National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources, 52958-52982 [E7-17973]
Download as PDF
52958
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0526; FRL–8466–6]
RIN 2060–AN21
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations at Area Sources
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA proposes
national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
area sources engaged in paint stripping
and miscellaneous surface coating
operations. EPA has listed ‘‘Paint
Stripping,’’ ‘‘Plastic Parts and Products
(Surface Coating),’’ and ‘‘Autobody
Refinishing Paint Shops’’ as area
sources of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) that contribute to the risk to
public health in urban areas under the
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.
These three source categories are being
combined into one set of standards for
the purposes of this rulemaking. Paint
stripping operations subject to the
standards being proposed include the
use of methylene chloride-containing
chemicals to remove paint and other
coatings. Plastic parts and products
surface coating operations include the
application of coatings to miscellaneous
parts and/or products made of metal or
plastic, or combinations of metal and
plastic. Autobody refinishing includes
the application of coating to motor
vehicles and mobile equipment. These
proposed standards, when final, would
require all methylene chloride (MeCl)
containing paint stripping and
miscellaneous surface coating
operations at area sources to comply
with equipment requirements and/or
management practices that minimize
specific HAP emissions. The standards
would also establish training
requirements for persons who spray
apply coatings. These standards, when
final, would apply to all area sources
that perform methylene chloridecontaining paint stripping and
miscellaneous surface coating activities,
except when other NESHAP apply.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before October 17, 2007.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
comments on the information collection
provisions must be received by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on or before October 17, 2007.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
Public Hearing: If anyone contacts
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing concerning the proposed rule by
September 27, 2007, we will hold a
public hearing on October 2, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0526, by one of
the following methods.
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Fax: 202–566–1741.
Mail: Air and Radiation Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of two copies. We
request that a separate copy also be sent
to the contact person identified below
see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
In addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information collection
provisions to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: Deliver your
comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Building, Room B–108,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20014. Such deliveries
are accepted only during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–
0526. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
comment with a disk or CD–ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Commenters wishing to submit
proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish
such information from other comments
and clearly label it as CBI. Do not send
proprietary information to the public
docket to ensure that it is not
inadvertently placed in the docket.
Instead, send proprietary information
directly to the following address:
Attention: Mr. Roberto Morales, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
OAQPS Document Control Officer, 109
T.W. Alexander Drive, Room C404–02,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA
will disclose information identified as
CBI only to the extent allowed by the
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
If no claim of confidentiality
accompanies a submission when it is
received by EPA, the information may
be made available to the public without
further notice to the commenter.
Docket. All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone for the Air and
Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742.
Public Hearing: If you are interested
in attending the public hearing, contact
Ms. Dorothy Apple at (919) 541–4487 to
verify that a hearing will be held. If a
public hearing is held, it will be held at
10 a.m. at EPA’s Campus located at 109
T.W. Alexander Drive in Research
Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site
nearby.
For
information concerning the proposed
standards, contact Mr. Warren Johnson,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Division, Natural Resources and
Commerce Group (E143–03), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541–5124, or email at johnson.warren@epa.gov. For
technical information concerning the
proposed surface coating standards,
contact Ms. Kim Teal, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector
Policies and Programs Division, Natural
Resources and Commerce Group (E143–
03), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541–
5580, or e-mail at teal.kim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. How is this document organized?
The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. How is this document organized?
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments to EPA?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area
Source Standards
A. What is the regulatory development
background for the proposed standards
for paint stripping and miscellaneous
surface coating operations?
B. Where in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) will these standards
be codified?
C. What criteria are used in the
development of these NESHAP?
D. What are the sources of emissions and
the HAP for which these area source
categories were listed?
E. What are the health effects associated
with the pollutants emitted by paint
stripping and miscellaneous surface
coating operations?
F. How has EPA regulated major sources in
the same industrial sectors (similar
sources) and what has EPA learned about
available control technologies and
management practices from regulating
these major sources?
III. Proposed NESHAP for Paint Stripping
and Miscellaneous Coating Operations at
Area Sources
A. What are the affected area sources?
B. What are the HAP and primary sources
of emissions for which these source
categories were listed?
C. Do the proposed standards apply to my
source?
D. What emissions control requirements is
EPA proposing?
E. What are the initial compliance
requirements?
F. What are the continuous compliance
requirements?
G. What are the notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed
Standards
A. What area source categories are affected
by this proposal?
B. How did we select the affected source?
C. How did we determine the basis and
level of the proposed standards for new
and existing sources?
D. How did we select the format of the
proposed standards?
E. How did we select the initial
compliance and testing requirements?
F. How did we select the continuous
compliance requirements?
G. How did we select the compliance date?
H. How did we decide to exempt these area
source categories from the CAA title V
permit requirements?
V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards
A. What are the air impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health,
environmental, and energy impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
B. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially
affected by the proposed rule are
Category
NAICS
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Aerospace Equipment ........................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
336413
336414
336415
54171
Fmt 4701
MeCl—containing paint stripping
operations and miscellaneous surface
coating operations located at area
sources. An area source is defined in
CAA section 112(a) as any stationary
source of HAP that is not a major
source, and a major source is defined as
any stationary source or group of
stationary sources located within a
contiguous area and under common
control that emits, or has the potential
to emit, considering controls, in the
aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) of any
single HAP or 25 tpy of any
combination of HAP. For the purposes
of this proposal, paint stripping
operations are those that involve the use
of MeCl for the partial or complete
removal of surface coatings from wood,
metal or plastic substrates at area
sources as either (1) an independent
activity where paint stripping is the
principle activity at the source or (2) an
activity incidental to the principle
activity (e.g., surface coating,
inspection, maintenance, etc.) at the
source. We consider paint stripping
activities that use less than 150 gallons
per year to be incidental to the principle
activity and those using 150 gallons or
more to be performing paint stripping as
a principle activity. Miscellaneous
surface coating operations are those that
involve the application of coatings at
area sources to (1) miscellaneous parts
and/or products made of metal or
plastic, or combinations of metal and
plastic; or (2) motor vehicles and mobile
equipment (e.g., heavy duty-trucks,
buses, construction equipment, selfpropelled vehicles and equipment that
may be drawn and/or driven on a
roadway), hereinafter referred to as
autobody refinishing. In general, the
facilities and entities potentially
affected by the proposed rule are
covered under the North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) Codes listed in the following
table. However, facilities classified
under other NAICS codes may be
subject to the proposed standards if they
meet the applicability criteria.
Examples of potentially regulated entities
Aircraft engines, aircraft parts, aerospace ground equipment.
Sfmt 4702
52959
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
52960
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Category
NAICS
Automobiles and Automobile Parts ....................................
Chemical Manufacturing and Product Preparation ............
Extruded Aluminum ............................................................
Government ........................................................................
Heavy Equipment ...............................................................
Job Shops ...........................................................................
Large Trucks and Buses ....................................................
Metal Buildings ...................................................................
Metal Containers .................................................................
Metal Pipe and Foundry .....................................................
Rail Transportation .............................................................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Recreational Vehicles and Other Transportation Equipment.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
335312
336111
336211
336312
33632
33633
33634
33637
336399
441110
441120
811121
325110
325120
325131
325188
325192
325193
325199
325998
331316
331524
332321
332323
N/A
33312
333611
333618
332312
332722
332813
332991
332999
334119
336413
339999
33612
336211
332311
33242
81131
322214
331513
332439
331111
331513
33121
331221
331511
33651
336611
482111
321991
3369
331316
336991
336211
336112
336212
336213
336214
336399
336999
33635
56121
8111
56211
Fmt 4701
Examples of potentially regulated entities
Engine parts, vehicle parts and accessories, brakes, axles, etc. Motor
vehicle body manufacturing and automobile assembly plants. New
and used car dealers. Automotive body, paint, and interior repair and
maintenance.
Petrochemicals, Industrial Gases, Inorganic Dyes and Pigments, Basic
Inorganic and Organic Chemicals, Cyclic Crude and Intermediates,
Ethyl Alcohol, Miscellaneous Chemical Production and Preparation.
Extruded aluminum, architectural components, coils, rod, and tubes.
Government entities, besides Department of Defense, that maintain vehicles, such as school buses, police and emergency vehicles, transit
buses, or highway maintenance vehicles.
Tractors, earth moving machinery.
Manufacturing industries not elsewhere classified (e.g., bezels, consoles, panels, lenses).
Large trucks and buses.
Prefabricated metal buildings, carports, docks, dwellings, greenhouses,
panels for buildings.
Drums, kegs, pails, shipping containers.
Plate, tube, rods, nails, etc.
Brakes, engines, freight cars, locomotives.
Mobile Homes. Motorcycles, motor homes, semi trailers, truck trailers.
Miscellaneous transportation related equipment and parts. Travel trailer and camper manufacturing.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Category
NAICS
Rubber-to-Metal Products ...................................................
326291
326299
332311
332312
562211
562212
562213
562219
562920
211112
311942
331311
337214
811420
325211
325510
32614,
32615
326199
Structural Steel ...................................................................
Waste Treatment, Disposal, and Materials Recovery ........
Other Industrial and Commercial ........................................
333313
33422
339111,
339112
33992
33995
336612
713930
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by the proposed rule. Many
types of entities that perform stripping
and/or coating that are not listed in this
table would be potentially affected by
the proposed rule. To determine
whether your facility, company,
business, organization, etc., is subject to
this action, you should examine the
applicability criteria in section 63.11170
of the proposed rule. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
C. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments to EPA?
Do not submit information containing
CBI to EPA through
www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
Examples of potentially regulated entities
Engine mounts, rubberized tank tread, harmonic balancers.
Joists, railway bridge sections, highway bridge sections.
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, Solid Waste Landfill, Solid
Waste Combustors and Incinerators, Other Nonhazardous Waste
Treatment and Disposal, Materials Recovery.
Natural Gas Liquid Extraction.
Spices and Extracts.
Alumina Refining.
Office furniture, except wood.
Reupholstery and Furniture Repair.
Plastics Material Synthetic Resins, and Nonvulcanizable Elastomers.
Paint and Coating Manufacturing.
Plastic foam products (e.g., pool floats, wrestling mats, life jackets).
Plastic products not elsewhere classified (e.g., name plates, coin holders, storage boxes, license plate housings, cosmetic caps, cup holders).
Office machines.
Radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment (e.g.,
cellular telephones).
Medical equipment and supplies.
Sporting and athletic goods.
Signs and advertising specialties.
Boat building.
Marinas, including boat repair yards.
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (e.g., subject heading,
Federal Register proposal publication
date and reference page number(s)).
2. Follow directions—EPA may ask
you to respond to specific questions.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and provide
substitute language for your requested
changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your
comments by the specified comment
period deadline.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
52961
Sfmt 4702
II. Background Information for
Proposed Area Source Standards
A. What is the regulatory development
background for the proposed standards
for paint stripping and miscellaneous
surface coating operations?
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requires EPA to develop
NESHAP for both major and area
sources that are listed for regulation
under CAA section 112(c). As stated
earlier, a major source is defined in
CAA section 112(a) as any stationary
source or group of stationary sources
located within a contiguous area and
under common control that emits, or
has the potential to emit, considering
controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per
year (tpy) of any single HAP or 25 tpy
of any combination of HAP. An area
source is any stationary source that is
not a major source. Thus, area sources
are those sources of HAP that do not
emit nor have the potential to emit HAP
at or above the 10 or 25 tpy thresholds.
CAA section 112(k)(3)(B) requires
EPA to develop a list of at least 30 HAP
which, as a result of area source
emissions, pose the greatest threat to
public health in the largest number of
urban areas. We refer to these HAP as
the ‘‘urban HAP.’’ Section 112(c)(3) of
the CAA directs EPA to identify source
categories or subcategories of area
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
52962
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sources that represent 90 percent of the
emissions of the urban HAP.
On July 19, 1999, EPA published its
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy,
which included both the list of urban
HAP and the initial list of area source
categories (64 FR 38706). The initial list
of area source categories included
‘‘Paint Stripping Operations’’. On June
26, 2002 and November 22, 2002, EPA
added ‘‘Autobody Refinishing Paint
Shops (67 FR 43112)’’ and ‘‘Plastic Parts
and Products (Surface Coating) (67 FR
70427)’’, respectively, to the list of area
source categories. A primary goal of the
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy is
to achieve a 75 percent reduction in
cancer incidence attributable to HAP
emitted from stationary sources in urban
areas.
Sierra Club sued EPA, alleging a
failure to complete standards for the
area source categories listed pursuant to
CAA section 112(c)(3)and (k)(3)(B)
within the timeframe specified by the
statute. See Sierra Club v. Johnson, No.
01–1537, (D.D.C.). On March 31, 2006,
the court issued an order requiring EPA
to promulgate standards under CAA
section 112(d) for those area source
categories listed pursuant to CAA
section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). Among
other things, the order requires that, by
December 15, 2007, EPA complete
standards for certain area source
categories.
In this action, EPA is proposing
standards for the following area source
categories: Paint stripping, plastic parts
and products (surface coating), and
autobody refinishing. In developing this
proposed rule, we fully analyzed these
three listed source categories and found
that it is both reasonable and technically
feasible to regulate emissions from these
three source categories by a single set of
emission standards. The processes,
emission points, emission
characteristics, and emission controls
for plastic parts and products surface
coating and autobody refinishing are
very similar. Additionally, paint
stripping is often performed as part of
the surface preparation for both plastic
parts and autobody refinishing which,
by regulating within the scope of a
single set of standards, reduces the
burden of complying with multiple
standards on the sources performing
both the paint stripping and subsequent
coating. This single set of emission
standards that addresses all three
categories also minimizes the cost of
developing, permitting, and enforcing
the standards. For purposes of this
preamble and proposed rule, the term
‘‘paint stripping and miscellaneous
surface coating’’ is used to indicate that
the three area source categories of paint
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
stripping, plastic parts and products
(surface coating), and autobody
refinishing have been treated as a single
source category for purposes of
developing this rule.
Early in the development of standards
to implement EPA’s Integrated Urban
Strategy, the States expressed concern
over the burden and resources that
would be required for the States to take
delegation for the implementation of the
area source rules listed as part of the
strategy. Specifically, States were
concerned that implementing Federal
requirements, in lieu of established
State programs, would be overly
burdensome with little or no additional
emission reductions for certain source
categories. In these discussions, the
States acknowledged the provisions in
CAA section 112(l) as a route for
providing them this reduction of burden
and flexibility in accepting delegation of
some of the area source standards.
Guidance on the provisions of CAA
section 112(l) are presented in 40 CFR
63 Subpart E which provides certain
administrative (i.e., monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting) criteria
for an alternative program to be
considered equivalent. This guidance
provides States with information
regarding the necessary components for
their program to be considered
equivalent. EPA believes some States
may have programs that address the
emissions from the surface coating of
motor vehicles and mobile equipment
that are at least as effective as the
proposed standards and encourages
States to consider utilizing these
provisions in lieu of implementing the
proposed standards.
The EPA is seeking comment on (1)
whether or not the States are interested
in utilizing the Section 112(l) alternative
program approach, and (2) what
technical assistance the States may need
to develop equivalency determinations.
B. Where in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) will these standards
be codified?
The CFR is a codification of the
general and permanent rules published
in the Federal Register by the Executive
departments and agencies of the Federal
Government. The code is divided into
50 titles that represent broad areas
subject to Federal Regulation. When
final, these proposed standards will be
published in Title 40, Protection of the
Environment, part 63, subpart
HHHHHH: National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. What criteria are used in the
development of these NESHAP?
CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA
to issue alternative emission standards
for area sources in lieu of the authorities
provided in CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
112(f). Specifically, section 112(d)(5),
which is entitled ‘‘Alternative Standard
for Area Sources,’’ provides:
With respect only to categories and
subcategories of area sources listed pursuant
to subsection (c) of this section, the
Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities
provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (f)
of this section, elect to promulgate standards
or requirements applicable to sources in such
categories or subcategories which provide for
the use of generally available control
technologies or management practices by
such sources to reduce emissions of
hazardous air pollutants.
Thus, CAA section 112(d)(5)
authorizes EPA to promulgate standards
under section 112(d)(5) that provide for
the use of generally available control
technologies or management practices
(GACT), instead of issuing maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)
standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does
not set any condition precedent for
issuing standards under CAA section
112(d)(5) other than that the area source
category or subcategory at issue must be
one that EPA listed pursuant to CAA
section 112(c)(3), which is the case in
this proposal.
