lb/gal) of solids applied 
during each 12-month compliance period.
    If you use an oxidizer to control organic HAP emissions, the final 
rule allows you to operate the oxidizer such that an outlet organic HAP 
concentration of no greater than 20 ppmv by compound on a dry basis is 
achieved, provided the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent. 
This outlet concentration limit provides oxidizers with an alternative 
to the 98 percent OCE limit.

C. Operating Limits

    In response to comments regarding the definition of deviation as it 
relates to the failure to meet operating parameters, oxidizer 
monitoring, and the establishment of the operating parameter to be 
monitored, we have added Sec. 63.5121 entitled ``What operating limits 
must I meet?'' to the final rule. This section clarifies that the 
operating limits must be met at all times after you establish them and 
presents the applicable operating limits for oxidizers and methods of 
demonstrating continuous compliance with the operating limits in Table 
1 to subpart SSSS.
    The catalytic oxidizer operating parameter monitoring requirements 
have been revised to incorporate the option of catalyst bed inlet and 
outlet gas temperature monitoring that is described below. Regarding 
capture system monitoring, the proposed requirement that you submit 
your monitoring plan to the Administrator has been revised to require 
only that you make the monitoring plan available for inspection by the 
permitting authority upon request.
    We have also added a specific operating limits paragraph to section 
63.5160 of the final rule to clarify the specific procedures to be 
followed to establish the operating limits during a performance test. 
The procedures for establishing the operating limits for a catalytic 
oxidizer have been corrected in the final rule to require that both the 
outlet temperature and the inlet temperature to the catalyst bed be 
used as operating parameters in order to calculate the temperature 
change across the catalyst bed. In addition, an alternative to this 
monitoring has been added to the final rule. In lieu of monitoring the 
inlet and outlet gas temperatures to calculate temperature change 
across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the gas temperature at the 
inlet to the catalyst bed and develop and implement an inspection and 
maintenance plan for the catalytic oxidizer.

D. Compliance Demonstration

    Revisions to the proposed compliance demonstration requirements 
discussed below include explicitly allowing compliance on a line-by-
line basis, changing the averaging period for the emission rate limit 
from a monthly to a rolling 12-month average, revising the definition 
of the term Mj to exclude water, and removing the 98 percent 
cap on destruction efficiency in calculating HAP emitted to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission rate limit.
    We intended for the proposed rule to allow line-by-line compliance. 
This intent has been clarified in the final rule by adding an 
introductory paragraph to Sec. 63.5170 of the final rule. The 
introductory paragraph states that you may apply any of the compliance 
options to an individual coil coating line, or to multiple lines as a 
group, or to the entire affected source. You may use different 
compliance options for different coil coating lines, or at different 
times on the same line, but you may not use different compliance 
options at the same time on the same coil coating line. Recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements also are specified if you switch between 
compliance options.
    The compliance period specified for the emission rate limit in the 
proposed rule was 1 month. The compliance period specified in the final 
rule is 12 months, and compliance with the emission rate limit is 
demonstrated on

[[Page 39801]]

the basis of a rolling 12-month average. The 12-month compliance period 
is specified in Sec. 63.5130 of the final rule and also is reflected in 
the specifications of the initial compliance period and subsequent 
compliance periods that have been added to this section. The initial 
compliance period begins on the compliance date and ends on the last 
day of the 12th month following the compliance date. If the compliance 
date is not the first day of the month, then the initial compliance 
period extends through that month plus the next 12 months. For 
subsequent compliance periods, each month after the end of the initial 
compliance period is the end of a compliance period consisting of that 
month and the preceding 11 months.
    The term Mj is the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, 
diluent, or other nonsolids-containing coating material, j, applied in 
a month and is used in the mass balance to determine the recovery 
efficiency of a solvent recovery device. The proposed definition of 
Mj included water as a nonsolids-containing coating 
material. The definition of the term Mj in Equation 6 of 
Sec. 63.5170 of the final rule has been revised to explicitly exclude 
water.
    Finally, the proposed rule capped oxidizer destruction efficiency 
at 98 percent in calculating organic HAP emitted to demonstrate 
compliance with the emission rate limit unless performance was 
demonstrated with CEMS data. The final rule has been revised to allow 
the use of oxidizer destruction efficiencies greater than 98 percent 
demonstrated during performance testing, provided the oxidizer has 
continuously operated within the operating limits established during 
the performance test.

IV. What Are the Responses to Major Comments?

    This section summarizes the major public comments we received on 
the proposed rule and our responses to those comments. A more 
comprehensive summary of comments and responses can be found in Docket 
No. A-97-47.

A. Impacts Analysis

    Commenters identified flaws with EPA's impacts analysis and were 
concerned that inaccuracies in the impact analysis would affect bottom 
line figures for the costs impacts, secondary air impacts, and 
achievability of the standards. Two commenters asserted that EPA 
underestimated oven air flow rates for the model plant analysis due to 
failing to calculate air flows in standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) 
rather than actual cubic feet per minute (acfm), underestimating air 
flows by 1.5 to 2 times that used for model plant analysis for 
determining costs. They also claim that upgrading control devices to 
achieve the 98 percent OCE limit would generate additional air flow 
that has to be treated by the oxidizer due to installing new PTE with 
sufficient ventilation to comply with OSHA permissible exposure limits 
for the mix of solvents used. Failing to include the associated costs 
underestimates the initial capital investment and annual operating 
costs of an affected coating line.
    Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the flow rates in acfm were 
derived from Information Collection Request (ICR) information and 
converted to scfm for the design of oxidizers; therefore, no error was 
made in this calculation. However, after further analysis comparing the 
calculated air flow rates to the reported air flow rates for all 
facilities that reported air flow rates in acfm, we found that model 
plant air flow rates should have been about 50 percent higher. 
Therefore, an adjustment factor was developed, resulting in a 50 
percent increase in the model plant air flow rates. The adjusted oven 
air flow rates were used to revise compliance cost estimates. We also 
reviewed the additional capture measures reported by respondents to the 
metal coil coating ICR that use PTE. The ICR review revealed that a 
large majority of facilities reporting existing PTE did not report the 
use of additional ventilation; only 17 percent reported extra 
ventilation.
    However, we agree that approximately 40 percent more flow is needed 
for a PTE if it cannot be designed with adequate local exhaust 
ventilation in the form of hoods and oven extensions to ensure worker 
safety. Therefore, we developed additional costs to reflect a 40 
percent increase in flow for the 17 percent of facilities requiring 
extra ventilation.
    One commenter stated that EPA's PTE costs are significantly 
underestimated based on a cost summary provided by the commenter for a 
PTE installed for a tandem coating line in a mezzanine arrangement. The 
cost summary included costs for reconfiguration of make-up air duct 
work, new exhaust duct work, a new plant make-up air heater, and 
explosion proof electrical systems. They assert that EPA estimates 
neglect these additional costs. Our data analysis revealed that PTE 
costs for a mezzanine arrangement represent the worst case situation 
for PTE application. Of the seven facilities in the facility database 
who use this configuration, four already have PTE and six comply with 
one of the compliance options. The seventh mezzanine PTE was under 
construction. Therefore, no additional costs for this design have been 
added. The PTE costs we derived represent typical installations; 
however, we agree with the commenter that electrical fittings used in 
the presence of flammable solvents should be explosion proof. To 
account for the additional cost of explosion-proof fittings, the 
estimated cost of auxiliaries has been increased from 50 to 80 percent 
of the PTE capital cost. These revised costs were used in revising the 
compliance cost estimates.
    Two commenters believed that many of the assumptions EPA used to 
determine the cost of upgrading or replacing thermal oxidizers 
contributed to control system upgrade/replacement costs that are 
substantially less than what is truly needed. In addition to their 
comments about gas flow rate estimates for the model plant analysis, 
they claim the following assumptions should be revised or eliminated: 
(1) EPA has assumed that costs for duct work, dampers, fans, motors and 
stacks are not required for a replacement oxidizer, (2) a 20 percent 
discount is assumed for purchase of two oxidizers in the same order, 
(3) new oxidizers are assumed to operate with 70 percent heat recovery, 
which would likely preheat the inlet stream to above auto-ignition 
temperatures for the VOC involved, and (4) EPA assumed that existing 
units will be upgraded to achieve higher destruction efficiencies and 
accommodate increased flow. The commenter claimed that it is much more 
likely that a facility would choose to replace rather than upgrade a 
unit given the cost of modifications the commenter asserted to be 
necessary, including enlarging the combustion chamber, increasing the 
oxidizer blower capacity, increasing the size of the heat exchanger, 
and enlarging duct work to handle additional flow.
    To address the comments on the costs of upgrading or replacing 
thermal oxidizers, for cases in which increased flow to the replacement 
oxidizer is not required, the assumption has been made that new ducting 
is not required. For cases in which air flow is increased, but a rotary 
concentrator is installed, the air flow to the oxidizer is not 
increased but new ducting is needed to route air to the rotary 
concentrator and from the concentrator to the oxidizer. New costs for 
the concentrator and associated equipment have been estimated for these 
cases and any others in which increased ventilation air is required.
    Since index values for thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers 
are

[[Page 39802]]

now greater than for most other control devices, discounts may not be 
available. New costs have been developed that have no discount for the 
purchase of two oxidizers in the same order.
    We reviewed the heat recovery information in the facility database. 
In addition, we contacted two oxidizer vendors concerning the potential 
for auto-ignition of the inlet stream. Despite the high heat recovery 
efficiencies reported by some facilities in the database and the 
potential for designing recuperative oxidizers to avoid auto-ignition 
problems, we agree there is still the potential of auto-ignition 
problems for certain organic compounds used in the metal coil coating 
industry. Hence, we followed a conservative approach in reevaluating 
the assumptions used in costing replacement oxidizers. Replacement 
oxidizers are assumed to achieve a heat recovery of 60 percent versus 
the 50 percent heat recovery of baseline oxidizers. This number is 
based on our review of the database balanced by information provided by 
oxidizer vendors and is appropriate for impact analysis. In actuality, 
some sources may achieve higher heat recovery and some lower.
    In determining whether an existing oxidizer would be upgraded or 
replaced, we assumed that the useful life of an oxidizer is 15 years 
based on available information. For sources with oxidizers near the end 
of their useful lives, we did not attribute the replacement cost to the 
NESHAP since the source would incur the cost in any case. To account 
for specific situations where oxidizers are not as old, we costed the 
addition of PTE which will result in increased flow requirements, and 
we costed the addition of concentrators. We believe these costing 
assumptions are reasonable and realistic.
    Two commenters claimed that it is not cost effective to push the 
existing source OCE limit to 98 percent. The commenters stated that the 
incremental cost of increasing the OCE limit from their proposed 95 
percent to 98 percent is approximately $35,000/ton HAP removed whereas 
the incremental cost of moving from the current baseline to 95 percent 
control is approximately $5,000/ton HAP removed based on an economic 
assessment done by one of the commenters.
    The existing source OCE was not pushed to 98 percent, but rather 
was determined to be the MACT floor using data available to the 
Administrator. Consequently, the EPA's economic impact analysis was 
conducted only for the MACT floor level of 98 percent OCE. The 
appropriate cost effectiveness analysis considers the cost of reducing 
HAP emissions at the MACT floor level of control compared to the 
baseline level rather than the increment between 95 percent and 98 
percent OCE which the commenters suggested. The MACT floor analysis 
results in a cost effectiveness of approximately $4,500/ton HAP 
removed.
    One commenter noted that EPA's estimates of the nationwide 
incremental costs incurred by the coil coating industry to implement 
the rule were, at proposal, a nationwide total capital investment of 
$11.6 million and a total annual cost of $5.9 million. The commenter 
strongly disagreed with these cost estimates and cited data from an 
economic assessment done by their contractor which estimated the total 
annual incremental costs for the coil coating industry to be 
approximately $20.8 million. The commenter believes that EPA's estimate 
is incorrect because (1) EPA calculated the incremental costs by 
subtracting baseline costs from the upgrade or replacement cost which 
they believe assumes the replacement or upgrade would have been 
necessary for continued compliance with the VOC standards, even in the 
absence of the new coil NESHAP. (2) The EPA extrapolated nationwide 
costs by multiplying the model plant costs by the ratio of total HAP 
emissions reported by all facilities in the facility database divided 
by the emissions from all plants covered by the model plant analysis. 
This assumes that EPA has collected HAP emissions data on all existing 
coil coating lines in the country which is unlikely. (3) The EPA 
estimated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs by amortizing 
certain one time costs over a 15-year period, then adding the annual 
cost of compliance demonstrations, reports, and recordkeeping. Most 
permitting agencies would require performance testing, which EPA 
considered a one time cost, at a greater frequency than 15 years which 
would cause cost estimates to be understated.
    Since we have revised our cost estimates due to corrections needed 
as described above, our estimated nationwide capital and annual costs 
have increased (see section V.D of this preamble). The nationwide cost 
estimates have been revised to incorporate the revised MACT floor costs 
associated with adding PTE, upgrading or replacing existing oxidizers 
and installing new condenser systems in some situations as described 
above. Even with these revisions, EPA's estimated costs are 
significantly lower than the commenters' costs. The revised nationwide 
total costs for all plants show an increase in capital costs to $18.1 
million and an increase in annual costs to $7.6 million. Regarding the 
commenters' list of assumptions that should be modified, these 
assumptions were not changed for the following reason. No assumption 
concerning continued compliance with VOC standards was made. Estimating 
upgrade costs as the difference between the baseline and the MACT floor 
level of control is a technique for deriving incremental costs when 
detailed site specific data for all sources is not available. The EPA 
believes that most metal coil surface coating facilities in the country 
are in the database, therefore, any facilities omitted would lead to a 
small underestimation of nationwide costs. Finally, regarding the 
assumption that the control system performance test is a one time cost 
over the 15-year life of the oxidizer, the NESHAP only requires an 
initial performance test. Any subsequent testing would not be a result 
of the NESHAP requirements, but would be at the discretion of the 
permitting authority. Therefore, the cost of performance testing 
subsequent to the initial performance test was not attributed to the 
NESHAP.
    One commenter questioned two of the assumptions used by EPA in 
determining how many facilities will have to make control system 
upgrades. The commenter submitted that EPA assumed that ten of the 
facilities would pursue synthetic minor permits and be exempt from the 
coil NESHAP; however, the commenter believed that there is no certainty 
in this assumption, as changes in market demand and/or product mix at a 
facility may require it to pursue a major source title V permit. The 
commenter also submitted that EPA estimated 26 facilities would be in 
compliance with the OCE or emission rate limit in the coil NESHAP; 
however, the commenter believed there are insufficient data to 
determine whether a facility will be able to comply with the monthly 
average requirements of the emission rate approach because the ICR data 
represent annual average emissions of HAP per solids applied, and the 
equivalent emission rate limit, as proposed, will be enforced on a 
monthly basis. One commenter noted that EPA's projected HAP emission 
reduction of 55 percent also appears to be based on the assumption that 
some facilities could comply with the monthly emission rate limit. The 
commenter's estimated reduction was based only on achieving 98 percent 
OCE and was estimated at 77 percent. The commenter believes that the 
Agency should not rely on speculation of the annual reductions

[[Page 39803]]

that will be achieved with the emission rate approach.
    The ten facilities that the commenter describes as pursuing 
synthetic minor permits were facilities in the database reporting being 
already permitted as synthetic minors. No assumption was made that any 
facility not permitted as a synthetic minor source would do so to be 
exempt from the coil NESHAP. The commenter has a valid point that 
basing the assumption of whether a facility can comply with the 
emission rate limit during monthly compliance periods on annual 
emission rate data may be inappropriate. The compliance period for the 
emission rate limit has been revised to a rolling 12-month period to 
better reflect the data.
    The projected HAP emission reduction (55 percent for the proposed 
rule; 53 percent for the final rule) is based on assuming that sources 
would choose the least costly means necessary to achieve either the 
facility 98 percent OCE or the equivalent emission rate compliance 
option. We believe it is reasonable to assume that some facilities will 
choose the emission rate limit as the least costly compliance option, 
particularly since it has been made less stringent than the proposed 
limit and since the compliance period has been changed from a monthly 
average to a rolling 12-month average. The revisions to the emission 
rate limit will result in a revised estimated HAP emission reduction of 
53 percent.