When setting a GACT standard for an
area source category as opposed to a
MACT standard, EPA must ensure that
the GACT standard is consistent with
the requirements of CAA section
112(d)(5) and have a reasonable basis for
its GACT determination. Thus, in
developing standards for area sources of
HAP emissions, EPA evaluates the
control technologies and management
practices that reduce HAP emissions
that are generally available for each area
source category, and, in determining
GACT, may establish standards on
either (or both) generally available
control technologies or (and)
management practices that reduce the
emission of HAP. EPA’s analysis
supporting the proposed GACT
requirements is discussed in detail in
section IV of this preamble.
D. What are the sources of emissions
and the HAP for which these area
source categories were listed?
EPA listed the area source paint
stripping category pursuant to CAA
section 112(c)(3) based on emissions of
MeCl contained in paint stripper
formulations. The emissions of MeCl
comes from evaporative losses during
the use or storage of MeCl. EPA listed
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
the area source miscellaneous coating
operations category pursuant to section
112(c)(3) based on emissions of
cadmium, chromium, lead compounds
(lead), manganese and nickel
compounds that are in the coatings, as
part of the pigment in topcoats or for the
corrosion protection in primers. For
purposes of this proposal we will refer
to these HAP as the ‘‘target HAP.’’
The anticipated national impacts of
these proposed standards is summarized
in section V of this preamble.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
E. What are the health effects associated
with the pollutants emitted by paint
stripping and miscellaneous surface
coating operations?
Emissions data collected in the
development of this proposed rule
shows that HAP emitted from paint
stripping and miscellaneous surface
coating operations are associated with a
variety of adverse health effects. These
adverse health effects include chronic
health disorders (e.g., central nervous
system effects, blood disorders, cancer)
and acute health disorders (e.g.,
irritation of eyes, nose and throat, with
long-term impairment of lung function
possible at high acute exposures). The
proposed rule protects air quality and
promotes the public health by reducing
the emissions of the HAP for which the
three source categories at issue in this
proposed rule were listed.
F. How has EPA regulated major sources
in the same industrial sectors (similar
sources) and what has EPA learned
about available control technologies
and management practices from
regulating these major sources?
Major sources performing paint
stripping and surface coating of
miscellaneous parts and/or products
made of metal or plastic, or
combinations of metal and plastic; or
motor vehicles and mobile equipment
(e.g., heavy duty-trucks, buses,
construction equipment, self-propelled
vehicles and equipment that may be
drawn and/or driven on a roadway),
were addressed in different surface
coating NESHAP requiring MACT level
of control, of which the last NESHAP
was promulgated in 2004. Major sources
must currently be in compliance with
those surface coating NESHAP.
Paint stripping was a separately listed
major source category under CAA
section 112 (c)(1), however, during the
data gathering phase EPA determined
that there were no major source paint
stripping operations conducted
independent of surface coating.
Therefore, all paint stripping operations
were covered in each surface coating
NESHAP, as part of the cleaning
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
material used for surface preparation
activities. Each NESHAP assumed that
the initial emission control technology
would be reduction of the usage of HAP
cleaners or implementation of
management practices to reduce the
evaporative losses from these cleaning
activities.
The data gathering for the major
source categories revealed that when the
coatings are spray-applied, it was
common practice to perform application
of the coatings within the confines of a
spray booth to minimize worker
exposure. This limited the dispersion of
the HAP to the parts being coated as
solids in the dry coating film,
deposition onto the walls, floor, and
grates of the spray booths in which they
are applied, or some of the HAP
particles would be entrained in the
spray booth exhaust air. We have
learned, as part of the data gathering
phase of this area source proposal that
although most, if not all, sources are
spray applying these coatings in a spray
booth, not all of the spray booths are
capable of capturing and controlling the
target HAP (the HAP for which the area
source categories at issue here were
listed pursuant to CAA section
112(c)(3).
III. Proposed NESHAP for Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Coating
Operations at Area Sources
A. What are the affected area sources?
The sources that would be affected by
the proposed standards are area sources
engaged in paint stripping using MeCl,
and/or engaged in coating of
miscellaneous parts and/or products
made of metal or plastic, or
combinations of metal and plastic, or
autobody refinishing. The proposed
standards would not apply to any of
these operations that are specifically
covered under another area source
NESHAP (e.g., the NESHAP for Defense
Land Systems and Miscellaneous
Equipment currently under
development). While these sources are
not currently listed pursuant to CAA
section 112(c)(3) or 112(k)(3)(b), we
intend to list them under these
provisions of the act.
B. What are the HAP and primary
sources of emissions for which these
source categories were listed?
Paint Stripping Operations
The primary source of emissions from
paint stripping operations and the HAP
for which this source category was
listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3)
(the ‘‘target HAP’’) is the MeCl
contained in paint stripper
formulations. The primary source of the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52963
MeCl emissions in this source category
comes from evaporative losses during
the use or storage of MeCl.
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
The primary sources of emissions
from miscellaneous coating operations
are the metal pigments that are in the
coatings and/or refinish material. The
target HAP for which these source
categories were listed are the heavy
metals including cadmium, chromium,
lead, manganese and nickel compounds.
The primary source of emissions of
these HAP are the spray application of
the coatings and curing process.
The heavy metals are contained
primarily in the coatings (e.g., primers
and the pigments in topcoats) and
include compounds of lead (Pb),
trivalent chromium (Cr-III), or
hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI), plus
compounds of other metals that are
considered HAP, such as cadmium,
manganese, and nickel. The metal HAP
compounds are emitted as the coatings
are atomized during spray application.
A substantial fraction of coating that is
atomized does not reach the part and
becomes what is termed ‘‘overspray.’’
The fraction that becomes overspray
depends on many variables, but two of
the most important are the type of
equipment and the skill of the painter.
Some overspray lands on surfaces of the
spray booth and the masking paper that
is usually placed around the surface
being sprayed, but the rest of the
overspray is drawn into the spray booth
exhaust system. If the spray booth has
filters, most of the overspray is captured
by the filters; otherwise, it is exhausted
to the atmosphere.
After coating application, the spray
gun must be cleaned to remove the
remaining coating before it cures and to
prepare it for the next coating job.
Solvents used for equipment cleaning
may contain the same HAP as the
coatings they remove. Spray guns are
usually cleaned in a device, commonly
referred to as an enclosed spray gun
washer, that consists of a solvent
reservoir and a covered enclosure that
dispenses solvent for gun cleaning. The
enclosure may hold the gun for
automated gun cleaning. During gun
cleaning, HAP from the cleaning solvent
and the coating may be emitted as the
cleaning solvent is sprayed through the
gun during cleaning from the equipment
that stores and dispenses the cleaning
solvent while it is opened.
C. Do the proposed standards apply to
my source?
The area source requirements
specified in the proposed rule would
apply to your source if your source (or
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
52964
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
facility) is an area source that performs
(1) paint stripping using MeClcontaining chemicals or (2) surface
coating using spray equipment.
The area source requirements
specified in the proposed rule would
not apply if your paint stripping or
surface coating operations meet any of
the following:
• Paint stripping or surface coating
performed on-site at installations owned
or operated by the Armed Forces of the
United States (including the Coast
Guard and the National Guard of any
such State), or the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration because these
activities will be subject to the area
source NESHAP for military operations
which is in development.
• Paint stripping or surface coating of
military munitions manufactured by or
for the Armed Forces of the United
States (including the Coast Guard and
the National Guard of any such State) or
equipment directly and exclusively
used for the purposes of transporting
munitions manufactured by or for the
Armed Forces of the United States
(including the Coast Guard and the
National Guard of any such State)
because these activities will be subject
to the area source NESHAP for military
operations which is in development.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
D. What emissions control requirements
is EPA proposing?
This section describes the proposed
emissions control requirements for paint
stripping and miscellaneous coating
operations. The basis for these proposed
requirements is discussed in section IV,
below.
Paint Stripping Operations
All sources conducting paint
stripping involving the use of MeCl
must implement management practice
standards that reduce emissions of MeCl
by minimizing evaporative losses of
MeCl.
In addition to the management
practices, sources that use 150 gal or
more of paint stripper containing MeCl,
per year would need to develop and
implement a MeCl minimization plan
consisting of a written plan with the
criteria to evaluate the necessity of MeCl
in the stripping operations and
management techniques to minimize
MeCl emissions when it is needed in the
paint stripping operation.
The MeCl minimization plan
evaluation criteria would involve only
using a MeCl-containing paint stripper
when an alternative on-site stripping
method or material is incapable of
accomplishing the work as determined
by the operator. Alternative methods to
reduce MeCl usage may include: (1)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
Non-MeCl-containing chemical
strippers; (2) mechanical stripping; (3)
blasting (including dry or wet media); or
(4) thermal and cryogenic
decomposition.
The management practices that would
be required to be contained in the plan
include optimizing stripper application
conditions, reducing exposure of
stripper to the air, and practicing proper
storage and disposal of materials
containing MeCl. Sources would be
required to submit the plan either to
EPA or to the delegated state permit
authority, keep a written copy of the
plan on site and post a placard or sign
outlining the evaluation criteria and
management techniques in each area
where MeCl-containing paint stripping
operations occur.
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
All sources conducting surface
coating operations involving sprayapplied coatings would need to apply
the coatings with a high volume, low
pressure (HVLP) spray gun, electrostatic
spray gun, or a gun demonstrated to be
equal in transfer efficiency to an HVLP
spray gun. All spray-applied coatings
would need to be applied in a prep
station or spray booth, with a full roof
and at least three complete walls or
complete side curtains, ventilated so
that air is drawn into the booth. The
exhaust from the prep station or spray
booth would need to be fitted with
fiberglass or polyester fiber filters or
some other filter technology
demonstrated to achieve at least 98
percent capture efficiency of paint
overspray. As explained further below,
we are proposing that the combination
of these technologies are GACT for the
miscellaneous surface coating
operations.
Additionally, sources would be
required to comply with the
management practices by demonstrating
that (1) all painters that spray-apply
coatings are certified and (2) that all
spray gun cleaning performed by
spraying HAP solvent through the gun
is performed in an enclosed spray gun
cleaner or by cleaning the disassembled
gun parts by hand (i.e., spraying HAP
solvent through a gun outside of a gun
cleaner would be prohibited). The
painter would need to be certified as
having completed classroom and handson training in the proper selection,
mixing, and application of coatings.
Refresher training would need to be
repeated at least once every 5 years. The
initial and refresher training would
need to address the following topics:
• Surface preparation (prep).
• Spray gun set up and operation and
spray technique for different types of
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
coatings to improve transfer efficiency
and minimize coating usage and
overspray.
• Routine spray booth and filter
maintenance.
• Paint mixing, matching, and
applying.
• Resolving paint application
problems.
• Finish defects causes and cures.
• Safety precautions.
• Environmental compliance.
E. What are the initial compliance
requirements?
If your facility is a new source (one
that began construction or
reconstruction after the date this rule is
proposed) and you use MeCl in your
paint stripping operations or you spray
apply coatings, you would be required
to comply with all of the requirements
established in this subpart as of the date
of promulgation of the final rule or upon
startup, whichever is later.
If your facility is an existing source
(one that began construction or
reconstruction before the date this rule
is proposed), you would be required to
comply with the requirements no later
than 2 years after the date the final rule
is published. In addition, each painter
would need to comply with the training
requirements of the rule no later than 60
days after hiring. Painters would be
allowed to use training that was
completed within 5 years prior to the
date training is required to meet this
requirement. All painters would need to
receive refresher training and be recertified every 5 years.
To demonstrate initial compliance for
paint stripping operations, you would
need to:
• Certify that you have implemented
a best management practices plan, and
• If you are a source that uses 150 gal
or more of paint stripper containing
MeCl, per year, certify that you have
developed and implemented a MeCl
minimization plan consisting of a
written plan with the criteria to evaluate
the necessity of MeCl in the stripping
operations and management techniques
to minimize MeCl emissions when it is
needed in the paint stripping operation.
To demonstrate initial compliance for
miscellaneous surface coating
operations, you would need to:
• Certify that all coatings are sprayed
in booths or prep stations that are fitted
with filters.
• Certify that all spray guns are HVLP
or an equivalent.
• Certify that all painters that apply
coatings using a spray gun have
completed the training described in
section III.D. of this preamble.
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
• Certify that all gun cleaning is
performed in enclosed gun cleaners or
by hand.
After the compliance date for your
source, you would have 120 days if you
are a new source, and 30 days if you are
an existing source, to submit a
notification of compliance status to the
EPA or a delegated State or local air
pollution control agency.
You would also be required to submit
an initial notification to the EPA or the
delegated agency that you are subject to
the standard. You would have 120 days
after startup or publication of the final
rule (whichever is later) to submit the
initial notification if you are a new
source. If you are an existing source,
you would have 1 year after publication
of the final rule to submit the initial
notification.
If your facility is an existing source,
you would be required to comply with
the requirements no later than 2 years
after the date the final rule is published.
In addition, each painter would need to
comply with the training requirements
of the rule no later than 60 days after
hiring. Painters would be allowed to use
training that was completed within 5
years prior to the date training is
required to meet this requirement. All
painters would need to receive refresher
training and be re-certified every 5
years.
F. What are the continuous compliance
requirements?
To demonstrate continuous
compliance, you would need to
continually maintain the emission
control requirements (i.e., management
practices and equipment requirements)
that are described in section III.D. of this
preamble.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
G. What are the notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
You would be required to submit an
initial notification to the EPA or the
delegated agency that you are subject to
the standard. If you are a new source,
you would have 120 days after startup
or publication of the final rule
(whichever is later) to submit the initial
notification. If you are an existing
source, you would have 1 year after
publication of the final rule to submit
the initial notification.
After the compliance date for your
source, you would have 120 days if you
are a new source and 30 days if you are
an existing source to submit a
notification of compliance status to the
EPA or a delegated State or local air
pollution control agency.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
Paint Stripping Operations
For paint stripping operations, you
would need to maintain records
demonstrating the following:
• Annual usage of MeCl in paint
strippers is below 150 gallons (if you are
a source qualifying for the best
management practices, only); or
• You have complied with the MeCl
minimization plan.
If you are required to have a MeCl
minimization plan, you would also be
required to submit annual compliance
reports in which you certify that the
source is in compliance, or report the
date, duration, and description of any
deviations from the MeCl minimization
plan that occurred and the corrective
actions taken.
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
For miscellaneous coating operations,
you would need to maintain records
demonstrating the following:
• All spray painters are trained and
certified;
• Any spray booth filters or
particulate controls that are not
fiberglass or polyester fiber filters
achieve at least 98 percent efficiency;
and
• Any spray guns that do not meet the
definition of HVLP or electrostatic spray
gun have been demonstrated to achieve
comparable transfer efficiency.
• Spray gun cleaning is being
performed manually or in an enclosed
gun cleaner when solvent is being
atomized through the gun as part of the
cleaning process.
You would also be required to submit
annual compliance reports in which you
certify that the source is in compliance,
or report the date, duration, and
description of any deviations from the
specified control requirements that
occurred and the corrective actions
taken.
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed
Standards
A. What area source categories are
affected by this proposal?
As discussed above, this rulemaking
covers facilities engaged in MeCl paint
stripping and spray applied surface
coating of parts and/or products made of
metal or plastic, or combinations of
metal and plastic; and refinishing of
motor vehicles and mobile equipment
which are a source of emissions of
MeCl, cadmium, chromium, lead,
manganese and nickel compounds
which are the target HAP described
above.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52965
B. How did we select the affected
source?
In selecting the affected source for
emission standards, our primary goal is
to ensure that all emission points
responsible for the emissions of the
target HAP (i.e., MeCl & the heavy
metals) in each listed source category
are controlled as specified in CAA
section 112(d)(5), described previously
in Section II.C. The affected source also
serves to establish when new source
standards should be applied.
Specifically, the General Provisions in
subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 define the
terms ‘‘construction’’ and
‘‘reconstruction’’ with reference to the
term ‘‘affected source’’ (40 CFR part
63.2) and provide that new source
standards apply when construction or
reconstruction of an affected source
occurs.