B. Rule Applicability

    Two commenters noted that EPA specifies that both the foil coating 
and the coil coating operations would be subject to the metal coil 
NESHAP at facilities that perform both foil and coil coating operations 
on the same equipment. Facilities coating only foil on their coating 
equipment would be subject to the Paper and Other Webs (POWC) NESHAP 
currently under development. The commenters suggested several ways to 
synchronize these two NESHAP including adopting 95 percent OCE as the 
MACT floor, revising the emission rate limit to reflect a 
representative coating with a HAP to solids ratio of 80/20, allowing 
sources to switch between the POWC rule currently under development and 
the metal coil rule through their title V permits, or specifying that 
the governing NESHAP be based on a threshold percentage of production 
time or of total surface area coated.
    The metal coil rule as proposed specified that operations 
performing both foil coating and coil coating on the same equipment 
would be subject to the metal coil NESHAP only. The CAA directs EPA to 
develop standards that require the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable for each source category, which are 
commonly referred to as MACT standards. For existing major sources, 
MACT must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best preforming 12 percent of sources in the source 
category, which is referred to as the MACT floor. The 98 percent OCE 
was established using data submitted by coil coating facilities on 
their ICR. Data from facilities in the metal coil source category 
indicates that 98 percent is MACT for this source category. Selecting a 
95 percent OCE is, therefore, not an option for the MACT floor.
    To arrive at the emission rate limit, we used the average volume 
solids reported by each MACT floor facility. We used a conservative 
assumption (i.e., tendency to overestimate HAP) that the entire 
volatile fraction of the coating was HAP to determine the HAP to solids 
ratio for a representative coating for the metal coil industry. For 
proposal, this ratio was 60/40. For the final rule, we revised this 
ratio, using the average of the coatings with the lowest solids content 
reported by each facility in the MACT floor. This type of coating 
represents the most adverse circumstance that could reasonably be 
expected to occur at a floor facility. The resulting HAP to solids 
ratio is now 70/30. We believe this higher ratio accounts for the range 
in coatings used by floor facilities and reflects a HAP/solids mix of 
coatings that is representative for the metal coil coating industry. 
The resulting emission rate limit is 0.38lb of HAP/gal of solids. The 
HAP/solids ratio used to establish the proposed emission rate limit for 
the POWC rule and the final printing and publishing rule were based on 
information on coating characteristics for each respective source 
category and is not, according to our data, representative of coatings 
on average in the metal coil source category.
    The commenters proposed that we allow a cutoff limit based on 
threshold percentage of activity for each source category which would 
determine the rule with which a facility would comply. Additional data 
analysis was done to determine the degree to which overlap occurs. Our 
data analysis revealed there are six facilities in the metal coil MACT 
database reporting coating application on substrates of thicknesses 
less than 0.006 inches, which would be considered foil. One facility 
reported the percentage of foil coating as confidential business 
information (CBI). Four facilities reported less than 25 percent foil 
coating, making coil coating the principal surface coating activity for 
their coating lines. However, one facility reported at least 85 percent 
of the substrate being coated as foil, making foil coating the 
principal surface coating activity for their coating lines. We believe 
that coating lines for which 85 per cent of the substrate coated is 
foil would be more appropriately covered by the POWC NESHAP. Therefore, 
using the available data, we have established a special provision for 
this particular circumstance. If 85 percent or more of the substrate 
coated on a line, based on surface area, is of a thickness of less than 
0.006 inches, then that line will be covered under the POWC NESHAP 
currently under development and is not subject to the metal coil 
surface coating NESHAP. We do not anticipate that establishing this 
primary use provision at 85 per cent will result in a significant 
negative environmental impact. We expect the provision to apply to a 
limited number of coating lines (less than ten), and the incremental 
difference in emission reduction achieved at those lines will be no 
more than three per cent (i.e., the difference between the 98 per cent 
OCE achieved by the metal coil rule versus the 95 per cent OCE achieved 
by the POWC rule). We estimate this difference to be approximately 75 
tpy.
    Facilities that may have coil and foil coated on the same line, 
regardless of the percentage of surface area, may opt to subject that 
line to the metal coil surface coating NESHAP. In addition, facilities 
that have metal coil and foil coated on separate lines at a facility 
may opt to include all lines under the metal coil NESHAP if the lines 
are controlled by a common control device. If for any year a line 
utilizing this cutoff limit and complying with the POWC NESHAP coats 
more than 15 percent coil substrate based on surface area, that line 
will from that point forward be subject to the metal coil NESHAP, and 
will no longer be able to utilize the cutoff limit option. The 
applicability section of the final rule has been revised accordingly.
    The commenters suggested that sources be allowed to switch between 
rules through their title V permits when their coating substrate 
changes. To do this, sources would have to keep records of substrate 
and coating use separately for the POWC and metal coil rules, as well 
as calculations for compliance demonstrations and reports for each 
rule. The 85 per cent primary use provision allows facilities to comply 
with the NESHAP representing their principal coating activity.

[[Page 39804]]

    One commenter submitted that product and packaging companies 
applying coatings onto continuous metal substrates greater than 0.006 
inch thick for flexible packaging should be exempt from the coil 
coating MACT rule. The commenter noted that the facility and its 
process equipment is either already subject to the printing and 
publishing NESHAP or will be subject to the POWC NESHAP.
    We agree that the coating of metal substrates for the purpose of 
flexible packaging is an operation that is covered under the proposed 
POWC NESHAP. The final rule has been revised to clarify that the metal 
coil NESHAP does not apply to substrates coated for flexible packaging.
    One commenter noted that the proposed applicability section 40 CFR 
63.5090 provides that ``The provisions of this subpart apply to each 
facility that is a major source of HAP, as defined in Sec. 63.2, at 
which a coil coating line is operated'' (underlined emphasis added). 
The commenter submitted that the phrase ``coil coating line is 
operated'' is not defined and ``coil coating line'' includes any 
coating operation, including those operations EPA seeks to exclude in 
the definition of ``coating'' in 40 CFR 63.5110. The commenter 
requested clarification of the proposed applicability section to 
clearly identify regulated facilities using the terms defined at 
proposed 40 CFR 63.5110.
    We agree with the commenter that the proposed applicability 
language was not clear. The definition of coil coating line in section 
63.5110 has been revised as follows: ``coil coating line means a 
process and the collection of equipment used to apply an organic 
coating to the surface of a metal coil.'' The definition of coil 
coating operation has been removed from that section. This revision 
addresses the commenter's concern.
    Two commenters requested that EPA specifically state in the 
preamble that all of the equipment included as part of ancillary 
operations has been evaluated under the metal coil NESHAP and, thus, is 
exempt from the proposed Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON) (67 FR 
16154, April 4, 2002).
    The NESHAP to which the commenters refer would regulate coating 
manufacturing operations and would require controls on the following 
emission sources: storage tanks, process (mixing) vessels, equipment 
components, wastewater treatment and conveyance systems, transfer 
operations, and ancillary sources such as heat exchange systems. As the 
commenter stated, we evaluated all of the equipment included as part of 
ancillary operations as we developed the proposed rule. We requested 
control and emissions information on these operations as part of our 
information collection request. However, the information we received 
was not sufficiently detailed to give a clear picture of the level of 
control achieved for these operations. For example, mixing can occur at 
the coating application station inside a PTE, or it can occur at a 
location away from the application station without an enclosure. If a 
facility reported achieving 98 per cent control of mixing tanks, it was 
not clear if all mixing was controlled at this level or only a portion 
of the mixing. Due to the lack of detailed information available, we 
were not able to determine a MACT floor for such equipment. 
Consequently, equipment that is part of ancillary operations is not 
included in the affected source for these standards.
    The proposed MON is not intended to apply to the end users of 
manufactured coatings. As proposed, it will apply only to sources that 
manufacture coatings described by SIC codes 285 or 289 or NAICS code 
3255. Metal coil coating facilities are not typically in these SIC and 
NAICS codes and, therefore, would not be subject to the MON, as 
proposed. If a facility does meet the proposed definition of a coating 
manufacturer in the MON, its ancillary operations would most likely not 
meet the criteria used to determine whether controls are required 
(e.g., the capacity of mixing vessels and storage tanks, or the 
concentration of total organic HAP in wastewater). The MON preamble 
specifically requests comment on the costs of controlling emissions and 
appropriate size cutoffs for coating manufacturers who produce coatings 
for their own use. Facilities that are potentially affected by the 
proposed MON or concerned about how it may apply to coating users may 
view comments received on the MON proposal by accessing Docket Number 
A-96-04.

C. Definitions

    Several commenters submitted that the definition of ``deviation'' 
in the proposed rule is very broad or overly complicated and requested 
that the definition be deleted. The commenters are concerned that all 
deviations may be considered violations of the standards. Two 
commenters requested that in place of the term ``deviation,'' we 
include a definition for ``excursion'' or ``monitoring excursion.''
    We are using the term ``deviation'' to standardize the regulatory 
language used in NESHAP and to avoid any confusion that might be caused 
by using multiple, related terms such as excess emission, exceedence, 
excursion, and deviation in the same regulatory program. In the final 
rule, the definition of deviation clarifies that any failure to meet an 
emission limitation (including an operating limit or work practice 
standard) is a deviation, regardless of whether such a failure is 
specifically excused or occurs at times when the emission limitations 
do not apply, for example, during startup, shutdown, or malfunction. 
The enforcement authority determines violations. The definition of 
deviation is consistent with the use of the term deviation in the title 
V operating permit program.

D. MACT Floor Determination

    One commenter asserted that the approach followed by EPA in setting 
the OCE MACT floor was flawed and proposed an alternative approach to 
setting the MACT floor. The commenter points out that the CAA gives EPA 
no direction on how to determine which sources are ``best performing,'' 
accordingly, EPA has maximum flexibility in making that determination. 
In the commenter's approach, the plants in their database operating 
with add-on controls were sorted from the lowest to the highest post-
control HAP emissions in terms of lbs of HAP per lbs of solids applied. 
The OCE was calculated for each facility, and the arithmetic mean of 
the best performing 12 percent of the data set was calculated at 93.6 
percent. The commenter asserts that this approach to setting the MACT 
floor is more appropriate than EPA's method because it better defines 
the ``best performing sources,'' basing performance on the amount of 
HAP emitted per solids applied rather than just focusing on OCE. The 
commenter claims that this approach also generates a more diverse group 
of coating lines in the MACT floor facilities than EPA's method. The 
commenter submitted that EPA followed a flexible approach in setting 
MACT floors for other NESHAP because of the diversity of industry 
sectors and types and formulation of coatings used, diversity that is 
also found in the coil coating industry.
    We agree that we have flexibility in determining what constitutes 
the best-performing 12 percent of sources; however, using the 
methodology proposed by the commenter erroneously accepts that low 
post-controlled emissions is the result of OCE alone. Post-controlled 
emissions most often reflect a combination of low-HAP coating 
formulation and OCE. Given the nature of the metal coil surface coating 
process and the prevalence of add-on controls in the industry, we 
determined that ranking facilities by the highest

[[Page 39805]]

level of control their control devices achieve is the correct method of 
establishing the best performers. This methodology generated a universe 
of floor facilities that represents the diversity of facilities in the 
industry. The floor facilities coat the range of product types found in 
the metal coil coating source category.
    Several commenters asserted that the proposed OCE of 98 percent is 
too stringent for existing sources. The commenters supported an OCE of 
95 percent for existing sources and 98 percent for new sources. The 
commenters submitted that thermal oxidation (the overwhelming choice 
for VOC/HAP control in the coil coating industry) is limited to 
achieving 98 percent destruction efficiency for new, properly designed 
units and that existing thermal and catalytic oxidizers cannot achieve 
98 percent destruction efficiency on a long-term, continuous basis.
    The EPA used data submitted by coil coating facilities on their ICR 
as the primary basis for establishing a 98 percent OCE. Reported values 
show that these control systems are capable of achieving greater than 
99 percent HAP destruction, based on 100 percent capture and greater 
than 99 percent destruction efficiencies. The average reported OCE of 
the MACT floor facilities is 99.4 percent. To determine the level of 
emission control that is consistently achievable with this technology, 
we also considered the level of control that the EPA has generally 
found to be achievable. In addition to general EPA guidance, available 
literature was reviewed and state agencies and vendors of control 
equipment were contacted (docket No. A-97-47) for further information 
indicating the appropriate control efficiency for thermal oxidizers. 
All of these sources indicate that thermal oxidizers routinely achieve 
destruction efficiencies of at least 98 percent.
    With respect to the performance of catalytic oxidizers, for inlet 
concentrations greater than 100 ppm, catalytic oxidizers can achieve 95 
to 98 percent destruction (docket No. A-97-47). Though 95 percent 
destruction is typical, 98 percent can be achieved through the use of 
larger catalyst volumes and/or higher temperatures.

E. Achievability of the Standards

    Several commenters submitted that the emission rate limit should be 
less restrictive. One commenter presented an alternative emission rate 
proposal based on upper-bound HAP formulation. Under the commenter's 
proposal, the average minimum solids content for the eleven floor 
facilities is 29.1 percent solids by volume. Therefore, the commenters 
request that EPA use a representative coating of 30 percent solids and 
70 percent HAP to derive the equivalent emission rate compliance option 
instead of the 40 percent solids and 60 percent HAP ratio used for the 
proposed standard. The representative coating would then yield a 
precontrol emission rate of 18.5 lbs HAP/gal solids applied, which then 
generates an equivalent emission rate of 0.37 lb HAP/gal solids applied 
when factored by the 98 percent OCE. The commenters also requested that 
the compliance averaging period be a 12-month rolling average. This 
would account for the use of annual average data in the derivation of 
the equivalent emission rate and the significant variability in the 
types of coatings toll coaters typically apply over a 1-year period.
    We agree with the commenter that in this case, the emission rate 
limit should be a rolling 12-month emission rate because the data on 
which the limit was set reflect annual averages and some segments of 
the coil coating industry may experience significant variation from 
month to month in types of coatings used and their HAP contents. This 
revision has been incorporated into Sec. 63.5170 of the final rule. In 
addition, we agree that the alternative emission rate limit and 
compliant coating option should be revised to reflect the average of 
the lowest solids/highest HAP applied by the MACT floor facilities in 
the database. The revised emission rate limit and compliant coating 
option is 0.38 lb of HAP per gallon of solids applied during each 12-
month compliance period.
    Several commenters submitted that EPA has proposed a single set of 
emission standards to regulate the entire coil coating industry, 
thereby failing to account for the significant diversity in various 
segments of the industry. One commenter requested that EPA 
subcategorize or, at a minimum, set different emission limits for 
different types of coil coating operations based on coating use (water-
borne or solvent-borne), end use industrial sector or the type of 
coating business (toll coating versus captive coating). Two of the 
commenters note that EPA specifically requested comment on the 
appropriateness of requiring the proposed emission limits for 
electrodeposition coating (e-coat) lines using water-borne coatings 
that comply with NSPS and reasonably available control technology 
(RACT) VOC limits. One commenter added that the MACT floor facilities 
on which the emission limits are based are comprised of a 
disproportionate number of coating lines that produce stock for 
architectural and building products, a segment of the coil coating 
industry characterized by application of solvent-borne coatings with 
significant HAP content and use of enhanced VOC control systems.
    We agree with the commenters that there is some diversity in the 
industry and designed the standard with sufficient flexibility to 
accommodate that diversity. It was based on emission control levels 
achieved by the MACT floor facilities which included most segments of 
the industry. The emission standard is in two different formats and 
allows four options for demonstrating compliance, providing significant 
compliance flexibility for the various segments of the industry. The 
various options for demonstrating compliance with the emission rate 
limit provide viable alternatives for facilities using water-borne 
coatings, electrodeposition coating lines, or solvent borne coatings 
with relatively higher solids and lower HAP contents than facilities 
that choose to comply with the 98 percent OCE. To account for the 
variability in coatings used from month to month and to allow for the 
most adverse conditions that could be expected, we revised the emission 
rate limit and compliant coating option to reflect the lowest levels of 
solids used at facilities over a year. In addition to this, the final 
rule provides a rolling 12-month compliance period over which emission 
rates are determined rather than a block month compliance period. These 
allowances and adjustments to the final rule provide greater 
flexibility for compliance than subcategorization or dividing 
facilities into sectors and setting a separate limit for each sector.
    One commenter submitted that due to differences in operations and 
coating type, water-based deck lines with in-line tandem coating and 
roll forming operations must be considered separately from and treated 
differently than traditional coil coating lines using solvent-based 
coatings and requested that a water-based compliant emission rate 
alternative of 0.518 lb of HAP/gal of solids applied (i.e., 0.062 kg/l) 
be established because it is the lowest water-based HAP emission rate 
commercially demonstrated for all colors and all seasons of the year.
    A compliant coating option in the form of an emission rate was 
included in the proposed rule and has been revised to be less stringent 
in the final rule. The final emission rate is 0.38 lb organic HAP per 
gallon of coating solids applied, averaged over a 12-month period. This 
compliance option was included as a pollution prevention