The affected source for this proposed
rule is broadly defined to include all
operations associated with the removal
of paint from a substrate using MeCl and
the spray application of coatings. These
operations include the use of MeClcontaining paint strippers by
immersion, brushing on, and/or
spraying on to remove a coating to
change the color of the item or because
the life of the coating has been
exceeded, or to remove paint for
inspection purposes or during repair;
storage and mixing of coatings and other
materials; surface preparation; coating
application and flash-off; drying and
curing of applied coatings; cleaning
operations; and waste handling
operations.
Each of the equipment items subject
to regulation (e.g., containers of paint or
stripper, spray booths, spray guns, gun
cleaners) is either a relatively low cost
item, or could be easily moved about
inside a paint stripping and
miscellaneous surface coating operation,
hence, for this proposal, a broad
definition of affected source that
encompasses the entire paint stripping
and miscellaneous surface coating
operation was selected. This approach
would subject the entire operation to the
same compliance date. Had we
proposed a narrow definition for an
affected source, replacement or
purchase of a single item could cause
that item to be considered a new source,
resulting in different compliance dates
and additional reporting. Furthermore,
for the most part, new and existing
affected sources are subject to the same
emission standards, so the same
environmental benefit will be realized
regardless of whether the source is
considered new or existing. Defining the
affected source narrowly could result in
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
52966
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
a paint stripping or miscellaneous
surface coating operation having several
affected sources that could be subject to
different compliance dates, but the same
standards, imposing additional burdens
on the source without any
environmental benefit.
C. How did we determine the basis and
level of the proposed standards for new
and existing sources?
As previously stated above, CAA
section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to
establish emission standards for area
sources that provide for the use of
generally available control technologies
or management practices that reduce
emissions of HAP (GACT). Determining
what constitutes GACT involves
considering the control technologies
and management practices that are
generally available to the area sources in
the source category. We also consider
the standards applicable to major
sources in the same industrial sector to
determine if the control technologies
and management practices are
transferable and generally available to
area sources. In appropriate
circumstances, we may also consider
technologies and practices at area and
major sources in similar categories to
determine whether such technologies
and practices could be considered
generally available for the area source
category at issue. Finally, as noted
above, in determining GACT for a
particular area source category, we
consider the costs and economic
impacts of available control
technologies and management practices
on that category.
We began the rule development
process by identifying other standards
developed for these specific processes.
As discussed in section II.E., above, we
evaluated the emission control
technology at major sources for the
types of operations found in these area
source categories to determine whether
or not they were reasonable, feasible,
and cost-effective for the area sources.
Based on the findings of the major
source NESHAP data gathering, the
technology considered to be appropriate
for the target HAP, and the availability
of the technology, we considered
whether or not these same emission
controls were technically feasible and
generally available for the area source
categories.
Next, we met with industry
associations and discussed their current
processes and the feasibility of adopting
the emission control technology
specified as appropriate for the major
sources. We learned that, in fact, similar
technology (i.e., spray booths, painter
training, HVLP guns, enclosed gun
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
cleaners, and management practices to
reduce HAP usage) were already being
employed at many of the area sources.
Therefore, it was determined that, given
the availability and cost-effectiveness of
these emission control technologies,
they represent GACT for the targeted
HAP from each source category (i.e.,
paint stripping, autobody refinishing,
and plastic parts surface coating). As
previously stated, the target HAP
emissions for which these source
categories were listed are MeCl from
paint stripping operations and
cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese
and nickel compounds from the
coatings operations. The resulting
proposed GACT standards are a
combination of technology and
management practices that control the
target HAP, and have a co-benefit of
reducing other associated emissions 1
from these operations. The co-benefit is
realized due to the fact that the same
technology applied to control the target
HAP emissions are also the best
techniques for reducing some other
emissions associated with these
operations.
In the development of these proposed
emission standards, EPA visited
numerous paint stripping and coating
operations, collected data from various
databases, and compiled information
received during previous data collection
activities. We also met with facility
owners and other representatives of
these industries. These site visits, data
review and contacts with industry
provided the technical basis for the
proposed standards and are included in
the public docket for this rulemaking.
Paint Stripping
MeCl is the most common solvent and
the target HAP for this source category.
Since MeCl is the target HAP, our
analysis in determining GACT began
with understanding alternative stripping
technologies and best management
practices to minimize MeCl emissions at
existing major and area sources. In
selecting GACT for affected area sources
that perform paint stripping operations,
we determined that best management
practices to minimize evaporative losses
(fugitive emissions) from MeCl in paint
stripper formulations was not only a
practice that many in the industry use,
but also was generally cost effective for
all sources in this category.
1 The baseline emissions from the surface coating
operations are estimated to be about 38,000 tpy of
HAP, including 12.4 tpy of inorganic HAP (e.g.; Pb
and Cr-VI compounds), 123,500 tpy of criteria
pollutants including 3,100 tpy of particulate matter
(PM) from paint overspray and 120,400 tpy of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) from coating and
solvent evaporation.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
As part of the GACT analysis, we
considered whether there were
differences in processes, sizes, or other
factors affecting emissions, control
technologies or management practices
that would warrant subcategorization.
Under CAA section 112(d)(1) of the
CAA, EPA ‘‘may distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes within a source
category or subcategory in establishing
such standard.’’ In looking to other
means by which MeCl emissions could
be reduced from these operations, we
did recognize that some sources utilized
alternative stripping technologies (e.g.,
blasting) to accomplish much of their
work. These sources, distinguishable
from the rest of the category by having
other available on site methods to strip
paint not involving MeCl, could
reasonably route work away from paint
stripping operations that involved MeCl
as a means of control. Pursuant to
section 112(d)(1), we have
subcategorized these sources with
alternative stripping methods by class.
As mentioned earlier, these different
paint stripping methods include (1)
non-MeCl—containing chemical
strippers; (2) mechanical stripping; (3)
blasting (including dry or wet media);
and (4) thermal or cryogenic
decomposition. We also recognized that
this subcategory represented the 30
percent (approximately) of the source
category with the highest MeCl
emissions. We determined that sources
that used 150 gallons or more per year
of paint stripper containing MeCl was
the best approximation criteria for
defining this subcategory for three
reasons.
First, based on our findings from: (1)
A study of paint stripping facilities
(referenced in a Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California
(Environmental Defense Fund)
document entitled ‘‘Source Reduction
and Recycling of Halogenated Solvents
in Paint Stripping—Technical Support
Document’’), (2) our understanding of
the affected facilities, and (3) our
analysis of the model plants, for
facilities using 150 gallons of MeCl or
more per year, we believe it is
reasonable to expect cost savings from
the process of routing work away from
paint stripping operations involving
MeCl to other means of stripping. The
study of paint stripping facilities
highlighted to us that a good portion of
paint stripping at these facilities (as
high as 90 percent at one facility) was
not really necessary. In being
conservative, we believe that 5 percent
of paint stripping is not necessary. An
example of paint stripping that may be
found as not necessary includes the
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
refinishing of personal oxygen gas
cylinder surfaces (that often
automatically get stripped of paint for
cosmetic purposes during recycling)
when they actually need no refinishing
for serviceability. In addition, we
believe that there is a slight cost savings
associated with routing work away from
paint stripping involving MeCl to a
media blasting technique, when the
media involved is recycled. Second, our
analysis of model plants suggested that
most facilities using 150 gallons of MeCl
or more per year had other methods of
stripping available on site (e.g., blasting
or thermal) to which work could be
easily routed. Finally, we recognized
that the 150 gallon threshold reasonably
coincides with exposure levels at which
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) requirements
(29 CFR 1910.123–1910.126) are to be
implemented. OSHA provided specific
dip tank size criteria to characterize
which size tanks must follow specific
worker safety requirements. We
calculated, based on the sizes provided
by OSHA, the volume of stripper that
the minimum tank would hold and used
this volume for our size criteria. For
these reasons we are proposing that
facilities using 150 gallons of MeCl or
more per year must, in addition to the
best management practices to minimize
evaporative losses, develop and
implement the MeCl minimization plan
mentioned earlier.
We recognize that given the wide
range of paint stripping operations and
techniques, there is no single substitute
that could completely eliminate the
need for MeCl–containing paint
strippers, particularly on confined and
hard to reach surfaces where other
methods tend not to remove paint as
well. We do, however, believe that given
the existing management practices
currently exercised by much of this
industry, it is not unreasonable to
incorporate management practices that
minimize or eliminate MeCl emissions
from many of the applications where
MeCl–containing paint strippers are
used. Therefore, we are proposing
standards that require operators to
employ management practices to reduce
the emissions of MeCl through
alternative paint stripping techniques
when possible, and, for sources that use
150 gallons of MeCl or more per year to
develop and implement a minimization
plan to reduce MeCl-containing paint
stripper use when it is not needed.
Miscellaneous Surface Coating
The emissions from these operations
come primarily from the spray
application of coatings. Although most
of the HAP are deposited as part of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
paint film, some of the HAP becomes
airborne in the paint overspray. The
volume of coating deposited as part of
the paint film as a fraction of the
volume of paint sprayed is referred to as
the transfer efficiency (i.e., 60 percent of
the coating sprayed is deposited as paint
film then the transfer efficiency is 60
percent).
Our analysis of operations that
involve the spray application of coatings
has determined that GACT for these
coating operations is a combination of:
(1) Confining all spray coating
operations to a spray booth or
equivalent ventilated and filtered
enclosure, (2) using only spray
equipment that is designed to achieve a
high rate of transfer efficiency (HVLP or
equivalent spray technology), and (3)
having the spray equipment operator
trained and certified in the techniques
needed to properly set up and operate
high transfer efficiency spray equipment
in order to optimize the transfer
efficiency.
Based on the site visits, data review,
and contacts with industry, for which
documentation is provided in the public
docket for this rulemaking, we have
determined that the standard practice
among the majority of facilities in the
miscellaneous surface coating industry
is to perform nearly all spray painting
inside a spray booth or ventilated prep
station enclosed by curtains. The only
exceptions are priming small areas, or
performing spot repairs with an air
brush. At many facilities, all spray
painting is performed in a spray booth
or ventilated prep station to reduce
contaminants that would compromise
the final finish and to maintain a clean
work area. In addition, it is standard
practice to filter the exhaust from the
booth or prep station to capture paint
overspray so that it is not deposited on
ventilation equipment or surrounding
property. Therefore, based on the
availability and cost-effectiveness, we
have determined that a filtered spray
booth or prep station is GACT for all
miscellaneous surface coating
operations to control HAP emissions.
The proposed standards would require
all spray painting that is not done with
an airbrush or hand-held non-refillable
aerosol cans to be done in a filtered
spray booth or prep station. We also
conclude that the above proposed
control requirements can be achieved
without additional burden to affected
sources because filtered spray booths or
prep stations are already required in
order to comply with OSHA standards
for spray finishing operations (29 CFR
1910.94(c)).
At the majority of facilities that were
visited, the spray booths were fitted
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52967
with either fiberglass or polyester fiber
filters on the spray booth and prep
station exhaust. One facility had a
water-wash spray booth filter and
another had expanded polystyrene foam
baffle filters. An EPA study entitled
‘‘Comparative Study of Spray Booth
Filter System Efficiency’’, which is
provided in the public docket for this
rulemaking, determined that fiberglass
and polyester fiber filters had superior
performance, relative to other filter
types, such as polystyrene foam and
cardboard baffle filters, in controlling
the heavy metals found in paint
overspray and which are the target HAP
for these source categories. Therefore,
based on our findings during the site
visits, information provided by the
industry on the most commonly used
filters, and the EPA study on filter
effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness
we have determined that these fiberglass
and polyester fiber filters represent
GACT for controlling the heavy metals
present in paint overspray.
The proposed rule would allow for
the use of other types of paint overspray
filters, but they would be required to
achieve 98-percent filter efficiency. This
alternative was included since the EPA
did not test all types of filters used in
spray booths; therefore the market may
already provide for filters that are as
equally efficient which were not
available or not tested in the EPA study,
but nevertheless representative of
GACT. The EPA study on filter
effectiveness and filter efficiency data
provided by filter vendors formed the
basis for the 98-percent filter efficiency
The limit represents a performance level
that separates the fiberglass and
polyester fiber filters from baffle type
filters. The baffle type filters were
shown in the EPA study to have poor
performance in controlling fine
particulate that can contain heavy
metals.
The proposed standards would not
prohibit the use of coatings that contain
the heavy metals or target HAP for these
source categories. Although California
has prohibited the use of automotive
refinish coatings that contain Cr–VI and
cadmium (Cd), a nationwide prohibition
would impose unreasonable burden on
the industry, and could force facilities
out of business due to a lack of
alternative materials that could address
the performance criteria (e.g., corrosion
protection) that may be used in all
environments across the United States.
The proposed standards would
specifically require spray equipment
that is designed to achieve a high rate
of transfer efficiency (HVLP or
equivalent spray technology) in order to
reduce the overall amount of coating
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
52968
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
required to complete each coating job.
Reducing the amount of coating
required for each job directly correlates
to significant reductions in the overall
emissions from these coating operations.
Conventional high-pressure airatomized spray guns have a typical
transfer efficiency of about 30 percent.
That means that for every gallon of
coating sprayed, only 0.30 gallon
reaches the part being coated. The
remaining 0.70 gallon misses the part
and either lands on the booth walls and
floor or is pulled into the spray booth
filters and exhaust system. To get one
gallon on the part, a conventional spray
gun needs to use 31⁄3 gallons of coating.
HVLP and other types of high-efficiency
spray guns use lower air pressures and
achieve transfer efficiencies of about 50
percent, or greater, with appropriate
operator training. To get one gallon on
the part, a high efficiency spray gun
needs to use only 2 gallons of coating.
This increased transfer efficiency
represents a 40 percent decrease in
coating consumption and in resultant
emissions compared to conventional
spray guns. For these reasons, many
surface coating operations have already
switched to HVLP and other types of
high efficiency spray guns.
All of the autobody refinishing
facilities visited by EPA and about 80
percent of the other miscellaneous
surface coating facilities for which EPA
has data used HVLP or equivalent spray
guns for coating application. About half
these sources were not required to do so
by regulations and have switched in
order to reduce coating costs through
reduced consumption. Regulations for
autobody refinishing in 10 States
require the use of HVLP spray guns or
their equivalent statewide, and they are
required in ozone non-attainment areas
in 12 States without a statewide
requirement. Given the costeffectiveness and the use of HVLP or
equivalent spray guns has been adopted
at the facilities visited by EPA and is
required in many States and ozone nonattainment areas, we have determined
that these types of spray guns are GACT
for spray-applied coatings.
The purpose of requiring the spray
equipment operator to be trained and
certified is to ensure that the operator is
skilled in the techniques needed to
achieve a high rate of transfer efficiency.
We have concluded, based on the
findings of the Spray Technique
Analysis and Research (STAR)
program study presented in the
following paragraph, and included in
the public docket for this rulemaking,
that even when spray operations are
confined within a spray booth and
appropriate spray technology is used,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
they are not as effective if the painter is
not properly trained. We therefore have
determined that GACT requires
implementation of the above
requirements by a trained painter.
The training would include measures
intended to increase transfer efficiency
and reduce overspray and coating usage.
Most, if not all of the measures are
currently offered in training provided by
coating manufacturers on an annual
basis. In addition to manufacturersponsored training, the STAR program,
which originated at the University of
Northern Iowa Waste Reduction Center,
has now been adopted at 37 locations
(primarily community colleges)
throughout the United States. Coating
manufacturers currently provide this
training to their clients as part of the
service benefits of contracting with
them and as a component in the
warranty agreement. Data from the
STAR program demonstrate that spray
operator training can increase transfer
efficiency for those using high efficiency
spray equipment from an average of
about 50 percent to 60 percent, or more,
representing a 20 percent reduction in
coating usage compared to untrained
operators. This 20 percent reduction in
coating usage would translate into a 20
percent reduction in emissions of
organic HAP that are contained in those
coatings. It would also reduce emissions
of the heavy metals that are in the
coatings.
It is important to note that these
‘‘untrained’’ operators are not
inexperienced painters. They often have
many years of experience before they
enter these training programs. However,
they have not been specifically trained
in how to best set up and operate high
efficiency spray equipment and to
optimize their technique to maximize
transfer efficiency and minimize coating
consumption.
About 3,500 painters have already
completed STAR training and at least
one company operating multiple
collision repair shops has established a
STAR–based in-house training
program. Since many painters already
attend regular training sponsored by
coating companies and trade
organizations, we determined that the
specified painter training, or a
comparable training program, is GACT
for these source categories.