[[Page 39806]]

alternative for facilities using coatings that contain lower levels of 
HAP so that the application of controls like those needed for higher-
HAP coating operations would not be necessary. Of the six facilities in 
the MACT database operating water-based deck lines, at least two of the 
facilities should be able to comply using this option without 
reformulating coatings or applying any controls. Data submitted by the 
remaining four deck facilities indicate that they will need neither 
oxidizers nor PTE to achieve the emission rate limit. They would be 
able to achieve the needed emission reductions using other options such 
as reformulation or solvent recovery. The commenter suggested an 
emission rate limit of 0.518 lb HAP per gallon of coating solids 
applied because purportedly, it is the lowest rate that can be achieved 
for all colors and for all seasons. We believe the final emission rate 
of 0.38 lb/gallon is achievable, in part, because the standard allows 
averaging of all coatings across a 12-month period. Thus, a source 
would be able to offset usage of higher-HAP coatings, such as the one 
the commenter describes, with usage of lower-HAP coatings at other 
times in order to average below the emission rate limit over 12 months. 
Therefore, given the compliance alternatives, EPA believes that the 
final rule provides sufficient flexibility for sources such as these to 
comply.

F. Monitoring

    Three commenters submitted that it is inappropriate to use the 
catalyst bed outlet temperature as a continuous compliance operating 
parameter because the temperature rise across the bed is a function of 
the total VOC loading to the oxidizer. One of the commenters noted that 
the preamble discussion of monitoring requirements for catalytic 
incinerators (65 FR 44619) stated that the facility must establish 
operating parameters as the minimum gas temperatures both upstream and 
downstream of the catalyst bed; the appropriate section of the proposed 
Coil NESHAP (Sec. 63.5160(d)(3)) stated that the operating parameter 
for a catalytic oxidizer is limited to the minimum gas temperature at 
the inlet to the catalyst bed.
    Our intent was to include in Sec. 63.5160(d)(3) of the proposed 
rule that both the outlet temperature and the inlet temperature be used 
as the operating parameters for catalytic oxidizers, in order to 
calculate the temperature change across the catalyst bed. This 
temperature change is indicative of catalyst activity. The final rule 
has been corrected to agree with the proposal preamble discussion and 
to clarify the original intent. Also, an alternative to this monitoring 
has been added to the rule. In lieu of monitoring the inlet and outlet 
gas temperatures to calculate temperature change across the catalyst 
bed, facilities may meet a minimum gas temperature at the inlet to the 
catalyst bed established during the performance test and develop and 
implement an inspection and maintenance plan for the catalytic 
oxidizer.
    One commenter noted that there are no specifications for monitoring 
system accuracy, calibration frequency, etc. in Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) of 
the rule for capture systems. The commenter submitted that the standard 
should spell out what monitoring should be done, how to set the 
operating parameters (including appropriate averaging time) and specify 
reporting for various capture system options as it does for control 
equipment options.
    At the time of proposal of this NESHAP, we had not developed 
criteria for the monitoring of capture systems and proposed some 
minimum criteria for facilities to follow to develop monitoring plans 
for their site-specific conditions. After proposal of this NESHAP, we 
developed criteria to be used for setting operating parameter limits 
for monitoring capture systems. These criteria will be included in 
implementation materials we are developing for the final metal coil 
surface coating rule as an example that facilities may follow in 
developing their monitoring plans.

G. Administrative Requirements

    One commenter asserted that EPA's conclusion that the coil coating 
MACT proposal was not a significant regulatory action subject to Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order 12866 is 
wrong because it is in direct conflict with express CAA provisions 
requiring the reduction of ozone precursors such as NOX and 
with the avowed policies of the Clinton-Gore Administration to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions. The commenter asserts, in the terms set forth 
in the Executive Order, EPA's 98 percent OCE standard creates a 
``serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes'' with actions taken or 
planned by EPA, by other agencies, and by the President to reduce ozone 
concentrations across the country and to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions. Additionally, the commenter alleges the 98 percent OCE, at a 
minimum, raises ``novel legal or policy issues'' regarding whether EPA 
has made the correct choice between HAP emissions and NOX 
and carbon dioxide emissions. The commenter estimates that establishing 
a 98 percent OCE limit instead of their proposed 95 percent OCE will 
cause approximately 230 tpy additional NOX and 279,000 tpy 
additional carbon dioxide per year to reduce HAP emissions by an 
incremental 590 tpy. Accordingly, the commenter asserts that EPA must 
submit the coil coating MACT standard to OMB review under the terms of 
the Executive Order.
    We do not agree that the coil coating NESHAP is a significant 
regulatory action subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866. It 
does not meet any of the criteria for such a classification, including 
the ``novel legal or policy issues'' criterion. The EPA's estimates for 
NOX and CO2 emissions increases resulting from 
the standard are significantly lower than the commenter's estimates. We 
estimate these increases to be about 3 percent above baseline 
emissions, while HAP emissions reductions of 53 percent will be 
achieved by this standard. Therefore, the final metal coil NESHAP was 
not submitted to OMB for review.
    The commenter believes that EPA also incorrectly determined that 
the coil coating standard would not significantly impact a substantial 
number of small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA), requires Federal regulatory agencies to determine 
whether a proposed or final regulation will have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. According to ``EPA Interim 
Guidance for Implementing the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act and Related Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act'' 
(EPA, 1997f), current Agency policy is to implement the RFA as written; 
that is, ``regulatory flexibility analyses as specified by the RFA will 
not be required if the Agency certifies that the rule will not have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' However, it remains Agency policy that, even when the 
Agency makes a certification of ``no significant impact,'' program 
offices should assess the impact of every rule on small entities and 
minimize any impact to the extent feasible, regardless of the size of 
the impact or the number of small entities affected.
    In accordance with SBREFA and Agency guidance, a screening analysis 
was conducted for the MACT floor and its projected costs to determine 
if the rule imposed a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The Agency also calculated the share of annual 
compliance cost relative to baseline sales for each company. This 
approach is consistent with

[[Page 39807]]

recommended criteria from EPA's Guidance on Implementing SBREFA and RFA 
for evaluating the economic impact of a rule on small entities. These 
results do not support a claim of significant impact on a substantial 
number of small businesses.

V. What Are the Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts?

    As explained below, we do not expect any significant adverse 
environmental or energy impacts resulting from the final rule. Any 
negative economic impacts are also expected to be small. Actual 
compliance costs will depend on each source's existing equipment and 
the modifications made to comply with the standard. We have estimated 
that the installation of PTE and the installation of, or improvement 
to, thermal oxidizers at existing facilities could require nationwide 
capital costs of approximately $18.1 million and annual costs of about 
$7.6 million. Costs could be much lower if facilities choose to use 
low-HAP coatings.

A. What Are the HAP Emissions Reductions?

    For existing sources in the metal coil coating industry, the 
nationwide baseline HAP emissions are estimated to be 2,258 Mg/yr 
(2,484 tpy). We estimate that implementation of the final rule will 
reduce emissions from these sources by 1,198 Mg/yr (1,318 tpy), or 
approximately 53 percent.
    Since the emission limits for new and existing sources are the 
same, emission reductions for new sources are expected to be similar to 
the 53 percent emission reduction estimated for existing sources.

B. What Are the Secondary Environmental Impacts

    Secondary environmental impacts are considered to be any air, 
water, or solid waste impacts, positive or negative, associated with 
the implementation of the final standards. These impacts are exclusive 
of the direct organic HAP air emission reductions discussed in the 
previous section.
    Most of the organic HAP are VOC. Capture and control of HAP that 
are presently emitted will result in a decrease in VOC emissions. In 
addition, the emission control systems used to reduce HAP emissions 
will reduce non-HAP VOC emissions as well. We do not have information 
on non-HAP VOC emissions from metal coil coating operations; 
consequently, we cannot quantify the reduction of VOC emissions. 
However, the percent reduction should be similar to the percent 
reduction in HAP emissions (i.e., about 53 percent). Emissions of VOC 
have been associated with a variety of health and welfare impacts. The 
VOC emissions, together with nitrogen oxides, are precursors to the 
formation of ground level ozone, or smog. Exposure to ambient ozone is 
responsible for a series of public health impacts such as alterations 
in lung capacity and aggravation of existing respiratory disease. Ozone 
exposure can also damage forests and crops.
    The use of newly installed or upgraded control devices will result 
in greater electricity consumption. Increases in emissions of nitrogen 
oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as well as 
certain HAP, from electric utilities could result. In the metal coil 
coating industry, some plants will comply by installing or upgrading 
oxidizers. Supplemental fuel, typically natural gas, will be used, 
particularly for thermal oxidizers. Combustion of this fuel will result 
in additional carbon dioxide emissions and may result in additional 
emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. We estimate that if 
increases in these emissions occur, they will be small (about three 
percent above baseline).
    A small number of facilities using waterborne coatings may install 
condenser systems to comply with the standard. This would result in the 
generation of wastewater streams that may require treatment to remove 
the HAP. It also is expected that some metal coil coating facilities 
will comply with the proposed standard by substituting non-HAP 
materials for HAP presently in use. In some cases, the non-HAP 
materials may be VOC, however, in other cases, non-VOC (e.g., water) 
materials may be used. Facilities converting to waterborne materials as 
a means or partial means of compliance may have reduced Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste disposal if the status of 
the waste material changes from hazardous to nonhazardous. An increase 
in wastewater discharge may occur if waste material and waterborne 
wash-up materials are discharged to publicly owned treatment works.
    New and upgraded catalytic oxidizers will require catalysts. 
Catalyst life is estimated to be more than 10 years. Spent catalysts 
will represent a small amount of solid waste, and sometimes the spent 
catalyst will be regenerated by the manufacturer for reuse. Activated 
carbon used in solvent recovery systems is returned to the manufacturer 
at the end of its useful life and converted to other salable products. 
Little solid waste impact is expected from this source.

C. What Are the Energy Impacts?

    The operation of new and upgraded control devices will require 
additional energy. Capture of previously uncontrolled solvent-laden air 
will require fan horsepower. Operation of oxidizers, particularly 
thermal oxidizers, may require supplemental fuel (typically natural 
gas).
    The total additional electrical energy required to meet the 
standard is estimated to be 2.3 million kilowatt-hours per year. 
Nationwide incremental natural gas usage is expected to increase by 
approximately 170 million standard cubic feet per year.

D. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The total nationwide capital and annualized costs (1997 dollars) 
attributable to compliance with the final standards have been estimated 
for existing sources. These costs are based on model plant analysis of 
the least-cost measure using HAP emission controls needed for 
facilities to attain one of the compliance options. For existing 
facilities, with the exception of facilities applying waterborne 
coatings that do not meet the emission rate limit, the compliance costs 
represent the incremental costs associated with upgrading existing HAP 
emission controls.
    Compliance Costs for New Sources. Since the HAP emission limits for 
existing and new sources are the same, the incremental costs required 
to replace existing HAP emission controls are an indication of the 
incremental costs (above baseline level controls) that will be incurred 
by new sources to install and operate the level of HAP emission 
controls required to achieve the emission limits. For example, for a 
small coating line with one application station enclosed by a PTE and a 
thermal oxidizer to control HAP emissions, the incremental capital 
costs are estimated to be about $184,000, and the annual costs 
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs approximately 
$73,000. Similarly, for a large coating line with two application 
stations enclosed by PTE and two thermal oxidizers, the incremental 
capital costs are estimated to be about $392,000 and the annual costs 
around $174,000, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
costs. A coating line applying waterborne coatings is estimated to 
incur capital costs of around $1,008,000 and annual costs of 
approximately $371,000, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting to install and operate a condenser system to control HAP 
emissions.

[[Page 39808]]

    The incremental costs incurred for coating lines controlled by 
thermal incinerators include retrofit factors, and, thus, for new 
sources the incremental costs are probably overstated. Nonetheless, the 
estimated costs should not deter the construction of new metal coil 
coating lines or the entry of new companies into the industry.
    Capital Costs for Existing Sources. Capital costs will be incurred 
by installing capture and control systems at those facilities presently 
without controls and upgrading capture and control systems at existing 
facilities that do not meet the final standard. Additionally, the 
purchase of monitoring equipment may be needed as a capital investment 
to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 
the NESHAP. Total nationwide capital costs are estimated at $18.1 
million, based on the use of PTE, thermal oxidizers, solvent recovery 
systems, and monitoring equipment. The total nationwide capital costs 
with other methods of control are expected to be lower.
    Annual Costs at Existing Sources. Total nationwide annual costs of 
the final standard have been estimated at approximately $7.6 million 
per year with the use of PTE and new or upgraded thermal oxidizers or 
solvent recovery systems. These costs include capital recovery over a 
15-year period, operating costs for the newly installed and upgraded 
capture and control systems, and costs for monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting. These are net costs after taking into account the costs 
presently being incurred for the baseline control level. The total 
nationwide annual costs with methods of control other than thermal 
oxidizers are expected to be lower.

E. What Are the Economic Impacts

    The Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) (included in the background 
information document (BID), EPA 453/P-00-001) shows that the expected 
price increase for coated metal coils would be approximately 0.2 
percent as a result of the proposed standards. Therefore, no adverse 
impact is expected to occur for those industries that consume coated 
metal coils such as building and construction, appliances, automotive 
parts, and other consumer products.
    The distribution of costs across metal coil coating facilities is 
slanted toward the lower impact levels with many facilities incurring 
no costs or only those related to initial performance testing and 
annually recurring monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The EIA 
indicates that these regulatory costs are expected to represent less 
than 1 percent of the value of coating services, which should not cause 
producers to cease or alter their current operations. Hence, no firms 
or facilities are at risk of closure because of the proposed standards. 
For more information, consult the docket for this project.

IV. What Are the Administrative Requirements?

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by OMB and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory 
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, 
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 
12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' The final rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal 
governments own or operate metal coil coating operations. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and

[[Page 39809]]

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. Today's rule is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance 
and not on health or safety risks and because it is not ``economically 
significant.''

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any 1 year. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties 
on State, local, or tribal governments, i.e., they own or operate no 
sources subject to this rule and, therefore, are not required to 
purchase control systems to meet the requirements of this rule. 
Regarding the private sector, EPA believes the rule will affect 
approximately 90 existing facilities nationwide. The EPA projects that 
annual economic effects will be $7.6 million. Thus, today's rule is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 
Nevertheless, in developing this rule, EPA consulted with States to 
enable them to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of this rule.
    In addition, the EPA has determined that this rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to 
such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's 
rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et 
seq.

    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 purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business according to 
Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards by NAICS code of the 
owning entity (in this case, ranging from 100-1,000 employees; see 
table below); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    In accordance with the RFA and SBREFA, EPA conducted an assessment 
of the standard on small businesses within the metal coil coating 
industry. Based on SBA size definitions and reported sales and 
employment data, EPA identified 19 of the 49 companies owning metal 
coil coating facilities as small businesses. Although small businesses 
represent almost 39 percent of the companies within the source 
category, they are expected to incur only 8.5 percent of the total 
industry compliance costs of approximately $6.0 million. The average 
annual compliance cost share of sales for small businesses is less than 
0.2 percent with 7 of the 19 small businesses not expected to incur any 
additional costs because they are permitted as synthetic minor HAP 
emission sources. After considering the economic impacts of today's 
rule on small entities, we determined that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless tried to limit its 
impact on small entities. For example, the requirements of the rule 
only apply to major sources as defined in 40 CFR part 63 and a title V 
or part 70 permit application can be used in lieu of an initial 
notification under certain conditions. Also, during the background 
information development phase of the rulemaking, numerous stakeholder 
meetings were held at which input was solicited from small entities.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule will be 
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. 
1957.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the 
Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by email at farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or 
by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the 
internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are 
not effective until OMB approves them.

[[Page 39810]]

    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant 
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The public burden of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for 
this collection is estimated to average 281 hours per year per coil 
coating facility for each year after the date of promulgation of the 
rule including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting costs also include the startup costs associated with initial 
performance tests and associated notifications and reports required to 
demonstrate initial compliance; emission rate limit monthly compliance 
determinations; semiannual reports when someone does not follow a plan 
for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions; quarterly and semiannual 
reports on excess emissions; maintenance inspections; notices; and 
recordkeeping. The total annualized costs associated with monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting have been estimated at $784,179 which 
include the estimated annualized capital costs of $232,076.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503 marked ``Attention: Desk 
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since 
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 
days after June 10, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having 
its full effect if OMB receives it by June 10, 2002.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their 
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The 
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, 
with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA cites the 
following standards in this rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 
2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 24, 25, 25A, 204, 204A-F, and 311. Consistent with 
the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus 
standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary 
consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 
204, 204A through 204F, and 311. The search and review results have 
been documented and are placed in the docket (docket No. A-97-47) for 
this rule.
    The three voluntary consensus standards described below were 
identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the 
purposes of this rule.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10, 
``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in this 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 voluntary consensus standards, ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 
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 this 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. These standards augment 
the procedures in Method 24, which currently states that volume solids 
content be calculated from the coating manufacturer's formulation.
    Six voluntary consensus standards: ASTM D1475-90, ASTM D2369-95, 
ASTM D3792-91, ASTM D4017-96a, ASTM D4457-85 (Reapproved 91), and ASTM 
D5403-93 are already incorporated by reference in EPA Method 24. Five 
voluntary consensus standards: 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 voluntary consensus standards EPA proposes to 
use in this rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures 
identified 11 other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined 
that nine of these 11 standards identified for measuring emissions of 
the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in this rule were 
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this 
rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this 
purpose. The reasons for this determination for the nine methods are 
discussed below.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D3154-00, ``Standard Method 
for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube Method),'' is impractical as 
an alternative to EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, 3B, and 4 for the purposes 
of this rulemaking since the standard appears to lack in quality 
control and quality assurance requirements. Specifically, ASTM D3154-00 
does not include the

[[Page 39811]]

following: (1) Proof that openings of standard pitot tube have not been 
plugged during the test; (2) if differential pressure gauges other than 
inclined manometers (e.g., magnehelic gauges) are used, their 
calibration must be checked after each test series; and (3) the 
frequency and validity range for calibration of the temperature 
sensors.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D3464-96 (2001), ``Standard 
Test Method Average Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer,'' is 
impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 2 for the purposes of this 
rulemaking primarily because applicability specifications are not 
clearly defined, e.g., range of gas composition, temperature limits. 
Also, the lack of supporting quality assurance data for the calibration 
procedures and specifications, and certain variability issues that are 
not adequately addressed by the standard limit EPA's ability to make a 
definitive comparison of the method in these areas.
    The voluntary consensus standard ISO 10780:1994, ``Stationary 
Source Emissions-Measurement of Velocity and Volume Flowrate of Gas 
Streams in Ducts,'' is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 2 in 
this rulemaking. The standard recommends the use of an L-shaped pitot, 
which historically has not been recommended by EPA. The EPA specifies 
the S-type design which has large openings that are less likely to plug 
up with dust.
    Two voluntary consensus standards, EN 12619:1999 ``Stationary 
Source Emissions-Determination of the Mass Concentration of Total 
Gaseous Organic Carbon at Low Concentrations in Flue Gases--Continuous 
Flame Ionization Detector Method'' and ISO 14965: 2000(E) ``Air 
Quality-Determination of Total Nonmethane Organic Compounds-Cryogenic 
Preconcentration and Direct Flame Ionization Method,'' are impractical 
alternatives to EPA Method 25 and 25A for the purposes of this 
rulemaking because the standards do not apply to solvent process vapors 
in concentrations greater than 40 ppm (EN 12619) and 10 ppm carbon (ISO 
14965). Methods whose upper limits are this low are too limited to be 
useful in measuring source emissions, which are expected to be much 
higher.
    The voluntary consensus standard, CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1986), 
``Method for the Continuous Measurement of Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, 
Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen in Enclosed 
Combustion Flue Gas Streams,'' is unacceptable as a substitute for EPA 
Method 3A since it does not include quantitative specifications for 
measurement system performance, most notably the calibration procedures 
and instrument performance characteristics. The instrument performance 
characteristics that are provided are nonmandatory and also do not 
provide the same level of quality assurance as the EPA methods. For 
example, the zero and span/calibration drift is only checked weekly, 
whereas the EPA methods requires drift checks after each run.
    Two very similar standards, ASTM D5835-95, ``Standard Practice for 
Sampling Stationary Source Emissions for Automated Determination of Gas 
Concentration,'' and ISO 10396:1993, ``Stationary Source Emissions: 
Sampling for the Automated Determination of Gas Concentrations,'' are 
impractical alternatives to EPA Method 3A for the purposes of this 
rulemaking because they lack in detail and quality assurance/quality 
control requirements. Specifically, these two standards do not include 
the following: (1) Sensitivity of the method; (2) acceptable levels of 
analyzer calibration error; (3) acceptable levels of sampling system 
bias; (4) zero drift and calibration drift limits, time span, and 
required testing frequency; (5) a method to test the interference 
response of the analyzer; (6) procedures to determine the minimum 
sampling time per run and minimum measurement time; and (7) 
specifications for data recorders, in terms of resolution (all types) 
and recording intervals (digital and analog recorders, only).
    The voluntary consensus standard ISO 12039:2001, ``Stationary 
Source Emissions--Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and 
Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' is not acceptable as an alternative to EPA 
Method 3A. This ISO standard is similar to EPA Method 3A, but is 
missing some key features. In terms of sampling, the hardware required 
by ISO 12039:2001 does not include a 3-way calibration valve assembly 
or equivalent to block the sample gas flow while calibration gases are 
introduced. In its calibration procedures, ISO 12039:2001 only 
specifies a two-point calibration while EPA Method 3A specifies a 
three-point calibration. Also, ISO 12039:2001 does not specify 
performance criteria for calibration error, calibration drift, or 
sampling system bias tests as in the EPA method, although checks of 
these quality control features are required by the ISO standard.
    Two of the 11 voluntary consensus standards identified in this 
search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the 
purposes of this 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); and ASME/BSR MFC 12M, 
``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary 
Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2.
    Section 63.5160 to subpart SSSS of this standard list the EPA 
testing methods included in the regulation. Under Sec. 63.7(f) of 
Subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for 
permission to use alternative test methods in place of any of the EPA 
testing methods.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq. as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: May 15, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is 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. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory 
text and adding new paragraphs (b)(24) and (25) and (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) The following materials are available for purchase from at 
least one of the following addresses: American

[[Page 39812]]

Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post 
Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; or ProQuest, 300 
North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
* * * * *
    (24) ASTM D2697-86(1998) (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method 
for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR 
approved for Sec. 63.5160(c).
    (25) ASTM D6093-97, Standard Test Method for Percent Volume 
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas 
Pycnometer, IBR approved for Sec. 63.5160(c).
* * * * *
    (j) The following material is available for purchase from at least 
one of the following addresses: ASME International, Orders/Inquiries, 
P.O. Box 2300, Fairfield, NJ 07007-2300; or Global Engineering 
Documents, Sales Department, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 
80112: ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, IBR 
approved for Sec. 63.5160(d)(1)(iii).

    3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart SSSS to read as follows:
Subpart SSSS--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Surface Coating of Metal Coil
Sec.
      

What This Subpart Covers

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

Emission Standards and Compliance Dates

63.5120  What emission standards must I meet?
63.5121  What operating limits must I meet?
63.5130  When must I comply?

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

63.5140  What general requirements must I meet to comply with the 
standards?
63.5150  If I use a control device to comply with the emission 
standards, what monitoring must I do?
63.5160  What performance tests must I complete?

Requirements for Showing Compliance

63.5170  How do I demonstrate compliance with the standards?

Reporting and Recordkeeping

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

Delegation of Authority

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

Tables to Subpart SSSS of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart SSSS of Part 63. Operating Limits if Using Add-on 
Control Devices and Capture System
Table 2 to Subpart SSSS of Part 63. Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart SSSS

What This Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.5080  What is in this subpart?

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


Sec. 63.5090  Does this subpart apply to me?

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each facility that is a 
major source of HAP, as defined in Sec. 63.2, at which a coil coating 
line is operated, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) This subpart does not apply to any coil coating line that meets 
the criteria of paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) A coil coating line that is part of research or laboratory 
equipment.
    (2) A coil coating line on which at least 85 percent of the metal 
coil coated, based on surface area, is less than 0.15 millimeter (0.006 
inch) thick, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) If you operate a coating line subject to subpart JJJJ of this 
part that also meets the criteria in either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of 
this section, and you choose to comply with the requirements of this 
subpart, then such compliance constitutes compliance with subpart JJJJ. 
The coating line for which you choose this option is, therefore, 
included in the affected source for this subpart as defined in 
Sec. 63.5110 and shall not be included in the affected source for 
subpart JJJJ as defined in Sec. 63.3300.
    (1) The coating line is used to coat metal coil of thicknesses both 
less than and greater than or equal to 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) 
thick, regardless of the percentage of surface area of each thickness 
coated.
    (2) The coating line is used to coat only metal coil that is less 
than 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) thick and the coating line is 
controlled by a common control device that also receives organic HAP 
emissions from a coil coating line that is subject to the requirements 
of this subpart.
    (d) Each coil coating line that does not comply with the provisions 
of this subpart because it meets the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section, that for any rolling 12-month period fails to meet the 
criteria in paragraph (b)(2) would from that point forward become 
subject to the provisions of this subpart. After becoming subject to 
the provisions of this subpart, the coil coating line would no longer 
be eligible to use the criteria of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, 
even if in subsequent 12-month periods at least 85 percent of the metal 
coil coated, based on surface area, is less than 0.15 millimeter (0.006 
inch) thick.


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

    The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of 
all of the coil coating lines at your facility.


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

    All terms used in this subpart that are not defined in this section 
have the meaning given to them in the Clean Air Act (CAA) and in 
subpart A of this part.
    Always-controlled work station means a work station associated with 
a curing oven from which the curing oven exhaust is delivered to a 
control device with no provision for the oven exhaust to bypass the 
control device. Sampling lines for analyzers and relief valves needed 
for safety purposes are not considered bypass lines.
    Capture efficiency means the fraction of all organic HAP emissions 
generated by a process that is delivered to a control device, expressed 
as a percentage.
    Capture system means a hood, enclosed room, or other means of 
collecting organic HAP emissions and conveying them to a control 
device.
    Car-seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is used to 
change the position of a valve or damper (e.g., from open to closed) in 
such a way that the position of the valve or damper cannot be changed 
without breaking the seal.
    Coating means material applied onto or impregnated into a substrate 
for decorative, protective, or functional purposes. Such materials 
include, but are not limited to, paints, varnishes, sealants, inks, 
adhesives, maskants, and temporary coatings. Decorative, protective, or 
functional materials that consist only of solvents, protective oils, 
acids, bases, or any combination of these substances are not considered 
coatings for the purposes of this subpart.
    Coating material means the coating and other products (e.g., a 
catalyst and resin in multi-component coatings) combined to make a 
single material at

[[Page 39813]]

the coating facility that is applied to metal coil. For the purposes of 
this subpart, an organic solvent that is used to thin a coating prior 
to application to the metal coil is considered a coating material.
    Coil coating line means a process and the collection of equipment 
used to apply an organic coating to the surface of metal coil. A coil 
coating line includes a web unwind or feed section, a series of one or 
more work stations, any associated curing oven, wet section, and quench 
station. A coil coating line does not include ancillary operations such 
as mixing/thinning, cleaning, wastewater treatment, and storage of 
coating material.
    Control device means a device such as a solvent recovery device or 
oxidizer which reduces the organic HAP in an exhaust gas by recovery or 
by destruction.
    Control device efficiency means the ratio of organic HAP emissions 
recovered or destroyed by a control device to the total organic HAP 
emissions that are introduced into the control device, expressed as a 
percentage.
    Curing oven means the device that uses heat or radiation to dry or 
cure the coating material applied to the metal coil.
    Day means a 24-consecutive-hour period.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source, subject 
to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating 
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during start-up, 
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is 
permitted by this subpart.
    Existing affected source means an affected source the construction 
of which commenced on or before July 18, 2000, and it has not 
subsequently undergone reconstruction as defined in Sec. 63.2.
    Facility means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under 
common ownership or control, including properties that are separated 
only by a road or other public right-of-way.
    Flexible packaging means any package or part of a package the shape 
of which can be readily changed. Flexible packaging includes but is not 
limited to bags, pouches, labels, liners and wraps utilizing paper, 
plastic, film, aluminum foil, metalized or coated paper or film, or any 
combination of these materials.
    HAP applied means the organic HAP content of all coating materials 
applied to a substrate by a coil coating line.
    Intermittently-controllable work station means a work station 
associated with a curing oven with provisions for the curing oven 
exhaust to be delivered to a control device or diverted from a control 
device through a bypass line, depending on the position of a valve or 
damper. Sampling lines for analyzers and relief valves needed for 
safety purposes are not considered bypass lines.
    Metal coil means a continuous metal strip that is at least 0.15 
millimeter (0.006 inch) thick, which is packaged in a roll or coil 
prior to coating. After coating, it may or may not be rewound into a 
roll or coil. Metal coil does not include metal webs that are coated 
for use in flexible packaging.
    Month means a calendar month or a pre-specified period of 28 days 
to 35 days to allow for flexibility in recordkeeping when data are 
based on a business accounting period.
    Never-controlled work station means a work station which is not 
equipped with provisions by which any emissions, including those in the 
exhaust from any associated curing oven, may be delivered to a control 
device.
    New affected source means an affected source the construction or 
reconstruction of which commenced after July 18, 2000.
    Overall organic HAP control efficiency means the total efficiency 
of a control system, determined either by:
    (1) The product of the capture efficiency as determined in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.5160(e) and the control 
device efficiency as determined in accordance with the requirements of 
Sec. 63.5160(a)(1)(i) and (ii) or Sec. 63.5160(d); or
    (2) A liquid-liquid material balance in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec. 63.5170(e)(1).
    Permanent total enclosure (PTE) means a permanently installed 
enclosure that meets the criteria of Method 204 of appendix M, 40 CFR 
part 51 for a PTE, and that directs all the exhaust gases from the 
enclosure to a control device.
    Protective oil means an organic material that is applied to metal 
for the purpose of providing lubrication or protection from corrosion 
without forming a solid film. This definition of protective oil 
includes but is not limited to lubricating oils, evaporative oils 
(including those that evaporate completely), and extrusion oils.
    Research or laboratory equipment means any equipment for which the 
primary purpose is to conduct research and development into new 
processes and products, where such equipment is operated under the 
close supervision of technically trained personnel and is not engaged 
in the manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except 
in a de minimis manner.
    Temporary total enclosure (TTE) means an enclosure constructed for 
the purpose of measuring the capture efficiency of pollutants emitted 
from a given source, as defined in Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix M.
    Work station means a unit on a coil coating line where coating 
material is deposited onto the metal coil substrate.