Our analysis has determined that the
proper training and certification for
spray coating operators should be
comparable to existing programs such as
those offered by The Inter-Industry
Conference on Auto Collision Repair (I–
CAR) and the STAR-based programs
offered in various states. The essential
elements of training and certification,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for the purposes of achieving
compliance with the requirements of the
proposed standard, should at a
minimum, train, examine and certify
each spray equipment operator in the
proper techniques in: (1) Coating
material handling, including spills and
clean up, (2) substrate preparations that
minimize over spray, (3) proper
equipment selection and set-up to
optimize transfer efficiency, (4) coating
application and spray technique that
minimizes over spray, (5) spray
equipment cleaning and maintenance,
and (6) operating and maintaining a
spray booth.
However, EPA does not believe that I–
CAR and STAR are the only programs
that contain these essential elements for
operator instruction and certification in
the skills needed to achieve a high rate
of transfer efficiency with proper
equipment. The proposed rule does not
limit training and certification to only
these two programs, since the critical
elements are the training components.
We are open to and request comment
regarding viable training and
certification alternatives that are
available to spray coating operators that
should be considered that would
achieve the same or comparable results.
These alternatives could include, but
not be limited to, state, community
college, or industry sponsored training
and certification programs, either on the
job or through classroom, hands-on, or
on-line instruction.
The proposed rule would require that
all spray gun cleaning be done in
enclosed spray gun cleaners, or the
disassembled spray gun could be
cleaned by hand without the benefit of
atomization. Spraying of cleaning
solvent through spray guns outside of an
enclosed gun washer would be
prohibited. All of the facilities visited
by EPA had enclosed gun washers and
other contacts with industry members
indicate that this is standard practice
among well-controlled facilities.
Therefore, we have determined that an
enclosed spray gun cleaner or hand
cleaning is GACT for these source
categories to reduce emissions from
spray gun cleaning. We believe the
measures in the proposed rule would
effectively control emissions of the
target HAP for these sources categories.
D. How did we select the format of the
proposed standards?
The proposed standards are in the
form of management practice standards
and equipment standards. These
include reducing the need for MeClcontaining paint strippers, painter
training and the use of filtered booths or
prep stations, HVLP spray guns, and
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
enclosed spray gun cleaners. This
format was selected since these
standards are the most universally
applicable and effective for these source
categories, they reflect the types of
controls that are already in place at
well-controlled facilities, and they
would have the minimum burden for
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting compared to other formats.
Facilities applying coatings can use
filters other than the specified types if
the filters are demonstrated to achieve
98 percent filter efficiency. They may
also use spray guns other than HVLP
spray guns if the manufacturer has
demonstrated to the EPA that they are
equivalent in transfer efficiency.
The proposed standards do not
include numerical emission limits. After
considerable review of industrysupplied data for paint stripping and
coatings, and consultation with the
industry, we have determined that
numerical emission limits are not
feasible given the variability in the
operational parameters (e.g., substrate
(i.e., metal, plastic or wood),
performance specifications, production
rate, etc.) and the variety of work being
performed, as many of the sources in
these source categories are job shops.
Given this variability for these sources
EPA believes it is important to provide
the greatest flexibility for these sources
without compromising emission
reductions.
E. How did we select the initial
compliance and testing requirements?
The proposed rule includes the
minimum requirements needed to
demonstrate initial compliance. You
would demonstrate initial compliance
by implementing all of the requirements
in the proposed rule by the dates
specified in the rule, and certifying in
the initial compliance notification that
your source is in compliance.
This proposed rule is comprised of
management practices and equipment
requirements, of which sources have the
option of substituting the specified
equipment with alternative equipment
that would achieve equivalent or better
emissions reductions than that
specified, provided they obtain approval
from the Administrator as required in
section 63.11173(e) of the proposed
rule. However, test methods are needed
in order to demonstrate equivalent
performance of alternative equipment.
For this reason, the proposed rule
includes separate testing methods that
would need to be followed to measure
paint overspray filter efficiency when a
source does not use fiberglass or
polyester fiber filters, and to
demonstrate that a paint spray gun is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
equivalent to an HVLP spray gun in
transfer efficiency. The proposed
methods represent those methods that
are already in use to measure filter
efficiency and equivalency to HVLP
spray guns based on transfer efficiency.
It is expected that the filter or spray gun
supplier would complete these
measurements and provide copies of the
results to the purchaser so they could
document compliance. We do not
expect the owner of the surface coating
operation to perform the measurements.
F. How did we select the continuous
compliance requirements?
The proposed rule includes the
minimum requirements needed to
demonstrate continuous compliance.
You would demonstrate continuous
compliance by ensuring that you follow
the prescribed best management
practices for paint stripping operations.
Further, if you use more than 150 gal
per year of paint stripper containing
MeCl, you must demonstrate
compliance by implementing and
following your MeCl Minimization Plan.
For surface coating operations you
would ensure that all painters maintain
their training and certification, all
spray-applied coating is done in a
filtered spray booth or prep station, the
filters are of the proper type or
efficiency, all spray guns are HVLP or
equivalent, and all gun cleaning is done
in an enclosed spray gun cleaner or by
hand. You would also need to maintain
records that all painters are trained and
certified, and that filters and spray guns
meet the specifications for filter
efficiency and transfer efficiency,
respectively, if needed.
G. How did we select the compliance
date?
You would be allowed 2 years to
comply with the proposed standards if
your operation is an existing source. We
believe that 2 years is needed to allow
adequate time for existing sources to
ensure that all additional equipment, if
needed, is purchased and installed and
to provide sufficient time for painters
employed by the 36,000 sources to
receive the training that would be
required by the proposed rule.
H. How did we decide to exempt these
area source categories from the CAA
title V permit requirements?
Section 502(a) of the CAA provides
that the Administrator may exempt an
area source category from title V if he
determines that compliance with title V
requirements is ‘‘impracticable,
infeasible, or unnecessarily
burdensome’’ on an area source
category. See CAA section 502(a). In
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52969
December 2005, EPA interpreted the
term ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ in
CAA section 502 and developed a fourfactor balancing test for determining
whether title V is unnecessarily
burdensome for a particular area source
category, such that an exemption from
title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320,
December 19, 2005 (‘‘Exemption Rule’’).
The four factors that EPA identified in
the Exemption Rule for determining
whether title V is ‘‘unnecessarily
burdensome’’ on a particular area source
category include: (1) Whether title V
would result in significant
improvements to the compliance
requirements, including monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting, that are
proposed for an area source category
(see 70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V
permitting would impose significant
burdens on the area source category and
whether the burdens would be
aggravated by any difficulty the sources
may have in obtaining assistance from
permitting agencies (see 70 FR 75324);
(3) whether the costs of title V
permitting for the area source category
would be justified, taking into
consideration any potential gains in
compliance likely to occur for such
sources (see 70 FR 75325); and (4)
whether there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are
sufficient to assure compliance with the
NESHAP for the area source category,
without relying on title V permits (see
70 FR 75326).
In discussing the above factors in the
Exemption Rule, we explained that we
considered on ‘‘a case-by-case basis the
extent to which one or more of the four
factors supported title V exemptions for
a given source category, and then we
assessed whether considered together
those factors demonstrated that
compliance with title V requirements
would be ‘unnecessarily burdensome’
on the category, consistent with section
502(a) of the Act.’’ See 70 FR 75323.
Thus, in the Exemption Rule, we
explained that not all of the four factors
must weigh in favor of exemption for
EPA to determine that title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a
particular area source category. Instead,
the factors are to be considered in
combination and EPA determines
whether the factors, taken together,
support an exemption from title V for a
particular source category.
In the Exemption Rule, in addition to
determining whether compliance with
title V requirements would be
unnecessarily burdensome on an area
source category, we considered,
consistent with the guidance provided
by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting the area
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
52970
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
source category would adversely affect
public health, welfare or the
environment. See 70 FR 15254–15255,
March 25, 2005. As discussed below, we
have determined that the exemptions
from title V would not adversely affect
public health, welfare and the
environment.
In considering the exemption from
title V requirements for sources in the
categories affected by this proposed
rule, we first compared the title V
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements (factor one) to
the requirements in this proposal and
determined that the management
practices currently used at most
facilities is GACT and the rule requires
recordkeeping that serves as monitoring
and deviation reporting to ensure
compliance. Because the proposal
would require management practices for
certain processes and requires
recordkeeping designed to serve as
monitoring and that recordkeeping
assures compliance with the
requirements of the proposed rule,
additional monitoring requirements that
might be added under title V would be
unnecessary to assure compliance.
Monitoring other than recordkeeping is
not practical or appropriate in either
case because the requirements are
management practices. Records are
required to ensure that the management
practices are followed, including such
records as the amount of MeCl use in
paint stripping or the training
certification for spray gun operators.
As part of the first factor, we also
considered the extent to which title V
could potentially enhance compliance
for area sources covered by this
proposed rule through recordkeeping or
reporting requirements. For any affected
area source facility, the proposed rule
would require an initial notification, a
compliance status report, and report of
deviations. We considered the various
title V recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, including requirements
for a 6-month monitoring report,
deviation reports, and an annual
certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6.
The proposed rule would also require
affected facilities to certify compliance
with the management practices
identified as GACT. In addition,
facilities must maintain records
showing compliance with the required
management practices and deviations.
The information required in the
deviation reports and records is similar
to the information that must be
provided in the deviation reports
required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40
CFR 71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge that
title V might impose additional
compliance requirements on this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
category, but, we conclude that the
monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of this proposed
rule are sufficient to ensure compliance
with the proposed standards, and title V
would not significantly improve those
compliance requirements.
Under the second factor, we
determine whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on
the area sources in these categories and
whether that burden would be
aggravated by any difficulty the source
may have in obtaining assistance from
the permitting agency. Subjecting any
source to title V permitting imposes
certain burdens and costs that do not
exist outside of the title V program. The
EPA estimated that the average cost of
obtaining and complying with a title V
permit was $38,500 per source for a 5year permit period, including fees. See
Information Collection Request for Part
70 Operating Permit Regulations,
January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05.
While EPA does not have specific
information for the burdens and costs of
permitting for either paint stripping or
miscellaneous surface coating area
sources; there are inherent activities
associated with the part 70 and 71 rules
that are mandatory and impose burdens
on every affected source. These
activities include: Reading and
understanding permit program guidance
and regulations; obtaining and
understanding permit application forms;
answering follow-up questions from
permitting authorities after the
application is submitted; reviewing and
understanding the permit; collecting
records; preparing and submitting
monitoring reports on a 6-month or
more frequent basis; preparing and
submitting prompt deviation reports, as
defined by the State, which may include
a combination of written, verbal, and
other communications methods;
collecting information, preparing, and
submitting the annual compliance
certification; preparing applications for
permit revisions every 5 years; and, as
needed, preparing and submitting
applications for permit revisions. In
addition, although not required by the
permit rules, many sources obtain the
contractual services of professional
scientists and engineers (consultants) to
help them understand and meet the
permitting program’s requirements. The
ICR for part 70 provides additional
information on the overall burdens and
costs, as well as the relative burdens of
each activity described here. For a more
comprehensive list of requirements
imposed on part 70 sources (and hence,
burden on sources), see the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6,
and 70.7.
In assessing the second factor for
facilities affected by this proposal, we
found that nearly all of approximately
3,000 paint stripping and 36,000
miscellaneous surface coating facilities
are small businesses, some having as
few as one or two employees. These
small sources lack the technical
resources needed to independently
comply with permitting requirements
and the financial resources needed to
hire the necessary staff or outside
consultants. Given that title V
permitting would impose significant
economic and non-economic costs on
nearly all of these area sources, we
conclude that title V is a significant
burden for sources in these categories.
Furthermore, given the large number of
sources in these categories and relative
small facility size, it would likely be
difficult for each to obtain independent
assistance from their respective
permitting authorities. We, thus,
conclude that factor two strongly
supports title V exemptions for facilities
in these area source categories.
The third factor, which is closely
related to the second factor, is whether
the costs of title V permitting for these
area sources would be justified, taking
into consideration any potential gains in
compliance likely to occur for such
sources. We explained under the second
factor (above) that the economic and
non-economic costs of compliance with
title V would impose a significant
burden on nearly all of the
approximately 3,000 paint stripping and
36,000 miscellaneous surface coating
facilities. We also concluded in
considering the first factor that, while
title V might impose additional
requirements, that the monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in the NESHAP assure
compliance with the management
practices imposed in the NESHAP. In
addition, below in our consideration of
the fourth factor we find that there are
adequate implementation and
enforcement programs in place to assure
compliance with the NESHAP. Because
the costs, both economic and noneconomic, of compliance with title V are
high, and the potential for gains in
compliance are low, title V permitting is
not justified for this source category.
Accordingly, the third factor supports
title V exemptions for these area source
categories.
Finally, in determining if title V
requirements were unnecessarily
burdensome, we considered whether
there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are
sufficient to assure compliance with the
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
NESHAP without relying on title V
permits (factor four). In doing so, we
considered whether there are sufficient
State programs in place to enforce these
proposed area source standards, and we
believe that there are sufficient State
programs to assure compliance with
these proposed area source standards. In
addition, we recognize that EPA retains
authority to enforce these NESHAP
anytime under CAA sections 112, 113
and 114. We concluded that title V
permitting is ‘‘unnecessary’’ to assure
compliance with these proposed
standards because the statutory
requirements for implementation and
enforcement of these proposed
standards by the delegated States and
EPA are sufficient to assure compliance,
in all parts of the United States, without
title V permits. States and EPA often
conduct voluntary compliance
assistance, outreach, and education
programs (compliance assistance
programs), which are not required by
statute. We determined that these
additional programs will supplement
and enhance the success of compliance
with these proposed standards and
conclude that, in light of all of the
above, there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are
sufficient to assure compliance with
these proposed standards without
relying on title V permitting.
In applying the fourth factor in the
Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption
for several years, we had enforcement
data available to demonstrate that States
were not only enforcing the provisions
of the area source standards that we
exempted, but that the States were also
providing compliance assistance to
ensure that the area sources were in the
best position to comply with the
standards. See 70 FR 75325–75326. In
proposing this rule, we did not have
similar data available on the specific
enforcement as in the Exemption rule,
but we have no reason to think that
States will be less diligent in enforcing
these proposed standards. See 70 FR
75326. In fact, States must have
adequate programs to enforce the HAP
regulations and provide assurances that
it will enforce all NESHAP, including
area source standards, before EPA will
delegate the program. See 40 CFR part
63, subpart E.
In light of all of the above, we
conclude that there are implementation
and enforcement programs in place that
are sufficient to assure compliance with
these proposed standards without
relying on title V permitting.
Balancing the four factors for these
area source categories strongly supports
that title V is unnecessarily
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
burdensome. While title V might add
additional compliance requirements if
imposed, we concluded that there
would not be significant improvements
to the compliance requirements in this
proposed rule, because the proposed
rule requirements are specifically
designed to assure compliance with the
management and equipment practices
imposed on these area source categories.
We also concluded that the economic
and non-economic costs of compliance
with title V, in conjunction with the
likely difficulty this large number of
small sources would have obtaining
assistance from the permitting authority,
would impose a significant burden on
these area sources. We determined that
the high relative costs would not be
justified given that there was likely to be
little or no potential gain in compliance
likely to occur if title V were required,
and that there are adequate
implementation and enforcement
programs in place to assure compliance
with these proposed standards. Thus,
we conclude that title V permitting
would be ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’
for these area source categories.
In addition to evaluating whether
compliance with title V requirements is
‘‘unnecessarily burdensome,’’ EPA also
considered, consistent with guidance
provided by the legislative history of
section 502(a), whether exempting these
area source categories from title V
requirements would adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the
environment. Exemption of these area
source categories from title V
requirements would not adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the
environment because the level of
control would remain the same if a
permit were required. The title V permit
program does not impose new
substantive air quality control
requirements on sources, but instead
requires that certain procedural
measures be followed, particularly with
respect to determining compliance with
applicable requirements. As stated in
our consideration of factor one for these
categories, title V would not lead to
significant improvements in the
compliance requirements applicable to
existing or new area sources.