Emission Standards and Compliance Dates


Sec. 63.5120  What emission standards must I meet?

    (a) Each coil coating affected source must limit organic HAP 
emissions to the level specified in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of 
this section:
    (1) No more than 2 percent of the organic HAP applied for each 
month during each 12-month compliance period (98 percent reduction); or
    (2) No more than 0.046 kilogram (kg) of organic HAP per liter of 
solids applied during each 12-month compliance period; or
    (3) If you use an oxidizer to control organic HAP emissions, 
operate the oxidizer such that an outlet organic HAP concentration of 
no greater than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) on a dry basis is 
achieved and the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent.
    (b) You must demonstrate compliance with one of these standards by 
following the applicable procedures in Sec. 63.5170.


Sec. 63.5121  What operating limits must I meet?

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, for any 
coil coating line for which you use an add-on control device, unless 
you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid-liquid material 
balance according to Sec. 63.5170(e)(1), you must meet the applicable 
operating limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart. You must 
establish the operating limits during the

[[Page 39814]]

performance test according to the requirements in Sec. 63.5160(d)(3). 
You must meet the operating limits at all times after you establish 
them.
    (b) If you use an add-on control device other than those listed in 
Table 1 to this subpart, or wish to monitor an alternative parameter 
and comply with a different operating limit, you must apply to the 
Administrator for approval of alternative monitoring under 
Sec. 63.8(f).


Sec. 63.5130  When must I comply?

    (a) For an existing affected source, the compliance date is 3 years 
after June 10, 2002.
    (b) If you own or operate a new affected source subject to the 
provisions of this subpart, you must comply immediately upon start-up 
of the affected source, or by June 10, 2002, whichever is later.
    (c) Affected sources which have undergone reconstruction are 
subject to the requirements for new affected sources.
    (d) The initial compliance period begins on the applicable 
compliance date specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section and 
ends on the last day of the 12th month following the compliance date. 
If the compliance date falls on any day other than the first day of a 
month, then the initial compliance period extends through that month 
plus the next 12 months.
    (e) For the purpose of demonstrating continuous compliance, a 
compliance period consists of 12 months. Each month after the end of 
the initial compliance period described in paragraph (d) of this 
section is the end of a compliance period consisting of that month and 
the preceding 11 months.

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


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

    (a) You must be in compliance with the standards in this subpart at 
all times, except during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction 
of any capture system and control device used to comply with this 
subpart. If you are complying with the emission standards of this 
subpart without the use of a capture system and control device, you 
must be in compliance with the standards at all times, including 
periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (b) Table 2 of this subpart provides cross references to subpart A 
of this part, indicating the applicability of the General Provisions 
requirements to this subpart.


Sec. 63.5150  If I use a control device to comply with the emission 
standards, what monitoring must I do?

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

    (a) To demonstrate continuing compliance with the standards, you 
must monitor and inspect each capture system and each control device 
required to comply with Sec. 63.5120 following the date on which the 
initial performance test of the capture system and control device is 
completed. You must install and operate the monitoring equipment as 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Bypass monitoring. If you operate coil coating lines with 
intermittently-controllable work stations, you must follow at least one 
of the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section 
for each curing oven associated with these work stations to monitor for 
potential bypass of the control device:
    (i) Flow control position indicator. Install, calibrate, maintain, 
and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications a flow 
control position indicator that provides a record indicating whether 
the exhaust stream from the curing oven is directed to the control 
device or is diverted from the control device. The time and flow 
control position must be recorded at least once per hour, as well as 
every time the flow direction is changed. The flow control position 
indicator must be installed at the entrance to any bypass line that 
could divert the exhaust stream away from the control device to the 
atmosphere.
    (ii) Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures. Secure any bypass 
line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key 
type configuration when the control device is in operation; a visual 
inspection of the seal or closure mechanism will be performed at least 
once every month to ensure that the valve or damper is maintained in 
the closed position, and the exhaust stream is not diverted through the 
bypass line.
    (iii) Valve closure continuous monitoring. Ensure that any bypass 
line valve or damper is in the closed position through continuous 
monitoring of valve position when the control device is in operation. 
The monitoring system must be inspected at least once every month to 
verify that the monitor will indicate valve position.
    (iv) Automatic shutdown system. Use an automatic shutdown system in 
which the coil coating line is stopped when flow is diverted away from 
the control device to any bypass line when the control device is in 
operation. The automatic shutdown system must be inspected at least 
once every month to verify that it will detect diversions of flow and 
shut down operations.
    (2) Continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS). If you are 
demonstrating continuous compliance with the standards in 
Sec. 63.5120(a)(1) or (2) through continuous emission monitoring of a 
control device, you must install, calibrate, operate, and maintain 
continuous emission monitors to measure the total organic volatile 
matter concentration at both the control device inlet and outlet, and 
you must continuously monitor flow rate. If you are demonstrating 
continuous compliance with the outlet organic HAP concentration limit 
in Sec. 63.5120(a)(3), you must install, calibrate, operate, and 
maintain a continuous emission monitor to measure the total organic 
volatile matter concentration at the control device outlet.
    (i) All CEMS must comply with performance specification 8 or 9 of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as appropriate for the detection principle 
you choose.

[[Page 39815]]

The requirements of 40 CFR part 60, procedure 1, appendix F must also 
be followed. In conducting the quarterly audits of the monitors as 
required by procedure 1, appendix F, you must use compounds 
representative of the gaseous emission stream being controlled.
    (ii) As specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii), each CEMS and each flow 
rate monitor must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation 
(sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15-minute 
period. Information which must be determined for recordkeeping 
purposes, as required by Sec. 63.5190(a)(1)(i) includes:
    (A) The hourly average of all recorded readings;
    (B) The daily average of all recorded readings for each operating 
day; and
    (C) The monthly average for each month during the semiannual 
reporting period.
    (3) Temperature monitoring of oxidizers. If you are complying with 
the requirements of the standards in Sec. 63.5120 through the use of an 
oxidizer and demonstrating continuous compliance through monitoring of 
an oxidizer operating parameter, you must comply with paragraphs 
(a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate temperature 
monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications. The 
calibration of the chart recorder, data logger, or temperature 
indicator must be verified every 3 months; or the chart recorder, data 
logger, or temperature indicator must be replaced. You must replace the 
equipment either if you choose not to perform the calibration, or if 
the equipment cannot be calibrated properly. Each temperature 
monitoring device must be equipped with a continuous recorder. The 
device must have an accuracy of 1 percent of the 
temperature being monitored in degrees Celsius, or 1 deg. 
Celsius, whichever is greater.
    (ii) For an oxidizer other than a catalytic oxidizer, to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit established 
according to Sec. 63.5160(d)(3)(i), you must install the thermocouple 
or temperature sensor in the combustion chamber at a location in the 
combustion zone.
    (iii) For a catalytic oxidizer, if you are demonstrating continuous 
compliance with the operating limit established according to 
Sec. 63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(A) and (B), then you must install the 
thermocouples or temperature sensors in the vent stream at the nearest 
feasible point to the inlet and outlet of the catalyst bed. Calculate 
the temperature difference across the catalyst. If you are 
demonstrating continuous compliance with the operating limit 
established according to Sec. 63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(C) and (D), then you 
must install the thermocouple or temperature sensor in the vent stream 
at the nearest feasible point to the inlet of the catalyst bed.
    (4) Capture system monitoring. If you are complying with the 
requirements of the standards in Sec. 63.5120 through the use of a 
capture system and control device, you must develop a capture system 
monitoring plan containing the information specified in paragraphs 
(a)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. You must monitor the capture system 
in accordance with paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section. You must make 
the monitoring plan available for inspection by the permitting 
authority upon request.
    (i) The monitoring plan must identify the operating parameter to be 
monitored to ensure that the capture efficiency measured during the 
initial compliance test is maintained, explain why this parameter is 
appropriate for demonstrating ongoing compliance, and identify the 
specific monitoring procedures.
    (ii) The plan also must specify operating limits at the capture 
system operating parameter value, or range of values, that demonstrates 
compliance with the standards in Sec. 63.5120. The operating limits 
must represent the conditions indicative of proper operation and 
maintenance of the capture system.
    (iii) You must conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan.
    (b) Any deviation from the required operating parameters which are 
monitored in accordance with paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section, 
unless otherwise excused, will be considered a deviation from the 
operating limit.


Sec. 63.5160  What performance tests must I complete?

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

    (a) If you use a control device to comply with the requirements of 
Sec. 63.5120, you are not required to conduct a performance test to 
demonstrate compliance if one or more of the criteria in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (3) of this section are met:
    (1) The control device is equipped with continuous emission 
monitors for determining total organic volatile matter concentration, 
and capture efficiency has been determined in accordance with the 
requirements of this subpart; and the continuous emission monitors are 
used to demonstrate continuous compliance in accordance with 
Sec. 63.5150(a)(2); or
    (2) You have received a waiver of performance testing under 
Sec. 63.7(h); or
    (3) The control device is a solvent recovery system and you choose 
to comply by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance.
    (b) Organic HAP content. You must determine the organic HAP weight 
fraction of each coating material applied by following one of the 
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section:
    (1) Method 311. You may test the material in accordance with Method 
311 of appendix A of this part. The Method 311 determination may be 
performed by the manufacturer of the material and the results provided 
to you. The organic HAP content must be calculated according to the 
criteria and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Count only those organic HAP that are measured to be present at 
greater than or equal to 0.1 weight percent for Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) and greater than or equal to 1.0 weight percent for 
other organic HAP compounds.

[[Page 39816]]

    (ii) Express the weight fraction of each organic HAP you count 
according to paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section as a value truncated 
to four places after the decimal point (for example, 0.3791).
    (iii) Calculate the total weight fraction of organic HAP in the 
tested material by summing the counted individual organic HAP weight 
fractions and truncating the result to three places after the decimal 
point (for example, 0.763).
    (2) Method 24. For coatings, you may determine the total volatile 
matter content as weight fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use 
it as a substitute for organic HAP, using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. The Method 24 determination may be performed by the 
manufacturer of the coating and the results provided to you.
    (3) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for 
determining the organic HAP weight fraction once the Administrator has 
approved it. You must follow the procedure in Sec. 63.7(f) to submit an 
alternative test method for approval.
    (4) Formulation data. You may use formulation data provided that 
the information represents each organic HAP present at a level equal to 
or greater than 0.1 percent for OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified 
in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) and equal to or greater than 1.0 percent for 
other organic HAP compounds in any raw material used, weighted by the 
mass fraction of each raw material used in the material. Formulation 
data may be provided to you by the manufacturer of the coating 
material. In the event of any inconsistency between test data obtained 
with the test methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of 
this section and formulation data, the test data will govern.
    (c) Solids content. You must determine the solids content of each 
coating material applied. You may determine the volume solids content 
using ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998) or ASTM D6093-97 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec. 63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method. The 
ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998) or ASTM D6093-97 determination may be 
performed by the manufacturer of the material and the results provided 
to you. Alternatively, you may rely on formulation data provided by 
material providers to determine the volume solids.
    (d) Control device destruction or removal efficiency. If you are 
using an add-on control device, such as an oxidizer, to comply with the 
standard in Sec. 63.5120, you must conduct a performance test to 
establish the destruction or removal efficiency of the control device 
or the outlet HAP concentration achieved by the oxidizer, according to 
the methods and procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 
section. During the performance test, you must establish the operating 
limits required by Sec. 63.5121 according to paragraph (d)(3) of this 
section.
    (1) An initial performance test to establish the destruction or 
removal efficiency of the control device must be conducted such that 
control device inlet and outlet testing is conducted simultaneously. To 
establish the outlet organic HAP concentration achieved by the 
oxidizer, only oxidizer outlet testing must be conducted. The data must 
be reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures in 
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (ix).
    (i) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used for 
sample and velocity traverses to determine sampling locations.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 
is used to determine gas volumetric flow rate.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, used for 
gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also use as an 
alternative to Method 3B, the manual method for measuring the oxygen, 
carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas, ANSI/ASME 
PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec. 63.14).
    (iv) Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine 
stack gas moisture.
    (v) Methods for determining gas volumetric flow rate, dry molecular 
weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as applicable, during 
each test run, as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this section.
    (vi) Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to 
determine total gaseous non-methane organic matter concentration. Use 
the same test method for both the inlet and outlet measurements, which 
must be conducted simultaneously. You must submit notification of the 
intended test method to the Administrator for approval along with 
notification of the performance test required under Sec. 63.7 (b). You 
must use Method 25A if any of the conditions described in paragraphs 
(d)(1)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section apply to the control device.
    (A) The control device is not an oxidizer.
    (B) The control device is an oxidizer, but an exhaust gas volatile 
organic matter concentration of 50 ppmv or less is required to comply 
with the standards in Sec. 63.5120; or
    (C) The control device is an oxidizer, but the volatile organic 
matter concentration at the inlet to the control system and the 
required level of control are such that they result in exhaust gas 
volatile organic matter concentrations of 50 ppmv or less; or
    (D) The control device is an oxidizer, but because of the high 
efficiency of the control device, the anticipated volatile organic 
matter concentration at the control device exhaust is 50 ppmv or less, 
regardless of inlet concentration.
    (vii) Each performance test must consist of three separate runs, 
except as provided by Sec. 63.7(e)(3); each run must be conducted for 
at least 1 hour under the conditions that exist when the affected 
source is operating under normal operating conditions. For the purpose 
of determining volatile organic matter concentrations and mass flow 
rates, the average of the results of all runs will apply. If you are 
demonstrating initial compliance with the outlet organic HAP 
concentration limit in Sec. 63.5120(a)(3), only the average outlet 
volatile organic matter concentration must be determined.
    (viii) If you are determining the control device destruction or 
removal efficiency, for each run, determine the volatile organic matter 
mass flow rates using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.000

Where:
Mf=total organic volatile matter mass flow rate, kg/per 
hour (h).
Cc=concentration of organic compounds as carbon in the 
vent gas, as determined by Method 25 or Method 25A, ppmv, dry basis.
Qsd=volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting the 
control device, as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G, 
dry standard cubic meters (dscm)/h.
0.0416=conversion factor for molar volume, kg-moles per cubic meter 
(mol/m\3\) (@ 293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury (mmHg)).

    (ix) For each run, determine the control device destruction or 
removal efficiency, DRE, using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.001


Where:

DRE=organic emissions destruction or removal efficiency of the add-
on control device, percent.
Mfi=organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the inlet 
to the control device, kg/h.
Mfo=organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the outlet 
of the control device, kg/h.

    (x) The control device destruction or removal efficiency is 
determined as the

[[Page 39817]]

average of the efficiencies determined in the three test runs and 
calculated in Equation 2 of this section.
    (2) You must record such process information as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions in existence at the time of the performance 
test. Operations during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction 
will not constitute representative conditions for the purpose of a 
performance test.
    (3) Operating limits. If you are using a capture system and add-on 
control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you 
conduct a liquid-liquid material balance to comply with the 
requirements in Sec. 63.5120, you must establish the applicable 
operating limits required by Sec. 63.5121. These operating limits apply 
to each capture system and to each add-on emission control device that 
is not monitored by CEMS, and you must establish the operating limits 
during the performance test required by paragraph (d) of this section 
according to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of 
this section.
    (i) Thermal oxidizer. If your add-on control device is a thermal 
oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs 
(d)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the 
combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of 
the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of 
the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before 
any substantial heat exchange occurs.
    (B) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate 
and record the average combustion temperature maintained during the 
performance test. This average combustion temperature is the minimum 
operating limit for your thermal oxidizer.
    (ii) Catalytic oxidizer. If your add-on control device is a 
catalytic oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to either 
paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) or paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(C) and (D) of 
this section.
    (A) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the 
temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference 
across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of 
the three test runs.
    (B) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate 
and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the 
average temperature difference across the catalyst bed maintained 
during the performance test. These are the minimum operating limits for 
your catalytic oxidizer.
    (C) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference 
across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet 
to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and 
maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph 
(d)(3)(ii)(D) of this section. During the performance test, you must 
monitor and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed at 
least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. Use the 
data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the 
average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance 
test. This is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer.
    (D) You must develop and implement an inspection and maintenance 
plan for your catalytic oxidizer(s) for which you elect to monitor 
according to paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(C) of this section. The plan must 
address, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs 
(d)(3)(ii)(D)(1 (3) of this section.
    (1) Annual sampling and analysis of the catalyst activity (i.e., 
conversion efficiency) following the manufacturer's or catalyst 
supplier's recommended procedures.
    (2) Monthly inspection of the oxidizer system including the burner 
assembly and fuel supply lines for problems and,
    (3) Annual internal and monthly external visual inspection of the 
catalyst bed to check for channeling, abrasion, and settling. If 
problems are found, you must take corrective action consistent with the 
manufacturer's recommendations and conduct a new performance test to 
determine destruction efficiency according to Sec. 63.5160.
    (iii) Other types of control devices. If you use a control device 
other than an oxidizer or a solvent recovery system for which you 
choose to comply by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance, 
or wish to monitor an alternative parameter and comply with a different 
operating limit, you must apply to the Administrator for approval of 
alternative monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f).
    (e) Capture efficiency. If you are required to determine capture 
efficiency to meet the requirements of Sec. 63.5170(e)(2), (f)(1) 
through (2), (h)(2) through (4), or (i)(2) through (3), you must 
determine capture efficiency using the procedures in paragraph (e)(1), 
(2), or (3) of this section, as applicable.
    (1) For an enclosure that meets the criteria for a PTE, you may 
assume it achieves 100 percent capture efficiency. You must confirm 
that your capture system is a PTE by demonstrating that it meets the 
requirements of section 6 of EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix 
M (or an EPA approved alternative method), and that all exhaust gases 
from the enclosure are delivered to a control device.
    (2) You may determine capture efficiency, CE, according to the 
protocols for testing with temporary total enclosures that are 
specified in Method 204A through F of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M. You 
may exclude never-controlled work stations from such capture efficiency 
determinations.
    (3) As an alternative to the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(e)(1) and (2) of this section, if you are required to conduct a 
capture efficiency test, you may use any capture efficiency protocol 
and test methods that satisfy the criteria of either the Data Quality 
Objective or the Lower Confidence Limit approach as described in 
appendix A to subpart KK of this part. You may exclude never-controlled 
work stations from such capture efficiency determinations.

Requirements for Showing Compliance


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

    You must include all coating materials (as defined in Sec. 63.5110) 
used in the affected source when determining compliance with the 
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.5120. To make this determination, 
you must use at least one of the four compliance options listed in 
Table 1 of this section. You may apply any of the compliance options to 
an individual coil coating line, or to multiple lines as a group, or to 
the entire affected source. You may use different compliance options 
for different coil coating lines, or at different times on the same 
line. However, you may not use different compliance options at the same 
time on the same coil coating line. If you switch between compliance 
options for any coil coating line or group of lines, you must document 
this switch as required by Sec. 63.5190(a), and you must report it in 
the next semiannual compliance report required in Sec. 63.5180.

[[Page 39818]]



 Table 1 to Sec.  63.5170.--Compliance Demonstration Requirements Index
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   If you choose to demonstrate
          compliance by:               Then you must demonstrate that:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Use of ``as purchased''          a. Each coating material used during
 compliant coatings.                 the 12-month compliance period does
                                     not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter
                                     solids, as purchased. Paragraph (a)
                                     of this section.
2. Use of ``as applied'' compliant  a. Each coating material used does
 coatings.                           not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter
                                     solids on a rolling 12-month
                                     average as applied basis,
                                     determined monthly. Paragraphs
                                     (b)(1) of this section; or
                                    b. Average of all coating materials
                                     used does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP
                                     per liter solids on a rolling 12-
                                     month average as applied basis,
                                     determined monthly. Paragraph
                                     (b)(2) of this section.
3. Use of a capture system and      Overall organic HAP control
 control device.                     efficiency is at least 98 percent
                                     on a monthly basis for individual
                                     or groups of coil coating lines; or
                                     overall organic HAP control
                                     efficiency is at least 98 percent
                                     during initial performance test and
                                     operating limits are achieved
                                     continuously for individual coil
                                     coating lines; or oxidizer outlet
                                     HAP concentration is no greater
                                     than 20 ppmv and there is 100
                                     percent capture efficiency during
                                     initial performance test and
                                     operating limits are achieved
                                     continuously for individual coil
                                     coating lines. Paragraph (c) of
                                     this section.
4. Use of a combination of          Average equivalent emission rate
 compliant coatings and control      does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per
 devices and maintaining an          liter solids on a rolling 12-month
 acceptable equivalent emission      average as applied basis,
 rate.                               determined monthly. Paragraph (d)
                                     of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) As-purchased compliant coatings. If you elect to use coatings 
that individually meet the organic HAP emission limit in 
Sec. 63.5120(a)(2) as-purchased, to which you will not add HAP during 
distribution or application, you must demonstrate that each coating 
material applied during the 12-month compliance period contains no more 
than 0.046 kg HAP per liter of solids on an as-purchased basis.
    (1) Determine the organic HAP content for each coating material in 
accordance with Sec. 63.5160(b) and the volume solids content in 
accordance with Sec. 63.5160(c).
    (2) Combine these results using Equation 1 of this section and 
compare the result to the organic HAP emission limit in 
Sec. 63.5120(a)(2) to demonstrate that each coating material contains 
no more organic HAP than the limit.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.002

Where:

Hsiap = as-purchased, organic HAP to solids ratio of 
coating material, i, kg organic HAP/liter solids applied.
Chi = organic HAP content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
Di = density of coating material, i, kg/l.
Vsi = volume fraction of solids in coating, i, l/l.
    (b) As-applied compliant coatings. If you choose to use ``as-
applied'' compliant coatings, you must demonstrate that the average of 
each coating material applied during the 12-month compliance period 
contains no more than 0.046 kg of organic HAP per liter of solids 
applied in accordance with (b)(1) of this section, or demonstrate that 
the average of all coating materials applied during the 12-month 
compliance period contain no more than 0.046 kg of organic HAP per 
liter of solids applied in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) To demonstrate that the average organic HAP content on the 
basis of solids applied for each coating material applied, 
HSi yr, is less than 0.046 kg HAP per liter solids applied 
for the 12-month compliance period, use Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.003

Where:

Hsi yr = average for the 12-month compliance period, as-
applied, organic HAP to solids ratio of material, i, kg organic HAP/
liter solids applied.
Vi = volume of coating material, i, l.
Di = density of coating material, i, kg/l.
Cahi = monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content 
of solids-containing coating material, i, expressed as a weight 
fraction, kilogram (kg)/kg.
Vj = volume of solvent, j, l.
Dj = density of solvent, j, kg/l.
Chij = organic HAP content of solvent, j, added to 
coating material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
Vsi = volume fraction of solids in coating, i, l/l.
y = identifier for months.
q = number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or 
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.

    (2) To demonstrte that the average organic HAP content on the basis 
of solids applied, HS yr, of all coating materials applied 
is less than 0.046 kg HAP per liter solids applied for the 12-month 
compliance period, use Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.004


[[Page 39819]]


Where:

HS yr = average for the 12-month compliance period, as-
applied, organic HAP to solids ratio of all materials applied, kg 
organic HAP/liter solids applied.
Vi = volume of coating material, i, l.
Di = density of coating material, i, kg/l.
Cahi = monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content 
of solids-containing coating material, i, expressed as a weight 
fraction, kilogram (kg)/kg.
Vj = volume of solvent, j, l.
Dj = density of solvent, j, kg/l.
Chij = organic HAP content of solvent, j, added to 
coating material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
Vsi = volume fraction of solids in coating, i, l/l.
p = number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q = number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or 
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.
y = identifier for months.

    (c) Capture and control to reduce emissions to no more than the 
allowable limit. If you use one or more capture systems and one or more 
control devices and demonstrate an average overall organic HAP control 
efficiency of at least 98 percent for each month to comply with 
Sec. 63.5120(a)(1); or operate a capture system and oxidizer so that 
the capture efficiency is 100 percent and the oxidizer outlet HAP 
concentration is no greater than 20 ppmv on a dry basis to comply with 
Sec. 63.5120(a)(3), you must follow one of the procedures in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (4) of this section. Alternatively, you may demonstrate 
compliance for an individual coil coating line by operating its capture 
system and control device and continuous parameter monitoring system 
according to the procedures in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (1) If the affected source uses one compliance procedure to limit 
organic HAP emissions to the level specified in Sec. 63.5120(a)(1) or 
(2) and has only always-controlled work stations, then you must 
demonstrate compliance with the provisions of paragraph (e) of this 
section when emissions from the affected source are controlled by one 
or more solvent recovery devices.
    (2) If the affected source uses one compliance procedure to limit 
organic HAP emissions to the level specified in Sec. 63.5120(a)(1) or 
(2) and has only always-controlled work stations, then you must 
demonstrate compliance with the provisions of paragraph (f) of this 
section when emissions are controlled by one or more oxidizers.
    (3) If the affected source operates both solvent recovery and 
oxidizer control devices, one or more never-controlled work stations, 
or one or more intermittently-controllable work stations, or uses more 
than one compliance procedure, then you must demonstrate compliance 
with the provisions of paragraph (g) of this section.
    (4) The method of limiting organic HAP emissions to the level 
specified in Sec. 63.5120(a)(3) is the installation and operation of a 
PTE around each work station and associated curing oven in the coating 
line and the ventilation of all organic HAP emissions from each PTE to 
an oxidizer with an outlet organic HAP concentration of no greater than 
20 ppmv on a dry basis. An enclosure that meets the requirements in 
Sec. 63.5160(e)(1) is considered a PTE. Initial compliance of the 
oxidizer with the outlet organic HAP concentration limit is 
demonstrated either through continuous emission monitoring according to 
paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section or through performance tests using 
the procedure in Sec. 63.5160(d). If this method is selected, you must 
meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section to 
demonstrate continuing achievement of 100 percent capture of organic 
HAP emissions and either paragraph (c)(4)(ii) or paragraph (c)(4)(iii) 
of this section, respectively, to demonstrate continuous compliance 
with the oxidizer outlet organic HAP concentration limit through 
continuous emission monitoring or continuous operating parameter 
monitoring:
    (i) Whenever a work station is operated, continuously monitor the 
capture system operating parameter established in accordance with 
Sec. 63.5150(a)(4).
    (ii) To demonstrate that the value of the exhaust gas organic HAP 
concentration at the outlet of the oxidizer is no greater than 20 ppmv, 
on a dry basis, install, calibrate, operate, and maintain CEMS 
according to the requirements of Sec. 63.5150(a)(2).
    (iii) To demonstrate continuous compliance with operating limits 
established in accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(3), whenever a work 
station is operated, continuously monitor the applicable oxidizer 
operating parameter.
    (d) Capture and control to achieve the emission rate limit. If you 
use one or more capture systems and one or more control devices and 
limit the organic HAP emission rate to no more than 0.046 kg organic 
HAP emitted per liter of solids applied on a 12-month average as-
applied basis, then you must follow one of the procedures in paragraphs 
(d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) If you use one or more solvent recovery devices, you must 
demonstrate compliance with the provisions in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (2) If you use one or more oxidizers, you must demonstrate 
compliance with the provisions in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (3) If you use both solvent recovery devices and oxidizers, or 
operate one or more never-controlled work stations or one or more 
intermittently controllable work stations, you must demonstrate 
compliance with the provisions in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (e) Use of solvent recovery to demonstrate compliance. If you use 
one or more solvent recovery devices to control emissions from always-
controlled work stations, you must show compliance by following the 
procedures in either paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section:
    (1) Liquid-liquid material balance. Perform a liquid-liquid 
material balance for each month as specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) 
through (vi) of this section and use Equations 4 through 6 of this 
section to convert the data to units of this standard. All 
determinations of quantity of coating and composition of coating must 
be made at a time and location in the process after all ingredients 
(including any dilution solvent) have been added to the coating, or 
appropriate adjustments must be made to account for any ingredients 
added after the amount of coating has been determined.
    (i) Measure the mass of each coating material applied on the work 
station or group of work stations controlled by one or more solvent 
recovery devices during the month.
    (ii) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission rate 
based on solids applied, determine the organic HAP content of each 
coating material applied during the month following the procedure in 
Sec. 63.5160(b).
    (iii) Determine the volatile matter content of each coating 
material applied during the month following the procedure in 
Sec. 63.5160(c).
    (iv) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission rate 
based on solids applied, determine the solids content of each coating 
material applied during the month following the procedure in 
Sec. 63.5160(c).
    (v) For each solvent recovery device used to comply with 
Sec. 63.5120(a), install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to 
the manufacturer's specifications, a device that indicates the 
cumulative amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery 
device on a monthly basis. The device must be initially certified by 
the manufacturer to be accurate to within  2.0 percent.
    (vi) For each solvent recovery device used to comply with 
Sec. 63.5120(a),

[[Page 39820]]

measure the amount of volatile matter recovered for the month.
    (vii) Recovery efficiency, Rv. Calculate the volatile 
organic matter collection and recovery efficiency, Rv, using 
Equation 4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.005

Where:

Rv = organic volatile matter collection and recovery 
efficiency, percent.
Mkvr = mass of volatile matter recovered in a month by 
solvent recovery device, k, kg.
Mi = mass of coating material, i, applied in a month, kg.
Cvi = volatile matter content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
Mj = mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other 
non-solids-containing coating material (excluding H2O), 
j, applied in a month, kg.
p = number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q = number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or 
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.
s = number of solvent recovery devices used to comply with the 
standard of Sec. 63.5120 of this subpart, in the facility.

    (viii) Organic HAP emitted, He. Calculate the mass of 
organic HAP emitted during the month, He, using Equation 5 
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.006

Where:

He = total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
Rv = organic volatile matter collection and recovery 
efficiency, percent.
Chi = organic HAP content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = mass of coating material, i, applied in a month, kg.
Chij = organic HAP content of solvent, j, added to 
coating material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or 
other non-solids-containing coating material, j, added to solids-
containing coating material, i, in a month, kg.
p = number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q = number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or 
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.

    (ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied for the 12-
month compliance period, LANNUAL. Calculate the organic HAP 
emission rate based on solids applied for the 12-month compliance 
period, LANNUAL, using Equation 6 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.007

Where:

LANNUAL = mass organic HAP emitted per volume of solids 
applied for the 12-month compliance period, kg/liter.
He = total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
Csi = solids content of coating material, i, expressed as 
liter of solids/kg of material.
Mi = mass of coating material, i, applied in a month, kg.
y = identifier for months.
p = number of different coating materials applied in a month.