Furthermore, one of the primary
purposes of the title V permitting
program is to clarify, in a single
document, the various and sometimes
complex regulations that apply to
sources in order to improve
understanding of these requirements
and to help sources to achieve
compliance with the requirements. In
these cases, however, placing all
requirements for the source in a title V
permit would do little to clarify the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52971
requirements applicable to each source
or assist it in compliance with the
proposed rule requirements, because of
the simplicity of the source and the
proposed standards, and the likelihood
that these sources are not subject to
other regulatory requirements under the
CAA. We have no reason to think that
new sources would be substantially
different from the existing sources in
these categories. In addition, we
explained in the Exemption Rule that
requiring permits for the large number
of area sources could, at least in the first
few years of implementation, potentially
adversely affect public health, welfare,
or the environment by shifting State
agency resources away from assuring
compliance for major sources with
existing permits to issuing new permits
for these area sources, potentially
reducing overall air program
effectiveness. For this proposed rule, we
conclude that title V exemptions for
these area sources will not adversely
affect public health, welfare, or the
environment for all of the reasons
explained above.
For the foregoing reasons, we are
proposing to exempt these source
categories from title V permitting
requirements.
V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards
The EPA estimates that about 39,000
establishments perform paint stripping
and miscellaneous surface coating
operations. We estimate that about 3,000
of these establishments are paint
stripping facilities and 36,000
establishments are surface coating
operations. The majority of these surface
coating establishments (about 35,000)
are involved in motor vehicle and
mobile equipment refinishing, and
employ about 263,000 people, of which
about one-third are painters.
A. What are the air impacts?
Paint Stripping Operations
The baseline MeCl emissions from
paint stripping operations are estimated
to be 3,800 tpy. Around 500 tpy is
estimated to be emitted from the
approximately 2,000 facilities that use
less than 150 gal of paint stripper
containing MeCl, per year (which
approximately equals MeCl emissions of
1,000 pounds per year based on typical
stripper formulations). The remaining
3,300 tpy is estimated to be emitted by
the approximately 1,000 paint strippers
that use more than 150 gallons of MeCl
stripper and who would be required to
develop a MeCl minimization plan.
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
52972
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
The baseline emissions from the
surface coating operations are estimated
to be about 38,000 tpy of HAP,
including 12.4 tpy of inorganic HAP
(e.g. Pb and Cr-VI compounds). In
addition to the HAP, baseline emissions
of criteria pollutants are estimated to be
3,100 tpy of particulate matter (PM)
from paint overspray and 120,400 tpy of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) from
coating and solvent evaporation.
Implementation of the proposed
standards would achieve a reduction of
6,900 tpy of HAP from surface coating
operations, including about 11.4 tpy of
inorganic HAP. In addition to the HAP,
we estimate PM reductions of about
2,900 tpy and VOC reductions of about
20,900 tpy. These reductions would
occur as a result of reduced use of HAPcontaining solvents and coatings,
increased use of filtered spray booths to
capture overspray, increased spray
painter training and use of HVLP or
equivalent guns to improve transfer
efficiency and to reduce coating
overspray and paint consumption, and
increased use of enclosed spray gun
washers. Additional detail on these
calculations are included in the public
docket for this rulemaking.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
B. What are the cost impacts?
Paint Stripping Operations
We estimate that the proposed
standards for paint stripping operations
will result in an initial cost of around
$1,500,000 and a net savings in annual
costs. This includes an estimated initial
cost of $490,000 and annual costs of
$80,000 for the nearly 2,000 paint
strippers whose annual usage of paint
stripper containing MeCl is below 150
gallons. Initial costs for the
approximately 1,000 paint strippers
who use more than 150 gallons per year,
who would be required to develop MeCl
minimization plans are estimated to be
just over $1 million. The annual costs
for those plants are estimated to be a net
savings of $920,000.
For the nearly 2,000 paint strippers
whose annual usage of MeCl in paint
strippers is below 1,000 lb, or whose
annual usage of paint stripper
containing MeCl is below 150 gallons,
evaluation of improved methods to
reduce the emissions of MeCl from
evaporative losses comprise most of the
costs.
The costs for the approximately 1,000
paint strippers who are required to
develop MeCl minimization plans are
attributable to the development and
implementation of the MeCl
minimization plan. Annual costs will
include an estimated $400,000 for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
development and implementation of the
MeCl minimization plan and reporting
requirements and an estimated $450,000
associated with switching paint
stripping technologies. Annual savings
resulting from the implementation of
the MeCl minimization plan include an
estimated $420,000 from the elimination
of unnecessary stripping operations and
$1,320,000 in management practice
savings from the reduced use of MeClcontaining strippers. For reasons set out
earlier in this preamble, we believe that
5 percent of paint stripping in the
private sector is not necessary and
specifically request comment as to
whether or not 5 percent is an
appropriate figure to use. Additional
detail on these calculations are included
in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
We estimate that the proposed
standards for surface coating operations
will have no net annual cost to surface
coating operations. The initial cost of
complying with the proposed standards
would be off-set and recovered over
time by cost savings as a result of more
efficient use of labor and materials by
surface coating operations. The initial
costs for surface coating operations are
for purchase improved spray booth
filters, automated enclosed gun washers,
HVLP spray guns, and painter training,
if needed to comply with the proposed
standards.
Spray finishing operations are already
required by OSHA standards to perform
spray painting in a spray booth or
similar enclosure. However, the
proposed standards specify that certain
types of filters have to be used on the
spray booth exhaust to minimize HAP
emissions, and these filters are not
addressed by OSHA standards. Some
surface coating sources may need to
replace their current filters for ones with
higher paint overspray capture
efficiency, but the higher efficiency
filters are readily available and will not
result in an additional cost.
We estimate that about 5,000 facilities
would need to purchase and install an
enclosed spray gun washer. The total
capital cost for each source that would
need to install a gun washer was
estimated to be approximately $1,800.
This cost is the same for new and
existing sources. The total capital cost
for all 5,000 sources that would be
required to purchase a spray gun washer
was estimated to be $9.0 million.
The EPA estimates that sources that
would need to purchase a spray gun
washer would have no net annualized
capital costs or operating costs. We
estimate the annual costs would be
offset from reduced labor to clean spray
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
guns and reduced costs for cleaning
solvent purchase and disposal. Spray
gun washers are automated so that after
loading the spray gun in the washer, the
painters can perform other tasks while
the spray guns are being cleaned.
Automated spray gun washers are also
capable of re-using solvent for gun
cleaning to minimize solvent
consumption and waste disposal.
Finally, small surface coating facilities
that do not currently have an automated
gun washer can still comply with the
proposed standards by cleaning guns by
hand as long as they do not atomize
cleaning solvent from the gun and they
collect spent solvent in a container that
is closed when not in use.
The estimated cost for training is
$1,000 per painter, which covers tuition
cost and labor cost for 16 hours of
training time. Based on the United
States census data collected to estimate
new sources for this source category the
number of refinishing shops in the
United States remain constant (i.e., for
every new shop, a shop closes) and it is
expected that this trend will continue in
the future. This reflects on the number
of new painters that would need
training. We assumed that training
certification would be valid for 5 years,
so about one-fifth of painters (20
percent) would receive training every
year. We estimate that about 18,000
painters would be trained per year at an
annual cost of $18 million per year.
However, EPA believes that these
training costs could be over-stated for at
least two reasons. First, many facilities
already send their painters to training
sponsored by paint companies and trade
organizations. Paint companies sponsor
painter training so that the paint
company can reduce warranty claims on
their paint products. These training
courses already cover much of the same
material required by the proposed rule.
Therefore, the rule would not impose
new training costs on these facilities
that already participate in training.
Second, the estimated training cost
could be offset by reduced coating costs
if the training results in reduced coating
consumption. Data from the STAR
training programs indicate that painters
who complete this training can decrease
the amount of coating sprayed by about
20 percent per job. We estimate that if
a typical facility reduced their coating
consumption and costs by about 4
percent per year, the cost savings would
equalize the increased cost of training
after one year, and there would be no
net cost in training. To recover the cost
of training over 5 years, a typical facility
would need to reduce their coating
consumption by slightly less than 1
percent. As previously mentioned, EPA
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
believes the costs associated with
training are over-stated; however, we
specifically request comment on
whether or not these assumptions are
accurate.
In summary, EPA estimates that the
proposed requirements for surface
coating operations would not result in
any net increase in annual costs from
the control requirements for surface
coating operations. We estimated that
the annual cost for recordkeeping and
reporting for surface coating operations
would be $7.8 million for about 36,000
surface coating operations, or an average
of about $220 per facility. Cost estimates
are based on the information available
to the Administrator and presented in
the economic analysis of this rule.
Additional detail is included in the
public docket for this rulemaking.
C. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impact analysis focuses
on changes in market prices and output
levels. A more detailed discussion of the
economic impacts is presented in the
economic impact analysis memorandum
that is included in the docket.
Both the magnitude of control costs
needed to comply with the rule and the
distribution of these costs among
affected facilities can have a role in
determining how the market prices and
quantities will change in response to the
rule. In this case, we have so many
facilities that model facilities must be
used in the cost analysis. The cost
analysis estimates that there will be no
net increase in annual costs from the
control requirements from the proposed
regulation for surface coating
operations. The record keeping and
reporting costs are estimated to range
from $76 to $95 per facility per year.
These costs are too small to have any
significant market impact. Whether the
costs are absorbed by the affected
facilities or passed on to the purchaser
in the form of higher prices, the impacts
would be quite small.
The cost analysis estimates that there
will be a net cost savings from the
control requirements, recordkeeping,
and reporting from the proposed
regulation for paint stripping for all but
the smallest model plant. The cost for
the smallest model plant is estimated to
be $11 a year.
Again, these costs are too small to
have any significant market impact.
Whether the costs are absorbed by the
affected facilities or passed on to the
purchaser in the form of higher prices,
the impacts would be quite small.
While most of these facilities are
small, the very small costs are not
expected to be even a tenth of a percent
of revenues. Thus a significant impact is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
not expected for a substantial number of
small entities.
D. What are the non-air health,
environmental, and energy impacts?
Paint Stripping Operations
We estimate that there will be a
reduction in non-air health and
environmental impacts resulting from
the paint stripping area source
NESHAP. Reduced usage of MeClcontaining chemical strippers will result
in reduction in waste water generated
from rinsing chemically stripped pieces.
Additionally, reduced chemical
stripping activity will result in a
reduction in the generation of hazardous
wastes composed of rags and other
chemical stripper applicators and
removal equipment.
EPA expects some increase in the
need for energy to resulting from
switching away from MeCl-containing
chemical strippers to other paint
stripping methods. There would be a
slight increase in energy usage
associated with switching to other
chemical strippers that do not contain
MeCl because they often need to be
heated above room temperature to be
most effective. There is also some
increase in energy usage associated with
non-manual mechanical stripping and
blasting with both dry and wet media.
The energy usage increase would be
somewhat more for thermal
decomposition or cryogenic paint
stripping technologies. Thermal
decomposition basically uses natural
gas heated ovens to bake the paint off
the substrate. Cryogenic paint stripping
methods have increased electricity
demands associated with the production
of liquid nitrogen or liquid carbon
dioxide.
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
We estimated that about 5,000 surface
coating operations would need to install
spray booths to comply with the
proposed standards. Spray booths
would need electricity to run fans and
natural gas to heat make-up air to
maintain facility temperatures in colder
weather. We estimate that this would
lead to an increased electricity
consumption of 9.8 million kilowatt
hours per year and increased natural gas
consumption of 724 million cubic feet
per year. However, spray booths are
already required for spray finishing
operations to comply with OSHA
standards, so theses impacts would not
be assigned to these proposed standards.
Facilities that install spray booths
would also need to dispose of used
spray booth filters. These are often
placed in a sealed drum to prevent
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52973
spontaneous combustion and disposed
of as hazardous waste. We estimate that
5,000 new spray booths could generate
used filters equal to about 8,000 drums
per year.
Facilities that install enclosed spray
gun washers would need to dispose of
spent solvent as hazardous waste that
formerly may have been allowed to
evaporate. However, we cannot estimate
this amount because we cannot
determine the baseline disposal
practices for facilities that did not have
enclosed spray gun washers. If facilities
previously handled spent solvent waste
as hazardous waste, the installation of
an enclosed spray gun washer could
lead to a more efficient use of cleaning
solvent and could reduce the volume of
waste generated.
We expect no increase in generation
of wastewater or other water quality
impacts. None of the control measures
considered for this rule generates a
wastewater stream.
The installation of spray booths and
enclosed gun washers, and increased
worker training in the proper use and
handling of coating materials should
reduce worker exposure to harmful
chemicals in the workplace. This should
have a positive benefit on worker
health, but this benefit cannot be
quantified in the scope of this
rulemaking.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning And Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a
‘‘significant regulatory action.’’
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under Executive
Order 12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document
prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA
ICR number 2268.01.
The information collection
requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),
which are mandatory for all operators
subject to national emission standards.
These recordkeeping and reporting
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
52974
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
requirements are specifically authorized
by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414).
All information submitted to EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to Agency
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B.
The proposed standards would
require sources to submit an initial
notification that they are subject to the
standards, submit a notification of
whether or not the source is in
compliance (the notification of
compliance status), submit annual
compliance reports, and keep records
needed to demonstrate compliance.
These requirements would be the
minimum needed to ensure that sources
were complying with the requirements
of the proposed rule.
We estimate that about 40,000
existing area sources would be subject
to the proposed standards. We estimate
that about 1,600 new facilities would
open per year in the 3 years following
promulgation of the standards, but that
the total number of facilities would
remain constant as new facilities replace
facilities that have closed.
New and existing sources would have
no capital costs associated with the
information collection requirements in
the proposed standards.
The estimated recordkeeping and
reporting burden in the third year after
the effective date of the promulgated
rule is estimated to be 62,877 labor
hours at a cost of $2.2 million. This
estimate includes, depending on the
type of source, the cost of keeping
records of paint stripping solvent
consumption, painter training, spray
booth filter efficiency, and spray gun
transfer efficiency, and the cost of
submitting annual compliance reports.
The average hours and cost per facility
would be 6.4 hours and $219. Each
facility would be required to submit one
compliance report per year. Starting in
year 4, about 40,000 facilities would
respond per year.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency’s need for
this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques, we
have established a public docket for this
rule, which includes this ICR, under
Docket ID number EPA–HQ–2005–0526.
Submit any comments related to the ICR
for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB.
See ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to
OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after September 17, 2007, a
comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
by October 17, 2007. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the
impacts of the proposed area source
NESHAP on small entities, small entity
is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the Small Business
Administration size standards for small
businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201,
which for the entities affected by the
proposed rule is generally one having
less than 500 to 1,000 employees,
depending on the specific NAICS code
under which that business is classified,
or annual revenues of less than $6.5
million, refer to NAICS code table listed
previously; (2) a small governmental
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district, or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
There would not be adverse impacts on
existing area sources in either of the
three source categories because the
proposed rule does not create any new
burdens for existing sources, other than
minimal notification and reporting
requirements, and best management or
equipment practices, which are
designed to recover initial cost. We have
determined that the cost of these
requirements (estimated at less than
$1,000 per year per facility) would not
result in an adverse economic impact on
any facility, large or small (i.e., the cost
is less than one percent of total
revenues, even for small businesses).
Although this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the
impact of this rule on small entities. The
proposed standards represent practices
and controls that are common
throughout the sources engaged in paint
stripping and miscellaneous surface
coating. The proposed standards also
require the minimal amount of
recordkeeping and reporting needed to
demonstrate and verify compliance.
These proposed standards were also
developed in consultation with
numerous individual small businesses
and their representative trade
associations. We continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to
such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to 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
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined, based on
discussions with State, local, and tribal
governments during site visits, 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 one year. Thus,
the proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
Some State, local, or tribal
governments have paint stripping and/
or miscellaneous surface coating
operations (e.g., municipal fleet vehicle
maintenance garages) that may be
subject to the requirements of this
proposed rule. However, we do not
believe that any of them are operated by
small government entities. Small
government entities are expected to
contract for refinishing services when
these services are needed, rather than
doing this work in-house. In addition,
total expenditures for all entities to
comply with the proposed rule are
estimated to be less than $100 million
in any year.
E. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
implications’’. ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. The EPA is
required by CAA section 112, to
establish the standards in the proposed
rule. The proposed rule primarily affects
private industry, and does not impose
significant economic costs on State or
local governments. The proposed rule
does not include an express provision
preempting State or local regulations.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of
the Executive Order do not apply to the
proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from State and local
officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, 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’’. This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, or the relation between
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule. EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this
proposed rule from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection
Of Children From Environmental Health
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52975
And Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
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 Order has
the potential to influence the regulation.
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is
based on technology performance and
not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, Or Use’’ (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Some of the affected sources would be
expected to install and operate spray
booths to comply with the rule and
these would require electricity and
natural gas to operate. However the
increased use of energy by these sources
would not have a significant effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104–
113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities, unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. The VCS are
technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that
are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency does not
use available and applicable VCS.
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
52976
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
This proposed rulemaking involves
technical standards. The EPA is citing
the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Method 52.1,
‘‘Gravimetric and Dust-Spot Procedures
for Testing Air-Cleaning Devices Used
in General Ventilation for Removing
Particulate Matter, June 4, 1992,’’ to
measure paint booth filter efficiency to
measure the capture efficiency of paint
overspray arrestors with spray-applied
coatings.
The EPA is also citing California
South Coast Air Quality Management
District’s (SCAQMD) methods: ‘‘Spray
Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test
Procedure For Equipment User, May 24,
1989’’ and ‘‘Guidelines for
Demonstrating Equivalency with
District Approved Transfer Efficient
Spray Guns, September 26, 2002’’ as
methods to demonstrate the equivalency
of spray gun transfer efficiency for spray
guns that do not meet the definition of
high-volume/low pressure (HVLP) or
electrostatic spray.
Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA
conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards in
addition to these methods. The search
and review results are in the docket for
this rule.
One voluntary consensus standard
was identified as applicable to this rule.
The German standard DIN EN 13966–
1:2003 ‘‘Determination of the transfer
efficiency of atomizing and spraying
equipment for liquid coating materials—
Part 1: Flat panels,’’ appears to be
applicable to this rule. We are inviting
comment on the appropriateness of this
standard to establish the transfer
efficiency of spray guns that do not meet
the definition of high-volume lowpressure or electrostatic spray guns.
For the methods required by the
proposed rule, a source may apply to
EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring
requirements in place of any required
testing methods, performance
specifications, or procedures under
section 63.7(f) and section 63.8(f) of
subpart A of the General Provisions.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect
of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to
identify potentially-applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to
explain why such standards should be
used in regulation.
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income populations.
The proposed rule establishes national
standards for air quality that apply
equally to all affected sources, whether
or not they are located in or near
minority or low-income populations.
Hence there are no requirements in this
proposal that would disproportionately
affect these populations.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
What This Subpart Covers
Sec.
63.11169 What is the purpose of this
subpart?
63.11170 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11171 What operations does this subpart
cover?
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 6, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 63—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A—[Amended]
2. Part 63 is amended by adding
subpart HHHHHH consisting of
§§ 63.11169 through 63.11180 and table
1 to read as follows:
Subpart HHHHHH—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations at Area Sources
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
General Compliance Requirements
63.11172 When do I have to comply with
this subpart?
63.11173 What are my general requirements
for complying with this subpart?
63.11174 What parts of the General
Provisions apply to me?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.11175 What notifications must I submit?
63.11176 What reports must I submit?
63.11177 What records must I keep?
63.11178 In what form and for how long
must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.11179 Who implements and enforces
this subpart?
63.11180 What definitions do I need to
know?
Tables to Subpart PPPP of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart HHHHHH of Part 63—
Paint Stripping Alternative Stripping
Requirements
Table 2 to Subpart HHHHHH of Part 63—
Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart HHHHHH of Part 63
Subpart HHHHHH—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paint Stripping and
Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources
What This Subpart Covers
§ 63.11169
subpart?
What is the purpose of this
This subpart establishes national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants for paint stripping operations
at area sources that involve the use of
paint strippers (chemical formulations)
that contain methylene chloride (MeCl)
in paint removal processes, and/or
miscellaneous surface coating
operations at area sources. This subpart
also establishes requirements to
demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with the management
practice standards contained herein.
§ 63.11170
Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if
your facility is an area source of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) as
defined in paragraph (c) of this section,
including sources that are part of a
tribal, local, State, or Federal facility
and you:
(1) Perform paint stripping operations
using a paint stripper containing MeCl,
and/or
(2) Perform miscellaneous surface
coating operations (including autobody
refinishing).
(b) Paint stripping means the removal
of dried coatings from wood, metal,
plastic, and other substrates.
Miscellaneous surface coating is the
application of a coating to a substrate
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
using, for example, spray guns, brushes,
or rollers. When application of coating
to a substrate occurs, then
miscellaneous surface coating
operations also include associated
activities, such as surface prep,
cleaning, mixing, and storage.
(c) An area source of HAP is a source
of HAP that is not a major source of
HAP, is not located at a major source,
and is not part of a major source of HAP
emissions. A major source of HAP is any
stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area
and under common control that emits or
has the potential to emit any single HAP
at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (Mg) (10
tons) or more per year or any
combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68
Mg (25 tons) or more per year.
(d) This subpart does not apply to
paint stripping or surface coating
operations that meet any of the criteria
of paragraphs (d)(1) through (2) of this
section.
(1) Paint stripping or surface coating
performed on-site at installations owned
or operated by the Armed Forces of the
United States (including the Coast
Guard and the National Guard of any
such State), or the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
(2) Paint stripping or surface coating
of military munitions manufactured by
or for the Armed Forces of the United
States (including the Coast Guard and
the National Guard of any such State) or
equipment directly and exclusively
used for the purposes of transporting
military munitions as defined in
§ 63.11180.
(e) If you are an owner or operator of
an area source subject to this subpart,
you are exempt from the obligation to
obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or
71, provided you are not required to
obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or
71.3(a) for a reason other than your
status as an area source under this
subpart. Notwithstanding the previous
sentence, you must continue to comply
with the provisions of this subpart
applicable to area sources.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
§ 63.11171 What operations does this
subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new
and existing affected area source
engaged in the activities listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section:
(1) All paint stripping that involves
the use of a paint stripper that contains
MeCl;
(2) Surface coating of miscellaneous
parts and/or products made of metal or
plastic, or combinations of metal and
plastic; and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
(3) Finishing and refinishing of motor
vehicles and mobile equipment.
(b) The affected source is the
collection of all of the items listed in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section. Not all affected sources will
have all of the items listed in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Mixing rooms and equipment;
(2) Spray booths, ventilated prep
stations, curing ovens, and associated
equipment;
(3) Spray guns and associated
equipment;
(4) Spray gun cleaning equipment;
(5) Equipment used for storage,
handling, recovery, or recycling of
cleaning solvent or waste paint; and
(6) Equipment used for paint stripping
at paint stripping facilities using paint
strippers containing MeCl.
(c) An affected source is a new source
if it meets the criteria in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(1) You commenced the construction
of the source after September 17, 2007
by installing new paint stripping or
surface coating equipment. If you
purchase and install paint stripping
equipment, spray booths, enclosed
spray gun cleaners, or purchase new
spray guns to comply with this subpart
at an existing source, these actions
would not make your existing source a
new source.
(2) The new paint stripping or surface
coating equipment is used at a source
that was not actively engaged in paint
stripping and/or miscellaneous surface
coating prior to September 17, 2007.
(d) An affected source is
reconstructed if it meets the definition
of reconstruction in § 63.2.
(e) An affected source is an existing
source if it is not a new source or a
reconstructed source.
General Compliance Requirements
§ 63.11172 When do I have to comply with
this subpart?
The date by which you must comply
with this subpart is called the
compliance date. The compliance date
for each type of affected source is
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section.
(a) For a new or reconstructed affected
source, the compliance date is the
applicable date in paragraph (a)(1) or (2)
of this section:
(1) If the initial startup of your new
or reconstructed affected source is after
September 17, 2007, the compliance
date is [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
(2) If the initial startup of your new
or reconstructed affected source occurs
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52977
after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],
the compliance date is the date of initial
startup of your affected source.
(b) For an existing affected source, the
compliance date is the date 2 years after
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
§ 63.11173 What are my general
requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) Each paint stripping operation that
is an affected area source must
implement management practices to
minimize the evaporative emissions of
MeCl. The management practices must
address, at a minimum, the practices in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this
section, as applicable, for your
operations.
(1) Evaluate each application to
ensure there is a need for paint stripping
(e.g., evaluate whether it is possible to
re-coat the piece without removing the
existing coating).
(2) Evaluate each application where a
paint stripper containing MeCl is used
to ensure that there is no alternative
paint stripping technology that can be
used.
(3) Reduce exposure of all paint
strippers containing MeCl to the air
(e.g., use of a water layer or hollow
plastic spheres to cover the stripper in
an immersion tank).
(4) Optimize application conditions
when using paint strippers containing
MeCl to reduce MeCl evaporation (e.g.,
if the stripper must be heated, make
sure that the temperature is kept as low
as possible to reduce evaporation).
(5) Practice proper storage and
disposal of paint strippers containing
MeCl (e.g., store stripper in closed, airtight containers).
(b) Each paint stripping operation
with annual usage of 150 gallons or
more of paint strippers containing MeCl
must develop and implement a written
MeCl minimization plan to minimize
the use and emissions of MeCl. The
MeCl minimization plan must address,
at a minimum, the management
practices specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (5) of this section, as applicable,
for your operations. Each operation
must post a placard or sign outlining the
MeCl minimization plan in each area
where paint stripping operations subject
to this subpart occur.
(c) Each paint stripping operation
must maintain copies of annual usage of
paint strippers containing MeCl on-site
at all times.
(d) Each paint stripping operation
with annual usage of 150 gallons or
more of paint strippers containing MeCl
must maintain a copy of their current
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
52978
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
MeCl minimization plan on-site at all
times.
(e) Each miscellaneous surface coating
operation must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this
section.
(1) All painters must be certified that
they have completed training in the
proper spray application of surface
coatings and the proper setup and
maintenance of spray equipment. The
minimum requirements for training and
certification are described in paragraph
(f) of this section. The spray application
of surface coatings is prohibited by
persons who are not certified as having
completed the training described in
paragraph (f) of this section. The
requirements of this paragraph do not
apply to the students of an accredited
surface coating training program who
are under the direct supervision of an
instructor who meets the requirements
of this paragraph.
(2) All spray-applied coatings must be
applied in a spray booth or preparation
station that meets the requirements of
paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section and
either paragraph (e)(2)(ii) or (e)(2)(iii) of
this section.
(i) All spray booths and preparation
stations must be fitted with polyester
fiber or fiberglass particle filters on the
exhaust, or must be fitted with a type of
filter technology that is demonstrated to
achieve at least 98-percent capture of
paint overspray. The procedure used to
demonstrate filter efficiency must be
consistent with the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers Method 52.1,
‘‘Gravimetric and Dust-Spot Procedures
for Testing Air-Cleaning Devices Used
in General Ventilation for Removing
Particulate Matter, June 4, 1992.’’
(ii) Spray booths and preparation
stations used to refinish complete motor
vehicles or mobile equipment must be
fully enclosed with a full roof, and four
complete walls or complete side
curtains, and must be ventilated at
negative pressure so that air is drawn
into any openings in the booth walls or
preparation station curtains.
(iii) Spray booths and preparation
stations that are used to coat
miscellaneous parts and products or
vehicle subassemblies must have a full
roof, at least three complete walls or
complete side curtains, and must be
ventilated so that air is drawn into the
booth.
(3) All spray-applied coatings must be
applied with a high-volume, lowpressure (HVLP) spray gun, electrostatic
application, or an equivalent technology
that is demonstrated by the spray gun
manufacturer to achieve comparable
transfer efficiency, and for which
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
written approval has been obtained from
the Administrator. The procedure used
to demonstrate that spray gun transfer
efficiency is equivalent to that of an
HVLP spray gun must be equivalent to
the California South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s ‘‘Spray
Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test
Procedure for Equipment User, May 24,
1989’’ and ‘‘Guidelines for
Demonstrating Equivalency with
District Approved Transfer Efficient
Spray Guns, September 26, 2002.’’
(4) All paint spray gun cleaning must
be done with either non-HAP gun
cleaning solvents, or with a fully
enclosed spray gun cleaner. Hand
cleaning of parts of the disassembled
gun, such as the air cap, with HAPcontaining solvent is permitted.
Spraying of atomized or non-atomized
HAP-containing cleaning solvent
through the gun outside of the enclosed
portion of the gun cleaner, or when the
gun cleaner is opened, is prohibited.
(5) As provided in § 63.6(g), we, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
may choose to grant you permission to
use an alternative to the management
practice standards in this section after
you have requested approval to do so
according to § 63.6(g)(2).
(f) Each owner or operator of an
affected miscellaneous surface coating
source must ensure and certify that all
new and existing personnel, including
contract personnel, who spray apply
surface coatings are trained in the
proper application of surface coatings as
required by paragraph(e)(1) of this
section. The training program must
include, at a minimum, the items listed
in paragraphs (f)(1) to (f)(3) of this
section.
(1) A list of all current personnel by
name and job description who are
required to be trained;
(2) Hands-on and classroom
instruction that addresses, at a
minimum, initial and refresher training
in the topics listed in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)
through (2)(viii) of this section.
(i) Surface prep.
(ii) Spray gun set up and operation
and spray technique for different types
of coatings to improve transfer
efficiency and minimize coating usage
and overspray.
(iii) Routine spray booth and filter
maintenance.
(iv) Paint mixing, matching, and
applying.
(v) Solving paint application
problems.
(vi) Finish defects causes and cures.
(vii) Safety precautions.
(viii) Environmental compliance.
(3) A description of the methods to be
used at the completion of initial or
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
refresher training to demonstrate,
document, and provide certification of
successful completion of the required
training.
(g) As required by paragraph (e)(1) of
this section, all new and existing
personnel at an affected miscellaneous
surface coating source, including
contract personnel, who spray apply
surface coatings must be trained by the
dates specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(2).
(1) If your source is a new source, all
personnel must be trained and certified
no later than 60 days after hiring or no
later than 60 days after [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], whichever is
later. Painter training that was
completed within 5 years prior to the
date training is required, and that meets
the requirements specified in paragraph
(f)(2) of this section satisfies this
requirement and is valid for a period not
to exceed 5 years after the date the
training is completed.
(2) If your source is an existing
source, all personnel must be trained
and certified no later than the
compliance date specified in
§ 63.11172(b). Painter training that was
completed within 5 years prior to the
date training is required, and that meets
the requirements specified in paragraph
(f)(2) of this section satisfies this
requirement and is valid for a period not
to exceed 5 years after the date the
training is completed.
(3) Training and certification will be
valid for a period not to exceed 5 years
after the date the training is completed,
and all personnel must receive refresher
training that meets the requirements of
this section and be re-certified every 5
years.
§ 63.11174 What parts of the General
Provisions apply to me?
Table 1 of this subpart shows which
parts of the General Provisions in
subpart A of this part apply to you.
Notifications, Reports, and Records
§ 63.11175
submit?
What notifications must I
(a) Initial Notification. If you are the
owner or operator of a paint stripping
operation using paint strippers
containing MeCl and/or a miscellaneous
surface coating operation, you must
submit the Initial Notification required
by § 63.9(b) for a new affected source no
later than 120 days after initial startup
or [DATE 120 DAYS AFTER THE DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register],
whichever is later. For an existing
affected source, you must submit the
Initial Notification no later than [DATE
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register]. Your Initial
Notification must provide the
information specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) The name, address, phone number
and e-mail address of the owner and
operator;
(2) The address (physical location) of
the affected source;
(3) An identification of the relevant
standard (i.e., this subpart);
(4) A brief description of the type of
operation. For example:
(i) For miscellaneous parts and
products, identify whether the substrate
is metal, plastic, or a combination of
metal and plastic, brief characterization
of the types of products (e.g., aerospace
components, sports equipment, etc.)
number of spray booths, and number of
painters usually employed at the
operation; and
(ii) For motor vehicle or mobile
equipment finishing or refinishing,
identify the type of operation (e.g.,
original equipment manufacturer,
collision repair facility, production
paint shop performing complete paint
jobs, automobile restoration or
customizing shop, mobile equipment
repair and refinishing operation),
number of spray booths, number of
preparation stations, and number of
painters usually employed at the
operation.
(5) If a paint stripping operation uses
150 gallons of paint strippers containing
MeCl they must submit a written MeCl
minimization plan in accordance with
§ 63.11173(b).