    (x) Compare actual performance to performance required by 
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with 
Sec. 63.5120(a) if it meets the requirement in either paragraph 
(e)(1)(x)(A) or (B) of this section:
    (A) The average volatile organic matter collection and recovery 
efficiency, Rv, is 98 percent or greater each month of the 
12-month compliance period; or
    (B) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied for the 
12-month compliance period, LANNUAL, is 0.046 kg organic HAP 
per liter solids applied or less.
    (2) Continuous emission monitoring of control device performance. 
Use continuous emission monitors to demonstrate recovery efficiency, 
conduct an initial performance test of capture efficiency and 
volumetric flow rate, and continuously monitor a site specific 
operating parameter to ensure that capture efficiency and volumetric 
flow rate are maintained following the procedures in paragraphs 
(e)(2)(i) through (xi) of this section:
    (i) Control device destruction or removal efficiency, DRE. For each 
control device used to comply with Sec. 63.5120(a), continuously 
monitor the gas stream entering and exiting the control device to 
determine the total volatile organic matter mass flow rate (e.g., by 
determining the concentration of the vent gas in grams per cubic meter 
and the volumetric flow rate in cubic meters per second, such that the 
total volatile organic matter mass flow rate in grams per second can be 
calculated using Equation 1 of Sec. 63.5160, and the percent 
destruction or removal efficiency, DRE, of the control device can be 
calculated for each month using Equation 2 of Sec. 63.5160.
    (ii) Determine the percent capture efficiency, CE, for each work 
station in accordance with Sec. 63.5160(e).
    (iii) Capture efficiency monitoring. Whenever a work station is 
operated, continuously monitor the operating parameter established in 
accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(4).
    (iv) Control efficiency, R. Calculate the overall organic HAP 
control efficiency, R, achieved for each month using Equation 7 of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.008



[[Page 39821]]


Where:
R=overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
DREk=organic volatile matter destruction or removal 
efficiency of control device, k, percent.
CEA=organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the 
capture system for work station, A, percent.
MAi=mass of coating material, i, applied on work station, 
A, in a month, kg.
Cvi=volatile matter content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
MAj=mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other 
non-solids-containing coating material (including H2O), 
j, applied on work station, A, in a month, kg.
Mi=mass of coating material, i, applied in a month, kg.
Mj=mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other 
non-solids-containing coating material (excluding H2O), 
j, applied in a month, kg.
w=number of always-controlled work stations in the facility.
p=number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q=number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or 
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.

    (v) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission rate 
based on solids applied, measure the mass of each coating material 
applied on each work station during the month.
    (vi) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission rate 
based on solids applied, determine the organic HAP content of each 
coating material applied during the month in accordance with 
Sec. 63.5160(b).
    (vii) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission 
rate based on solids applied, determine the solids content of each 
coating material applied during the month in accordance with 
Sec. 63.5160(c).
    (viii) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission 
rate based on solids applied, calculate the organic HAP emitted during 
the month, He, for each month using Equation 8 of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.009


Where:
He=total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
DREk=organic volatile matter destruction or removal 
efficiency of control device, k, percent.
CEA=organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the 
capture system for work station, A, percent.
Chi=organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed 
as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
MAi=mass of coating material, i, applied on work station, 
A, in a month, kg.
Chij=organic HAP content of solvent, j, added to coating 
material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
MAij=mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other 
non-solids-containing coating material, j, added to solids-
containing coating material, i, applied on work station, A, in a 
month, kg.
w=number of always-controlled work stations in the facility.
p=number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q=number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or 
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.

    (ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied for the 12-
month compliance period, LANNUAL. Calculate the organic HAP 
emission rate based on solids applied for the 12-month compliance 
period, LANNUAL, using Equation 6 of this section.
    (x) Compare actual performance to performance required by 
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with 
Sec. 63.5120(a) if each capture system operating parameter is operated 
at an average value greater than or less than (as appropriate) the 
operating parameter value established in accordance with Sec. 63.5150 
for each 3-hour period; and
    (A) The overall organic HAP control efficiency, R, is 98 percent or 
greater for each; or
    (B) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied for the 
12-month compliance period, LANNUAL, is 0.046 kg organic HAP 
per liter solids applied or less.
    (f) Use of oxidation to demonstrate compliance. If you use one or 
more oxidizers to control emissions from always controlled work 
stations, you must follow the procedures in either paragraph (f)(1) or 
(2) of this section:
    (1) Continuous monitoring of capture system and control device 
operating parameters. Demonstrate initial compliance through 
performance tests of capture efficiency and control device efficiency 
and continuing compliance through continuous monitoring of capture 
system and control device operating parameters as specified in 
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (xi) of this section:
    (i) For each oxidizer used to comply with Sec. 63.5120(a), 
determine the oxidizer destruction or removal efficiency, DRE, using 
the procedure in Sec. 63.5160(d).
    (ii) Whenever a work station is operated, continuously monitor the 
operating parameter established in accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(3).
    (iii) Determine the capture system capture efficiency, CE, for each 
work station in accordance with Sec. 63.5160(e).
    (iv) Whenever a work station is operated, continuously monitor the 
operating parameter established in accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(4).
    (v) Calculate the overall organic HAP control efficiency, R, 
achieved using Equation 7 of this section.
    (vi) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission rate 
based on solids applied, measure the mass of each coating material 
applied on each work station during the month.
    (vii) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission 
rate based on solids applied, determine the organic HAP content of each 
coating material applied during the month following the procedure in 
Sec. 63.5160(b).
    (viii) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission 
rate based on solids applied, determine the solids content of each 
coating material applied during the month following the procedure in 
Sec. 63.5160(c).
    (ix) Calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month, 
He, for each month:
    (A) For each work station and its associated oxidizer, use Equation 
8 of this section.
    (B) For periods when the oxidizer has not operated within its 
established operating limit, the control device efficiency is 
determined to be zero.
    (x) Organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied for the 12-
month compliance period, LANNUAL. If demonstrating 
compliance with the organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied 
for the 12-month compliance period, calculate the organic HAP emission 
rate based on solids applied, LANNUAL, for the 12-month 
compliance period using Equation 6 of this section.
    (xi) Compare actual performance to performance required by 
compliance

[[Page 39822]]

option. The affected source is in compliance with Sec. 63.5120(a) if 
each oxidizer is operated such that the average operating parameter 
value is greater than the operating parameter value established in 
Sec. 63.5150(a)(3) for each 3-hour period, and each capture system 
operating parameter average value is greater than or less than (as 
appropriate) the operating parameter value established in 
Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) for each 3-hour period; and the requirement in 
either paragraph (f)(1)(xi)(A) or (B) of this section is met.
    (A) The overall organic HAP control efficiency, R, is 98 percent or 
greater for each; or
    (B) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, 
LANNUAL, is 0.046 kg organic HAP per liter solids applied or 
less for the 12-month compliance period.
    (2) Continuous emission monitoring of control device performance. 
Use continuous emission monitors, conduct an initial performance test 
of capture efficiency, and continuously monitor a site specific 
operating parameter to ensure that capture efficiency is maintained. 
Compliance must be demonstrated in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of 
this section.
    (g) Combination of capture and control. You must demonstrate 
compliance according to the procedures in paragraphs (g)(1) through (8) 
of this section if both solvent recovery and oxidizer control devices, 
one or more never controlled coil coating stations, or one or more 
intermittently controllable coil coating stations are operated; or more 
than one compliance procedure is used.
    (1) Solvent recovery system using liquid/liquid material balance 
compliance demonstration. For each solvent recovery system used to 
control one or more work stations for which you choose to comply by 
means of a liquid-liquid material balance, you must determine the 
organic HAP emissions each month of the 12-month compliance period for 
those work stations controlled by that solvent recovery system 
according to either paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section:
    (i) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) and 
(e)(1)(v) through (viii) of this section if the work stations 
controlled by that solvent recovery system are only always-controlled 
work stations; or
    (ii) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) through (iii), 
(e)(1)(v) through (vi), and (h) of this section if the work stations 
controlled by that solvent recovery system include one or more never-
controlled or intermittently-controllable work stations.
    (2) Solvent recovery system using performance test and continuous 
monitoring compliance demonstration. For each solvent recovery system 
used to control one or more coil coating stations for which you choose 
to comply by means of an initial test of capture efficiency, continuous 
emission monitoring of the control device, and continuous monitoring of 
a capture system operating parameter, each month of the 12-month 
compliance period you must meet the requirements of paragraphs 
(g)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section:
    (i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent 
recovery system, monitor an operating parameter established in 
Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) to ensure that capture system efficiency is 
maintained; and
    (ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those work stations 
served by each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent 
recovery system according to either paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of 
this section:
    (A) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) and 
(e)(2)(v) through (viii) of this section if the work stations served by 
that capture system are only always-controlled coil coating stations; 
or
    (B) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii), 
(e)(2)(v) through (vii), and (h) of this section if the work stations 
served by that capture system include one or more never-controlled or 
intermittently-controllable work stations.
    (3) Oxidizer using performance test and continuous monitoring of 
operating parameters compliance demonstration. For each oxidizer used 
to control emissions from one or more work stations for which you 
choose to demonstrate compliance through performance tests of capture 
efficiency, control device efficiency, and continuing compliance 
through continuous monitoring of capture system and control device 
operating parameters, each month of the 12-month compliance period you 
must meet the requirements of paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (iii) of 
this section:
    (i) Monitor an operating parameter established in 
Sec. 63.5150(a)(3) to ensure that control device destruction or removal 
efficiency is maintained; and
    (ii) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer, 
monitor an operating parameter established in Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) to 
ensure capture efficiency; and
    (iii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those work stations 
served by each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer 
according to either paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section:
    (A) In accordance with paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (v) and (ix) of 
this section if the work stations served by that capture system are 
only always-controlled work stations; or
    (B) In accordance with paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (v), (ix), and 
(h) of this section if the work stations served by that capture system 
include one or more never-controlled or intermittently-controllable 
work stations.
    (4) Oxidizer using continuous emission monitoring compliance 
demonstration. For each oxidizer used to control emissions from one or 
more work stations for which you choose to demonstrate compliance 
through an initial capture efficiency test, continuous emission 
monitoring of the control device, and continuous monitoring of a 
capture system operating parameter, each month of the 12-month 
compliance period you must meet the requirements in paragraphs 
(g)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section:
    (i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer, 
monitor an operating parameter established in Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) to 
ensure capture efficiency; and
    (ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those work stations 
served by each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer 
according to either paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section:
    (A) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) and 
(e)(2)(v) through (viii) of this section if the work stations served by 
that capture system are only always-controlled work stations; or
    (B) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii), 
(e)(2)(v) through (vii), and (h) of this section if the work stations 
served by that capture system include one or more never-controlled or 
intermittently-controllable work stations.
    (5) Uncontrolled work stations. For uncontrolled work stations, 
each month of the 12-month compliance period you must determine the 
organic HAP applied on those work stations using Equation 9 of this 
section. The organic HAP emitted from an uncontrolled work station is 
equal to the organic HAP applied on that work station:

[[Page 39823]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.010

Where:

Hm=facility total monthly organic HAP applied on 
uncontrolled coil coating stations, kg.
Chi=organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed 
as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
MAi=mass of coating material, i, applied on work station, 
A, in a month, kg.
Chij=organic HAP content of solvent, j, added to coating 
material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
MAij=mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other 
non-solids-containing coating material, j, added to solids-
containing coating material, i, applied on work station, A, in a 
month, kg.
x=number of uncontrolled work stations in the facility.
p=number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q=number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or 
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.

    (6) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission rate 
based on solids applied, each month of the 12-month compliance period 
you must determine the solids content of each coating material applied 
during the month following the procedure in Sec. 63.5160(c).
    (7) Organic HAP emitted. You must determine the organic HAP 
emissions for the affected source for each 12-month compliance period 
by summing all monthly organic HAP emissions calculated according to 
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2)(ii), (g)(3)(iii), (g)(4)(ii), and (g)(5) of 
this section.
    (8) Compare actual performance to performance required by 
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with 
Sec. 63.5120(a) for the 12-month compliance period if all operating 
parameters required to be monitored under paragraphs (g)(2) through (4) 
of this section were maintained at the values established in 
Sec. 63.5150; and it meets the requirement in either paragraph 
(g)(8)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
was not more than 0.046 kg HAP per liter of solids applied for the 12-
month compliance period; or
    (ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source 
was not more than 2 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied by 
the affected source each month. You must determine the total mass of 
organic HAP applied by the affected source in each month of the 12-
month compliance period using Equation 9 of this section.
    (h) Organic HAP emissions from intermittently-controllable or 
never-controlled coil coating stations. If you have been expressly 
referenced to this paragraph by paragraphs (g)(1)(ii), (g)(2)(ii)(B), 
(g)(3)(iii)(B), or (g)(4)(ii)(B) of this section for calculation 
procedures to determine organic HAP emissions, you must for your 
intermittently-controllable or never-controlled work stations meet the 
requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through (6) of this section:
    (1) Determine the sum of the mass of all solids-containing coating 
materials which are applied on intermittently-controllable work 
stations in bypass mode, and the mass of all solids-containing coating 
materials which are applied on never-controlled coil coating stations 
during each month of the 12-month compliance period, 
MBi.
    (2) Determine the sum of the mass of all solvents, thinners, 
reducers, diluents, and other nonsolids-containing coating materials 
which are applied on intermittently-controllable work stations in 
bypass mode, and the mass of all solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents 
and other nonsolids-containing coating materials which are applied on 
never-controlled work stations during each month of the 12-month 
compliance period, MBj.
    (3) Determine the sum of the mass of all solids-containing coating 
materials which are applied on intermittently-controllable work 
stations in controlled mode, and the mass of all solids-containing 
coating materials which are applied on always-controlled work stations 
during each month of the 12-month compliance period, 
MCi.
    (4) Determine the sum of the mass of all solvents, thinners, 
reducers, diluents, and other nonsolids-containing coating materials 
which are applied on intermittently-controllable work stations in 
controlled mode, and the mass of all solvents, thinners, reducers, 
diluents, and other nonsolids-containing coating materials which are 
applied on always-controlled work stations during each month of the 12-
month compliance period, MCj.
    (5) Liquid-liquid material balance calculation of HAP emitted. For 
each work station or group of work stations for which you use the 
provisions of paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, you must calculate 
the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 10 of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.011

Where:

He = total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
Mci= sum of the mass of solids-containing coating 
material, i, applied on intermittently-controllable work stations 
operating in controlled mode and the mass of solids-containing 
coating material, i, applied on always-controlled work stations, in 
a month, kg.
Chi = organic HAP content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
Mcj = sum of the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, 
diluent, or other non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied 
on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in controlled 
mode and the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other 
non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied on always-
controlled work stations in a month, kg.
Chj = organic HAP content of solvent, j, expressed as a 
weight fraction, kg/kg.
Mkvr = mass of volatile matter recovered in a month by 
solvent recovery device, k, kg.
Cvi = volatile matter content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.

[[Page 39824]]

MBi = sum of the mass of solids-containing coating 
material, i, applied on intermittently-controllable work stations 
operating in bypass mode and the mass of solids-containing coating 
material, i, applied on never-controlled work stations, in a month, 
kg.
MBj = sum of the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, 
diluent, or other non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied 
on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in bypass 
mode and the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other 
non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied on never-
controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
p = number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q = number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or 
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.
s = number of solvent recovery devices used to comply with the 
standard of Sec. 63.5120 of this subpart, in the facility.

    (6) Control efficiency calculation of HAP emitted. For each work 
station or group of work stations for which you use the provisions of 
paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(B), (g)(3)(iii)(B), or (g)(4)(ii)(B) of this 
section, you must calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month, 
He, using Equation 11 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.012

Where:
He = total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
Mci = sum of the mass of solids-containing coating 
material, i, applied on intermittently-controllable work stations 
operating in controlled mode and the mass of solids-containing 
coating material, i, applied on always-controlled work stations, in 
a month, kg.
Chi = organic HAP content of coating material, i, 
expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
Mcj = sum of the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, 
diluent, or other non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied 
on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in controlled 
mode and the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other 
non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied on always-
controlled work stations in a month, kg.
Chj = organic HAP content of solvent, j, expressed as a 
weight fraction, kg/kg.
DREk = organic volatile matter destruction or removal 
efficiency of control device, k, percent.
CEA = organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the 
capture system for work station, A, percent.
MBi = sum of the mass of solids-containing coating 
material, i, applied on intermittently-controllable work stations 
operating in bypass mode and the mass of solids-containing coating 
material, i, applied on never-controlled work stations, in a month, 
kg.
MBj = sum of the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, 
diluent, or other non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied 
on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in bypass 
mode and the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other 
non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied on never-
controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
wi = number of intermittently-controllable work stations 
in the facility.
p = number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q = number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or 
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.