(6) If a paint stripping operation uses
less than 150 gallons of paint strippers
containing MeCl and chooses not to
develop and implement a written MeCl
minimization plan in accordance with
§ 63.11173(b), you must submit a
statement signed by a responsible
official that certifies the paint stripping
operation will not use more than 150
gallons of paint strippers containing
MeCl during any calendar year in the
future.
(b) Notification of Compliance Status.
If you are the owner or operator of an
existing affected paint stripping source
that annually uses more than 150
gallons of paint strippers containing
MeCl or an existing affected coating
source, you must submit a Notification
of Compliance Status on or before
[DATE 2 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register]. If you are the
owner or operator of a new affected
paint stripping source that annually
uses more than 150 gallons of paint
strippers containing MeCl or a new
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
affected coating source, you must
submit a Notification of Compliance
Status within 120 days after initial
startup, or by [DATE 120 DAYS AFTER
THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],
whichever is later. You are required to
submit the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section with your Notification of
Compliance Status:
(1) Your company’s name and
address.
(2) A statement by a responsible
official with that official’s name, title,
phone number, e-mail address and
signature, certifying the truth, accuracy,
and completeness of the notification
and a statement of whether the source
has complied with all the relevant
standards and other requirements of this
subpart.
(3) The date of the Notification of
Compliance Status.
(4) For each paint stripping affected
source, you must include also the
method(s) of paint stripping employed
and the annual usage of paint strippers
containing MeCl for each of the
previous 5 calendar years.
§ 63.11176
What reports must I submit?
(a) Annual Compliance Report. If you
are the owner or operator of an affected
paint stripping source that annually
uses more than 150 gallons of paint
strippers containing MeCl or an affected
miscellaneous surface coating source,
you are required to submit an Annual
Compliance Report to the Administrator
containing the information specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this
section. The annual compliance report
must cover each calendar year,
beginning with the remainder of the
calendar year after the initial
compliance date for your source.
(1) Your company’s name and
address.
(2) A statement by a responsible
official with that official’s name, title,
phone number, e-mail address and
signature, certifying the truth, accuracy,
and completeness of the report, and
certifying whether the source is in
compliance with the paint stripping and
miscellaneous surface coating
standards. If the source is not in
compliance, include a description of the
deviations from the requirements in
§§ 63.11173, 63.11174, 63.11177, and
63.11178, the time periods during
which the deviations occurred, and the
corrective actions taken.
(3) Date of report.
(4) If your source includes paint
stripping operations, include also the
method(s) of paint stripping employed
at the facility during the period and
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52979
annual usage of paint strippers
containing MeCl for paint stripping.
(b) You must submit the annual
compliance report for each calendar
year no later than March 1 of the
following calendar year.
(c) If you are operating under a Title
V permit, certification of compliance
under your permit is sufficient to meet
the Annual Compliance Report
requirement.
§ 63.11177
What records must I keep?
If you are the owner or operator of a
miscellaneous surface coating operation,
you must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (a) through (d) and (g) of this
section. If you are the owner or operator
of a paint stripping operation, you must
keep the records specified in paragraphs
(e) through (g) of this section.
(a) Certification that each painter has
completed the training specified in
§ 63.11173(f) with the date the initial
training and the most recent refresher
training was completed.
(b) Documentation of the filter
efficiency of any spray booth exhaust
filter material that is not a polyester
fiber or fiberglass filter, according to the
procedure in § 63.11173(e)(3)(i).
(c) Documentation from the spray gun
manufacturer that each spray gun that
does not meet the definition of an HVLP
spray gun, electrostatic application, or
air brush has been determined by the
Administrator to achieve a transfer
efficiency equivalent to that of an HVLP
spray gun, according to the procedure in
§ 63.11173(e)(4).
(d) Copies of any notification
submitted as required by § 63.11175 and
copies of any report submitted as
required by § 63.11176.
(e) Records of paint strippers
containing MeCl used for paint
stripping operations at your facility,
including the MeCl content of the paint
stripper used. Documentation needs to
be sufficient to verify annual usage of
paint strippers containing MeCl (e.g.,
material safety data sheets or other
documentation provided by the
manufacturer or supplier of the paint
stripper, purchase receipts, records of
paint stripper usage, engineering
calculations).
(f) If you are a paint stripping source
that annually uses more than 150
gallons of paint strippers containing
MeCl, you are required to maintain a
record of your current MeCl
minimization plan on-site for the
duration of your facility’s operations.
(g) Records of any deviation from the
requirements in §§ 63.11173, 63.11174,
63.11175, or 63.11176. These records
must include the date and time period
of the deviation, and a description of the
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
52980
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
nature of the deviation and the actions
taken to correct the deviation.
§ 63.11178 In what form and for how long
must I keep my records?
If you are the owner or operator of an
affected source, you must maintain
copies of the records specified in
§ 63.11177 for a period of at least 5 years
after the date of each record. Copies of
records must be kept on site and in a
printed or electronic form that is readily
accessible for inspection for at least the
first 2 years after their date, and may be
kept off-site after that 2-year period.
Other Requirements and Information
§ 63.11179 Who implements and enforces
this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented
and enforced by us, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), or a delegated authority such as
your State, local, or tribal agency. If the
Administrator has delegated authority to
your State, local, or tribal agency, then
that agency (as well as the EPA) has the
authority to implement and enforce this
subpart. You should contact your EPA
Regional Office to find out if
implementation and enforcement of this
subpart is delegated to your State, local,
or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and
enforcement authority of this subpart to
a State, local, or tribal agency under
subpart E of this part, the authorities
contained in paragraph (c) of this
section are retained by the
Administrator and are not transferred to
the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authority in § 63.11173(d)(3)
and (e)(6) will not be delegated to State,
local, or tribal agencies.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
§ 63.11180
know?
What definitions do I need to
Terms used in this subpart are
defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40 CFR
63.2, and in this section as follows:
Additive means a material that is
added to a coating after purchase from
a supplier (e.g., catalysts, activators,
accelerators).
Air brush means a hand-held airatomized spray gun intended for spot
repair and graphic arts work with a
paint cup capacity of no more than 1.0
fluid ounce (30 cc).
Cleaning material means a solvent
used to remove contaminants and other
materials, such as dirt, grease, or oil,
from a substrate before or after coating
application or from equipment
associated with a coating operation,
such as spray booths, spray guns, racks,
tanks, and hangers. Thus, it includes
any cleaning material used on substrates
or equipment or both.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
Coating means a material applied to a
substrate for decorative, protective, or
functional purposes. Such materials
include, but are not limited to, paints,
sealants, caulks, and maskants.
Decorative, protective, or functional
materials that consist only of protective
oils for metal, acids, bases, or any
combination of these substances, or
paper film or plastic film which may be
pre-coated with an adhesive by the film
manufacturer, are not considered
coatings for the purposes of this subpart.
Compliance date means the date by
which you must comply with this
subpart.
Dry media blasting means abrasive
blasting using dry media. Dry media
blasting relies on impact and abrasion to
remove paint from a substrate.
Typically, a compressed air stream is
used to propel the media against the
coated surface.
Electrostatic application means any
method of coating application where an
electrostatic attraction is created
between the part to be coated and the
atomized paint particles.
Equipment cleaning means the use of
an organic solvent to remove coating
residue from the surfaces of paint spray
guns and other painting related
equipment, including, but not limited to
stir sticks, paint cups, brushes, and
spray booths.
High-volume, low-pressure (HVLP)
spray equipment means spray
equipment that is permanently labeled
as such and used to apply any coating
by means of a spray gun which is
designed and operated between 0.1 and
10 pounds per square inch gauge (psig)
air atomizing pressure measured
dynamically at the center of the air cap
and at the air horns.
Initial startup means the first time
equipment is brought online in a paint
stripping or surface coating operation,
and paint stripping or surface coating is
first performed.
Materials that contain HAP or HAPcontaining materials mean, for the
purposes of this subpart, materials that
contain 0.1 percent or more by mass of
any individual HAP that is an OSHAdefined carcinogen as specified in 29
CFR 1910.1200(d)(4), or 1.0 percent or
more by mass for any other individual
HAP.
Military munitions means all
ammunition products and components
produced or used by or for the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) or for the
U.S. Armed Services for national
defense and security, including military
munitions under the control of the
Department of Defense, the U.S. Coast
Guard, the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Department of Energy (DOE), and
National Guard personnel. The term
military munitions includes: confined
gaseous, liquid, and solid propellants,
explosives, pyrotechnics, chemical and
riot control agents, smokes, and
incendiaries used by DoD components,
including bulk explosives and chemical
warfare agents, chemical munitions,
biological weapons, rockets, guided and
ballistic missiles, bombs, warheads,
mortar rounds, artillery ammunition,
small arms ammunition, grenades,
mines, torpedoes, depth charges, cluster
munitions and dispensers, demolition
charges, nonnuclear components of
nuclear weapons, wholly inert
ammunition products, and all devices
and components of any items listed in
this definition.
Miscellaneous parts and/or products
means any part or product made of
metal or plastic, or combinations of
metal and plastic. Miscellaneous parts
and/or products include, but are not
limited to, metal and plastic
components of the following types of
products as well as the products
themselves: Motor vehicle parts and
accessories for automobiles, trucks,
recreational vehicles; automobiles and
light duty trucks at automobile and light
duty truck assembly plants; boats;
sporting and recreational goods; toys;
business machines; laboratory and
medical equipment; and household and
other consumer products.
Miscellaneous surface coating
operation means the collection of
equipment used to apply surface coating
to miscellaneous parts and/or products
or to finish or refinish motor vehicles or
mobile equipment including applying
cleaning solvents to prepare the surface
before coating application, mixing
coatings before application, applying
coating to a surface, drying or curing the
coating after application, and cleaning
coating application equipment, but not
plating. A single surface coating
operation may include any combination
of these types of equipment, but always
includes at least the point at which a
coating material is applied to a given
part. A surface coating operation
includes all other steps (such as surface
preparation with solvent and equipment
cleaning) in the affected source where
HAP are emitted from the coating of a
part. The use of solvent to clean parts
(for example, to remove grease during a
mechanical repair) does not constitute a
miscellaneous surface coating operation
if no coatings are applied. A single
affected source may have multiple
surface coating operations. Coating
application with air brush, nonrefillable handheld aerosol cans, touchup markers, or marking pens is not a
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
miscellaneous surface coating operation
for the purposes of this subpart.
Mobile equipment means any device
that may be drawn and/or driven on a
roadway including, but not limited to,
heavy-duty trucks, truck trailers, fleet
delivery trucks, buses, mobile cranes,
bulldozers, street cleaners, agriculture
equipment, motor homes, and other
recreational vehicles (including
camping trailers and fifth wheels).
Motor vehicle means any selfpropelled vehicle, including, but not
limited to, automobiles, light duty
trucks, golf carts, vans, and motorcycles.
Non-HAP solvent means, for the
purposes of this subpart, a solvent
(including thinners and cleaning
solvents) that contain less than 0.1
percent by mass of any individual HAP
that is an OSHA-defined carcinogen as
specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) and
less than 1.0 percent by mass for any
other individual HAP.
Paint stripping and/or miscellaneous
surface coating source or facility means
any shop, business, location, or parcel
of land where paint stripping or
miscellaneous surface coating
operations are conducted.
Paint stripping means the removal of
dried coatings from wood, metal,
plastic, and other substrates. A single
affected source may have multiple paint
stripping operations.
Painter means any facility personnel
who apply coating materials.
Plastic refers to substrates containing
one or more resins and may be solid,
porous, flexible, or rigid.
Protective oil means 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.
52981
Solvent means a fluid containing
organic compounds used to perform
paint stripping, surface prep, or
cleaning of surface coating equipment.
Spot repair means the repair of the
finish on motor vehicles, mobile
equipment, or associated parts or
components that is less than 1 square
foot in area.
Surface preparation or Surface prep
means use of a cleaning material on a
portion of or all of a substrate prior to
the application of a coating.
Transfer efficiency means the amount
of coating solids adhering to the object
being coated divided by the total
amount of coating solids sprayed,
expressed as a percentage. Coating
solids means the nonvolatile portion of
the coating that makes up the dry film.
Truck bed liner coating means any
coating, excluding color coats, labeled
and formulated for application to a
truck bed to protect it from surface
abrasion.
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART HHHHHH OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART HHHHHH OF
PART 63
Citation
Subject
Applicable to Subpart
HHHHHH
§ 63.1(a)(1)–(12) ..........
§ 63.1(b)(1)–(3) ............
General Applicability .......................................
Initial Applicability Determination ....................
Yes.
Yes .............................
§ 63.1(c)(1) ..................
§ 63.1(c)(2) ..................
Applicability After Standard Established .........
Applicability of Permit Program for Area
Sources.
Yes.
Yes .............................
§ 63.1(c)(5) ..................
§ 63.1(e) .......................
Notifications .....................................................
Applicability of Permit Program to Major
Sources Before Relevant Standard is Set.
Yes.
No ...............................
§ 63.2 ...........................
Definitions .......................................................
Yes .............................
§ 63.3(a)–(c) ................
§ 63.4(a)(1)–(5) ............
§ 63.4(b)–(c) ................
§ 63.5 ...........................
Units and Abbreviations ..................................
Prohibited Activities .........................................
Circumvention/Fragmentation .........................
Construction/Reconstruction of major sources
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No ...............................
§ 63.6(a) .......................
Compliance With Standards and Maintenance
Requirements—Applicability.
Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources.
Compliance Dates for Existing Sources .........
Operation and Maintenance ...........................
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan ......
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.6(i)(1)–(16) ...........
§ 63.6(j) ........................
§ 63.7 ...........................
Compliance Except During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.
Methods for Determining Compliance ............
Use of an Alternative Standard ......................
Compliance With Opacity/Visible Emission
Standards.
Extension of Compliance ................................
Presidential Compliance Exemption ...............
Performance Testing Requirements ...............
§ 63.8 ...........................
Monitoring Requirements ................................
No ...............................
§ 63.9(a)–(d) ................
Notification Requirements ...............................
Yes .............................
§ 63.6(b)(1)–(7) ............
§ 63.6(c)(1)–(5) ............
§ 63.6(e)(1)–(2) ............
§ 63.6(e)(3) ..................
§ 63.6(f)(1) ...................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) .............
§ 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ............
§ 63.6(h) .......................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Explanation
Applicability of subpart HHHHHH is also
specified in § 63.11170.
§ 63.11170(e) of Subpart HHHHHH exempts
area sources from the obligation to obtain
Title V operating permits.
§ 63.11170(e) of Subpart HHHHHH exempts
area sources from the obligation to obtain
Title V operating permits.
Additional definitions are specified in
§ 63.11180.
Subpart HHHHHH applies only to area
sources.
Yes .............................
§ 63.11172 specifies the compliance dates.
Yes .............................
Yes.
No ...............................
§ 63.11172 specifies the compliance dates.
Yes.
Yes.
No ...............................
Yes.
Yes.
No ...............................
Sfmt 4702
No startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is
required by subpart HHHHHH.
Subpart HHHHHH does not establish opacity
or visible emission standards.
No performance testing is required by subpart HHHHHH.
Subpart HHHHHH does not require the use
of continuous monitoring systems.
§ 63.11175 specifies notification requirements.
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
52982
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART HHHHHH OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART HHHHHH OF
PART 63—Continued
Citation
Subject
Applicable to Subpart
HHHHHH
Explanation
§ 63.9(e) .......................
Notification of Performance Test ....................
No ...............................
§ 63.9(f) ........................
Notification of Visible Emissions/Opacity Test
No ...............................
§ 63.9(g) .......................
Additional Notifications When Using CMS .....
No ...............................
§ 63.9(h) .......................
Notification of Compliance Status ...................
No ...............................
Subpart HHHHHH does not require performance tests.
Subpart HHHHHH does not have opacity or
visible emission standards.
Subpart HHHHHH does not require the use
of continuous monitoring systems.
§ 63.11175 specifies the dates and required
content for submitting the notification of
compliance status.
§ 63.9(i) ........................
§ 63.9(j) ........................
§ 63.10(a) .....................
Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines .................
Change in Previous Information .....................
Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability and
General Information.
General Recordkeeping Requirements ..........
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Recordkeeping Relevant to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Periods and CMS.