    (i) Capture and control system compliance demonstration procedures 
using a CPMS for a coil coating line. If you use an add-on control 
device, to demonstrate initial compliance for each capture system and 
each control device through performance tests and continuing compliance 
through continuous monitoring of capture system and control device 
operating parameters, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs 
(i)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Conduct an initial performance test to determine the control 
device destruction or removal efficiency, DRE, using the applicable 
test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.5160(d).
    (2) Determine the emission capture efficiency, CE, in accordance 
with Sec. 63.5160(e).
    (3) Whenever a coil coating line is operated, continuously monitor 
the operating parameters established according to Sec. 63.5150(a)(3) 
and (4) to ensure capture and control efficiency.

Reporting and Recordkeeping


Sec. 63.5180  What reports must I submit?

    (a) Submit the reports specified in paragraphs (b) through (i) of 
this section to the EPA Regional Office that serves the State or 
territory in which the affected source is located and to the delegated 
State agency:
    (b) You must submit an initial notification required in 
Sec. 63.9(b).
    (1) Submit an initial notification for an existing source no later 
than 2 years after June 10, 2002.
    (2) Submit an initial notification for a new or reconstructed 
source as required by Sec. 63.9(b).
    (3) For the purpose of this subpart, a title V permit application 
may be used in lieu of the initial notification required under 
Sec. 63.9(b), provided the same information is contained in the permit 
application as required by Sec. 63.9(b), and the State to which the 
permit application has been submitted has an approved operating permit 
program under part 70 of this chapter and has received delegation of 
authority from the EPA.
    (4) Submit a title V permit application used in lieu of the initial 
notification required under Sec. 63.9(b) by the same due dates as those 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section for the initial 
notifications.
    (c) You must submit a Notification of Performance Test as specified 
in Secs. 63.7 and 63.9(e) if you are complying with the emission 
standard using a control device. This notification and the site-
specific test plan required under Sec. 63.7(c)(2) must identify the 
operating parameter to be monitored to ensure that the capture 
efficiency measured during the performance test is maintained. You may 
consider the operating parameter identified in the site-specific test 
plan to be approved unless explicitly disapproved, or unless comments 
received from the Administrator require monitoring of an alternate 
parameter.
    (d) You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as 
specified in Sec. 63.9(h). You must submit the Notification of 
Compliance Status no later than 30 calendar days following the end of 
the initial 12-month compliance period described in Sec. 63.5130.
    (e) You must submit performance test reports as specified in 
Sec. 63.10(d)(2) if you are using a control device to comply with the 
emission standards and you have not obtained a waiver from the 
performance test requirement.
    (f) You must submit start-up, shutdown, and malfunction reports as 
specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(5) if you use a control device to comply 
with this subpart.
    (1) If your actions during a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction of 
an affected source (including actions taken to correct a malfunction) 
are not completely consistent with the

[[Page 39825]]

procedures specified in the source's start-up, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3), you must state such 
information in the report. The start-up, shutdown, or malfunction 
report will consist of a letter containing the name, title, and 
signature of the responsible official who is certifying its accuracy, 
that will be submitted to the Administrator.
    (2) Separate start-up, shutdown, or malfunction reports are not 
required if the information is included in the report specified in 
paragraph (g) of this section.
    (g) You must submit semi-annual compliance reports containing the 
information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Compliance report dates.
    (i) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec. 63.5130(a) and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is 
the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the 
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.5130(a).
    (ii) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the 
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for 
your affected source in Sec. 63.5130(a).
    (iii) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (v) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or part 71, and the permitting 
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports 
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you 
may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the 
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to 
the dates in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (2) The semi-annual compliance report must contain the following 
information:
    (i) Company name and address.
    (ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the 
report.
    (iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the 
reporting period. The reporting period is the 6-month period ending on 
June 30 or December 31. Note that the information reported for each of 
the 6 months in the reporting period will be based on the last 12 
months of data prior to the date of each monthly calculation.
    (iv) Identification of the compliance option or options specified 
in Table 1 to Sec. 63.5170 that you used on each coating operation 
during the reporting period. If you switched between compliance options 
during the reporting period, you must report the beginning dates you 
used each option.
    (v) A statement that there were no deviations from the standards 
during the reporting period, and that no CEMS were inoperative, 
inactive, malfunctioning, out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted.
    (h) You must submit, for each deviation occurring at an affected 
source where you are not using CEMS to comply with the standards in 
this subpart, the semi-annual compliance report containing the 
information in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section and 
the information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (3) Information on the number, duration, and cause for monitor 
downtime incidents (including unknown cause other than downtime 
associated with zero and span and other daily calibration checks, if 
applicable).
    (i) You must submit, for each deviation occurring at an affected 
source where you are using CEMS to comply with the standards in this 
subpart, the semi-annual compliance report containing the information 
in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, and the 
information in paragraphs (i)(1) through (12) of this section:
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (2) The date and time that each CEMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (3) The date and time that each CEMS was out-of-control, including 
the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
    (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of start-up, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to start-up, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of CEMS downtime during the 
reporting period, and the total duration of CEMS downtime as a percent 
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (8) A breakdown of the total duration of CEMS downtime during the 
reporting period into periods that are due to monitoring equipment 
malfunctions, nonmonitoring equipment malfunctions, quality assurance/
quality control calibrations, other known causes, and other unknown 
causes.
    (9) A brief description of the metal coil coating line.
    (10) The monitoring equipment manufacturer(s) and model number(s).
    (11) The date of the latest CEMS certification or audit.
    (12) A description of any changes in CEMS, processes, or controls 
since the last reporting period.


Sec. 63.5190  What records must I maintain?

    (a) You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (a) and 
(b) of this section in accordance with Sec. 63.10(b)(1):
    (1) Records of the coating lines on which you used each compliance 
option and the time periods (beginning and ending dates and times) you 
used each option.
    (2) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(2) of all measurements 
needed to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, including:
    (i) Continuous emission monitor data in accordance with 
Sec. 63.5150(a)(2);
    (ii) Control device and capture system operating parameter data in 
accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(1), (3), and (4);
    (iii) Organic HAP content data for the purpose of demonstrating 
compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.5160(b);
    (iv) Volatile matter and solids content data for the purpose of 
demonstrating compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.5160(c);
    (v) Overall control efficiency determination or alternative outlet 
HAP concentration using capture efficiency tests and control device 
destruction or removal efficiency tests in accordance with 
Sec. 63.5160(d), (e), and (f); and

[[Page 39826]]

    (vi) Material usage, HAP usage, volatile matter usage, and solids 
usage and compliance demonstrations using these data in accordance with 
Sec. 63.5170(a), (b), and (d);
    (3) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(3); and
    (4) Additional records specified in Sec. 63.10(c) for each 
continuous monitoring system operated by the owner or operator in 
accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(2).
    (b) Maintain records of all liquid-liquid material balances that 
are performed in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.5170.

Delegation of Authority


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

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the EPA, or 
a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If 
the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or 
tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and 
enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to 
find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal 
agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part 
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 
section are retained by the EPA Administrator and not transferred to 
the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) Authority which will not be delegated to States, local, or 
tribal agencies:
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limitations in 
Sec. 63.5120;
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.5160;
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.5150; and
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Secs. 63.5180 and 63.5190.


Secs. 63.5201--63.5209  [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart SSSS of Part 63

    If you are required to comply with operating limits by 
Sec. 63.5121, you must comply with the applicable operating limits in 
the following table:

  Table 1 to Subpart SSSS of Part 63. Operating Limits if Using Add-on
                   Control Devices and Capture System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         And you must
                                   You must meet the      demonstrate
                                       following          continuous
 For the following device . . .    operating limit .    compliance with
                                          . .            the operating
                                                        limit by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. thermal oxidizer.............  a. the average      i. collecting the
                                   combustion          combustion
                                   temperature in      temperature data
                                   any 3-hour period   according to Sec.
                                   must not fall        63.5150(a)(3);
                                   below the          ii. reducing the
                                   combustion          data to 3-hour
                                   temperature limit   block averages;
                                   established         and
                                   according to Sec.  iii. maintaining
                                    63.5160(d)(3)(i).  the 3-hour
                                                       average
                                                       combustion
                                                       temperature at or
                                                       above the
                                                       temperature
                                                       limit.
2. catalytic oxidizer...........  a. the average      i. collecting the
                                   temperature         temperature data
                                   measured just       according to Sec.
                                   before the           63.5150(a)(3);
                                   catalyst bed in    ii. reducing the
                                   any 3-hour period   data to 3-hour
                                   must not fall       block averages;
                                   below the limit     and
                                   established        iii. maintaining
                                   according to Sec.   the 3-hour
                                    63.5160(d)(3)(ii   average
                                   ); and either       temperature
                                                       before the
                                                       catalyst bed at
                                                       or above the
                                                       temperature
                                                       limit.
                                  b. ensure that the  i. collecting the
                                   average             temperature data
                                   temperature         according to Sec.
                                   difference across    63.5150(a)(3);
                                   the catalyst bed   ii. reducing the
                                   in any 3-hour       data to 3-hour
                                   period does not     block averages;
                                   fall below the      and
                                   temperature        iii. maintaining
                                   difference limit    the 3-hour
                                   established         average
                                   according to Sec.   temperature
                                    63.5160(d)(3)(ii   difference at or
                                   ); or               above the
                                                       temperature
                                                       difference limit.
                                  c. develop and      maintaining an up-
                                   implement an        to-date
                                   inspection and      inspection and
                                   maintenance plan    maintenance plan,
                                   according to Sec.   records of annual
                                    63.5160(d)(3)(ii   catalyst activity
                                   ).                  checks, records
                                                       of monthly
                                                       inspections of
                                                       the oxidizer
                                                       system, and
                                                       records of the
                                                       annual internal
                                                       inspections of
                                                       the catalyst bed.
                                                       If a problem is
                                                       discovered during
                                                       a monthly or
                                                       annual inspection
                                                       required by Sec.
                                                       63.5160(d)(3)(ii)
                                                       , you must take
                                                       corrective action
                                                       as soon as
                                                       practicable
                                                       consistent with
                                                       the
                                                       manufacturer's
                                                       recommendations.
3. emission capture system......  develop a           conducting
                                   monitoring plan     monitoring
                                   that identifies     according to the
                                   operating           plan Sec.
                                   parameter to be     63.5150(a)(4).
                                   monitored and
                                   specifies
                                   operating limits
                                   according to Sec.
                                    63.5150(a)(4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements 
according to the following table:

Table 2 to Subpart SSSS of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions
                             to Subpart SSSS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable to
  General provisions reference       subpart SSSS         Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1(a)(1)-(4)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.1(a)(5)................  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.1(a)(6)-(8)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.1(a)(9)................  No................  Reserved.

[[Page 39827]]

 
Sec.  63.1(a)(10)-(14)..........  Yes...............
Sec.  63.1(b)(1)................  No................  Subpart SSSS
                                                       specifies
                                                       applicability.
Sec.  63.1(b)(2)-(3)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.1(c)(1)................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.1(c)(2)................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.1(c)(3)................  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.1(c)(4)................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.1(c)(5)................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.1(d)...................  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.1(e)...................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.2......................  Yes...............  Additional
                                                       definitions in
                                                       subpart SSSS.
Sec.  63.3(a)-(c)...............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.4(a)(1)-(3)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.4(a)(4)................  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.4(a)(5)................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.4(b)-(c)...............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.5(a)(1)-(2)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.5(b)(1)................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.5(b)(2)................  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.5(b)(3)-(6)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.5(c)...................  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.5(d)...................  Yes...............  Only total HAP
                                                       emissions in
                                                       terms of tons per
                                                       year are required
                                                       for Sec.
                                                       63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H)
                                                       .
Sec.  63.5(e)...................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.5(f)...................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.6(a)...................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.6(b)(1)-(5)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.6(b)(6)................  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.6(b)(7)................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.6(c)(1)-(2)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.6(c)(3)-(4)............  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.6(c)(5)................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.6(d)...................  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.6(e)...................  Yes...............  Provisions in Sec.
                                                        63.6(e)(3)
                                                       pertaining to
                                                       startups,
                                                       shutdowns,
                                                       malfunctions, and
                                                       CEMS only apply
                                                       if an add-on
                                                       control system is
                                                       used.
Sec.  63.6(f)...................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.6(g)...................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.6(h)...................  No................  Subpart SSSS does
                                                       not require
                                                       continuous
                                                       opacity
                                                       monitoring
                                                       systems (COMS).
Sec.  63.6(i)(1)-(14)...........  Yes...............
Sec.  63.6(i)(15)...............  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.6(i)(16)...............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.6(j)...................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.7......................  Yes...............  With the exception
                                                       of Sec.
                                                       63.7(a)(2)(vii)
                                                       and (viii), which
                                                       are reserved.
Sec.  63.8(a)(1)-(2)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.8(a)(3)................  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.8(a)(4)................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.8(b)...................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)-(3)............  Yes...............  Provisions only
                                                       apply if an add-
                                                       on control system
                                                       is used.
Sec.  63.8(c)(4)................  No................
Sec.  63.8(c)(5)................  No................  Subpart SSSS does
                                                       not require COMS.
Sec.  63.8(c)(6)................  Yes...............  Provisions only
                                                       apply if CEMS are
                                                       used.
Sec.  63.8(c)(7)-(8)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.8(d)-(e)...............  Yes...............  Provisions only
                                                       apply if CEMS are
                                                       used.
Sec.  63.8(f)(1)-(5)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.8(f)(6)................  No................  Section 63.8(f)(6)
                                                       provisions are
                                                       not applicable
                                                       because subpart
                                                       SSSS does not
                                                       require CEMS.
Sec.  63.8(g)(1)-(4)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.8(g)(5)................  No................
Sec.  63.9(a)...................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.9(b)(1)................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.9(b)(2)................  Yes...............  With the exception
                                                       that Sec.
                                                       63.5180(b)(1)
                                                       provides 2 years
                                                       after the
                                                       proposal date for
                                                       submittal of the
                                                       initial
                                                       notification.
Sec.  63.9(b)(3)-(5)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.9(c)-(e)...............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.9(f)...................  No................  Subpart SSSS does
                                                       not require
                                                       opacity and
                                                       visible emissions
                                                       observations.
Sec.  63.9(g)...................  No................  Provisions for
                                                       COMS are not
                                                       applicable.
Sec.  63.9(h)(1)-(3)............  Yes...............

[[Page 39828]]

 
Sec.  63.9(h)(4)................  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.9(h)(5)-(6)............  Yes...............
Sec.  63.9(i)...................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.9(j)...................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.10(a)..................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.10(b)(1)-(3)...........  Yes...............  Provisions
                                                       pertaining to
                                                       startups,
                                                       shutdowns,
                                                       malfunctions, and
                                                       maintenance of
                                                       air pollution
                                                       control equipment
                                                       and to CEMS do
                                                       not apply unless
                                                       an add-on control
                                                       system is used.
                                                       Also, paragraphs
                                                       (b)(2)(vi), (x),
                                                       (xi), and (xiii)
                                                       do not apply.
Sec.  63.10(c)(1)...............  No................
Sec.  63.10(c)(2)-(4)...........  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.10(c)(5)-(8)...........  No................
Sec.  63.10(c)(9)...............  No................  Reserved.
Sec.  63.10(c)(10)-(15).........  No................
Sec.  63.10(d)(1)-(2)...........  Yes...............
Sec.  63.10(d)(3)...............  No................  Subpart SSSS does
                                                       not require
                                                       opacity and
                                                       visible emissions
                                                       observations.
Sec.  63.10(d)(4)-(5)...........  Yes...............
Sec.  63.10(e)..................  No................
Sec.  63.10(f)..................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.11.....................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.12.....................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.13.....................  Yes...............
Sec.  63.14.....................  Yes...............  Subpart SSSS
                                                       includes
                                                       provisions for
                                                       alternative ASTM
                                                       and ASME test
                                                       methods that are
                                                       incorporated by
                                                       reference.
Sec.  63.15.....................  Yes...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      
[FR Doc. 02-12772 Filed 6-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P