Waiver of recordkeeping requirements ...........
Alternatives to the relative accuracy test ........
No ...............................
Records supporting notifications .....................
Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability
Determinations.
Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for
Sources with CMS.
General Reporting Requirements ...................
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.10(d)(2)–(3) ..........
Report of Performance Test Results, and
Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations.
No ...............................
§ 63.10(d)(4) ................
Progress Reports for Sources With Compliance Extensions.
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports
Yes.
Additional
Reporting
requirements
for
Sources with CMS.
Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver ...................
Control Device Requirements/Flares ..............
No ...............................
State Authority and Delegations .....................
Addresses of State Air Pollution Control
Agencies and EPA Regional Offices.
Incorporation by Reference ............................
Yes.
Yes.
Availability of Information/Confidentiality ........
Performance Track Provisions—reduced reporting.
Performance Track Provisions—reduced reporting.
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(1) ................
§ 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(xi) ......
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ..........
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ..........
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) .........
§ 63.10(b)(3) ................
§ 63.10(c) .....................
§ 63.10(d)(1) ................
§ 63.10(d)(5) ................
§ 63.10(e) .....................
§ 63.10(f) ......................
§ 63.11 .........................
§ 63.12 .........................
§ 63.13 .........................
§ 63.14 .........................
§ 63.15 .........................
§ 63.16(a) .....................
§ 63.16(b)–(c) ..............
Yes .............................
Yes.
No ...............................
No ...............................
Yes .............................
No ...............................
Yes.
No ...............................
Yes .............................
No ...............................
Additional requirements are specified in
§ 63.11177.
Subpart HHHHHH does not require startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plans, or CMS.
Subpart HHHHHH does not require the use
of CEMS.
Subpart HHHHHH does not require the use
of CMS.
Additional requirements are specified in
§ 63.11176.
Subpart HHHHHH does not require performance tests, or opacity or visible emissions
observations.
Subpart HHHHHH does not require startup,
shutdown, and malfunction reports.
Subpart HHHHHH does not require the use
of CMS.
Subpart HHHHHH does not require the use
of flares.
Test methods for measuring paint booth filter
efficiency and spray gun transfer efficiency
in § 63.11173(e)(2) and (4) are incorporated and included in § 63.14.
Subpart HHHHHH does not establish numerical emission limits.
[FR Doc. E7–17973 Filed 9–14–07; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Sep 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17SEP2.SGM
17SEP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 179 (Monday, September 17, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52958-52982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17973]
[[Page 52957]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 52958]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0526; FRL-8466-6]
RIN 2060-AN21
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA proposes national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for area sources engaged in paint
stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operations. EPA has listed
``Paint Stripping,'' ``Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating),''
and ``Autobody Refinishing Paint Shops'' as area sources of hazardous
air pollutants (HAP) that contribute to the risk to public health in
urban areas under the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. These three
source categories are being combined into one set of standards for the
purposes of this rulemaking. Paint stripping operations subject to the
standards being proposed include the use of methylene chloride-
containing chemicals to remove paint and other coatings. Plastic parts
and products surface coating operations include the application of
coatings to miscellaneous parts and/or products made of metal or
plastic, or combinations of metal and plastic. Autobody refinishing
includes the application of coating to motor vehicles and mobile
equipment. These proposed standards, when final, would require all
methylene chloride (MeCl) containing paint stripping and miscellaneous
surface coating operations at area sources to comply with equipment
requirements and/or management practices that minimize specific HAP
emissions. The standards would also establish training requirements for
persons who spray apply coatings. These standards, when final, would
apply to all area sources that perform methylene chloride-containing
paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating activities, except
when other NESHAP apply.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 17,
2007. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information
collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on or before October 17, 2007.
Public Hearing: If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing concerning the proposed rule by September 27, 2007, we
will hold a public hearing on October 2, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0526, by one of the following methods.
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Fax: 202-566-1741.
Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of two copies. We request that a separate copy
also be sent to the contact person identified below see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments
on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Building, Room B-108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20014. Such deliveries are accepted only during the
Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0526. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment with a disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Do not send proprietary
information to the public docket to ensure that it is not inadvertently
placed in the docket. Instead, send proprietary information directly to
the following address: Attention: Mr. Roberto Morales, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS Document Control Officer, 109
T.W. Alexander Drive, Room C404-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent
allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA,
the information may be made available to the public without further
notice to the commenter.
Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone for the Air
and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Public Hearing: If you are interested in attending the public
hearing, contact Ms. Dorothy Apple at (919) 541-4487 to verify that a
hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
10 a.m. at EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research
Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed standards, contact Mr. Warren Johnson, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
[[Page 52959]]
Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-5124, or e-mail at johnson.warren@epa.gov.
For technical information concerning the proposed surface coating
standards, contact Ms. Kim Teal, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and
Commerce Group (E143-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-5580,
or e-mail at teal.kim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. How is this document organized?
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. How is this document organized?
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
A. What is the regulatory development background for the
proposed standards for paint stripping and miscellaneous surface
coating operations?
B. Where in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) will these
standards be codified?
C. What criteria are used in the development of these NESHAP?
D. What are the sources of emissions and the HAP for which these
area source categories were listed?
E. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants
emitted by paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating
operations?
F. How has EPA regulated major sources in the same industrial
sectors (similar sources) and what has EPA learned about available
control technologies and management practices from regulating these
major sources?
III. Proposed NESHAP for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Coating
Operations at Area Sources
A. What are the affected area sources?
B. What are the HAP and primary sources of emissions for which
these source categories were listed?
C. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?
D. What emissions control requirements is EPA proposing?
E. What are the initial compliance requirements?
F. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. What area source categories are affected by this proposal?
B. How did we select the affected source?
C. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed
standards for new and existing sources?
D. How did we select the format of the proposed standards?
E. How did we select the initial compliance and testing
requirements?
F. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
G. How did we select the compliance date?
H. How did we decide to exempt these area source categories from
the CAA title V permit requirements?
V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards
A. What are the air impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy
impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
B. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially affected by the proposed rule
are MeCl--containing paint stripping operations and miscellaneous
surface coating operations located at area sources. An area source is
defined in CAA section 112(a) as any stationary source of HAP that is
not a major source, and a major source is defined as any stationary
source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area
and under common control that emits, or has the potential to emit,
considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) of any
single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. For the purposes of
this proposal, paint stripping operations are those that involve the
use of MeCl for the partial or complete removal of surface coatings
from wood, metal or plastic substrates at area sources as either (1) an
independent activity where paint stripping is the principle activity at
the source or (2) an activity incidental to the principle activity
(e.g., surface coating, inspection, maintenance, etc.) at the source.
We consider paint stripping activities that use less than 150 gallons
per year to be incidental to the principle activity and those using 150
gallons or more to be performing paint stripping as a principle
activity. Miscellaneous surface coating operations are those that
involve the application of coatings at area sources to (1)
miscellaneous parts and/or products made of metal or plastic, or
combinations of metal and plastic; or (2) motor vehicles and mobile
equipment (e.g., heavy duty-trucks, buses, construction equipment,
self-propelled vehicles and equipment that may be drawn and/or driven
on a roadway), hereinafter referred to as autobody refinishing. In
general, the facilities and entities potentially affected by the
proposed rule are covered under the North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) Codes listed in the following table.
However, facilities classified under other NAICS codes may be subject
to the proposed standards if they meet the applicability criteria.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category NAICS regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace Equipment............ 336413 Aircraft engines, aircraft
336414 parts, aerospace ground
336415 equipment.
54171
[[Page 52960]]
Automobiles and Automobile 335312 Engine parts, vehicle parts
Parts. 336111 and accessories, brakes,
336211 axles, etc. Motor vehicle
336312 body manufacturing and
33632 automobile assembly plants.
33633 New and used car dealers.
33634 Automotive body, paint, and
33637 interior repair and
336399 maintenance.
441110
441120
811121
Chemical Manufacturing and 325110 Petrochemicals, Industrial
Product Preparation. 325120 Gases, Inorganic Dyes and
325131 Pigments, Basic Inorganic
325188 and Organic Chemicals,
325192 Cyclic Crude and
325193 Intermediates, Ethyl
325199 Alcohol, Miscellaneous
325998 Chemical Production and
Preparation.
Extruded Aluminum.............. 331316 Extruded aluminum,
331524 architectural components,
332321 coils, rod, and tubes.
332323
Government..................... N/A Government entities, besides
Department of Defense, that
maintain vehicles, such as
school buses, police and
emergency vehicles, transit
buses, or highway
maintenance vehicles.
Heavy Equipment................ 33312 Tractors, earth moving
333611 machinery.
333618
Job Shops...................... 332312 Manufacturing industries not
332722 elsewhere classified (e.g.,
332813 bezels, consoles, panels,
332991 lenses).
332999
334119
336413
339999
Large Trucks and Buses......... 33612 Large trucks and buses.
336211
Metal Buildings................ 332311 Prefabricated metal
buildings, carports, docks,
dwellings, greenhouses,
panels for buildings.
Metal Containers............... 33242 Drums, kegs, pails, shipping
81131 containers.
322214
331513
332439
Metal Pipe and Foundry......... 331111 Plate, tube, rods, nails,
331513 etc.
33121
331221
331511
Rail Transportation............ 33651 Brakes, engines, freight
336611 cars, locomotives.
482111
Recreational Vehicles and Other 321991 Mobile Homes. Motorcycles,
Transportation Equipment. 3369 motor homes, semi trailers,
331316 truck trailers.
336991 Miscellaneous
336211 transportation related
336112 equipment and parts. Travel
336212 trailer and camper
336213 manufacturing.
336214
336399
336999
33635
56121
8111
56211
[[Page 52961]]
Rubber-to-Metal Products....... 326291 Engine mounts, rubberized
326299 tank tread, harmonic
balancers.
Structural Steel............... 332311 Joists, railway bridge
332312 sections, highway bridge
sections.
Waste Treatment, Disposal, and 562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment
Materials Recovery. 562212 and Disposal, Solid Waste
562213 Landfill, Solid Waste
562219 Combustors and
562920 Incinerators, Other
Nonhazardous Waste
Treatment and Disposal,
Materials Recovery.
Other Industrial and Commercial 211112 Natural Gas Liquid
Extraction.
311942 Spices and Extracts.
331311 Alumina Refining.
337214 Office furniture, except
811420 wood.
Reupholstery and Furniture
Repair.
325211 Plastics Material Synthetic
Resins, and Nonvulcanizable
Elastomers.
325510 Paint and Coating
Manufacturing.
32614, Plastic foam products (e.g.,
32615 pool floats, wrestling
mats, life jackets).
326199 Plastic products not
elsewhere classified (e.g.,
name plates, coin holders,
storage boxes, license
plate housings, cosmetic
caps, cup holders).
333313 Office machines.
33422 Radio and television
broadcasting and
communications equipment
(e.g., cellular
telephones).
339111, Medical equipment and
339112 supplies.
33992 Sporting and athletic goods.
33995 Signs and advertising
specialties.
336612 Boat building.
713930 Marinas, including boat
repair yards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
proposed rule. Many types of entities that perform stripping and/or
coating that are not listed in this table would be potentially affected
by the proposed rule. To determine whether your facility, company,
business, organization, etc., is subject to this action, you should
examine the applicability criteria in section 63.11170 of the proposed
rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through
www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register proposal
publication date and reference page number(s)).
2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
provide substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the specified comment
period deadline.
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
A. What is the regulatory development background for the proposed
standards for paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating
operations?
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to develop
NESHAP for both major and area sources that are listed for regulation
under CAA section 112(c). As stated earlier, a major source is defined
in CAA section 112(a) as any stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that
emits, or has the potential to emit, considering controls, in the
aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any
combination of HAP. An area source is any stationary source that is not
a major source. Thus, area sources are those sources of HAP that do not
emit nor have the potential to emit HAP at or above the 10 or 25 tpy
thresholds.
CAA section 112(k)(3)(B) requires EPA to develop a list of at least
30 HAP which, as a result of area source emissions, pose the greatest
threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. We refer
to these HAP as the ``urban HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) of the CAA directs
EPA to identify source categories or subcategories of area
[[Page 52962]]
sources that represent 90 percent of the emissions of the urban HAP.
On July 19, 1999, EPA published its Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy, which included both the list of urban HAP and the initial
list of area source categories (64 FR 38706). The initial list of area
source categories included ``Paint Stripping Operations''. On June 26,
2002 and November 22, 2002, EPA added ``Autobody Refinishing Paint
Shops (67 FR 43112)'' and ``Plastic Parts and Products (Surface
Coating) (67 FR 70427)'', respectively, to the list of area source
categories. A primary goal of the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy
is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer incidence attributable
to HAP emitted from stationary sources in urban areas.
Sierra Club sued EPA, alleging a failure to complete standards for
the area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3)and
(k)(3)(B) within the timeframe specified by the statute. See Sierra
Club v. Johnson, No. 01-1537, (D.D.C.). On March 31, 2006, the court
issued an order requiring EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section
112(d) for those area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section
112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B). Among other things, the order requires that,
by December 15, 2007, EPA complete standards for certain area source
categories.
In this action, EPA is proposing standards for the following area
source categories: Paint stripping, plastic parts and products (surface
coating), and autobody refinishing. In developing this proposed rule,
we fully analyzed these three listed source categories and found that
it is both reasonable and technically feasible to regulate emissions
from these three source categories by a single set of emission
standards. The processes, emission points, emission characteristics,
and emission controls for plastic parts and products surface coating
and autobody refinishing are very similar. Additionally, paint
stripping is often performed as part of the surface preparation for
both plastic parts and autobody refinishing which, by regulating within
the scope of a single set of standards, reduces the burden of complying
with multiple standards on the sources performing both the paint
stripping and subsequent coating. This single set of emission standards
that addresses all three categories also minimizes the cost of
developing, permitting, and enforcing the standards. For purposes of
this preamble and proposed rule, the term ``paint stripping and
miscellaneous surface coating'' is used to indicate that the three area
source categories of paint stripping, plastic parts and products
(surface coating), and autobody refinishing have been treated as a
single source category for purposes of developing this rule.
Early in the development of standards to implement EPA's Integrated
Urban Strategy, the States expressed concern over the burden and
resources that would be required for the States to take delegation for
the implementation of the area source rules listed as part of the
strategy. Specifically, States were concerned that implementing Federal
requirements, in lieu of established State programs, would be overly
burdensome with little or no additional emission reductions for certain
source categories. In these discussions, the States acknowledged the
provisions in CAA section 112(l) as a route for providing them this
reduction of burden and flexibility in accepting delegation of some of
the area source standards. Guidance on the provisions of CAA section
112(l) are presented in 40 CFR 63 Subpart E which provides certain
administrative (i.e., monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting)
criteria for an alternative program to be considered equivalent. This
guidance provides States with information regarding the necessary
components for their program to be considered equivalent. EPA believes
some States may have programs that address the emissions from the
surface coating of motor vehicles and mobile equipment that are at
least as effective as the proposed standards and encourages States to
consider utilizing these provisions in lieu of implementing the
proposed standards.
The EPA is seeking comment on (1) whether or not the States are
interested in utilizing the Section 112(l) alternative program
approach, and (2) what technical assistance the States may need to
develop equivalency determinations.
B. Where in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) will these standards
be codified?
The CFR is a codification of the general and permanent rules
published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments and
agencies of the Federal Government. The code is divided into 50 titles
that represent broad areas subject to Federal Regulation. When final,
these proposed standards will be published in Title 40, Protection of
the Environment, part 63, subpart HHHHHH: National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations.
C. What criteria are used in the development of these NESHAP?
CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to issue alternative emission
standards for area sources in lieu of the authorities provided in CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and 112(f). Specifically, section 112(d)(5), which
is entitled ``Alternative Standard for Area Sources,'' provides:
With respect only to categories and subcategories of area
sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the
Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph
(2) and subsection (f) of this section, elect to promulgate
standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories
or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available
control technologies or management practices by such sources to
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
Thus, CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to promulgate standards
under section 112(d)(5) that provide for the use of generally available
control technologies or management practices (GACT), instead of issuing
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does not set any condition
precedent for issuing standards under CAA section 112(d)(5) other than
that the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that
EPA listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3), which is the case in this
proposal.
When setting a GACT standard for an area source category as opposed
to a MACT standard, EPA must ensure that the GACT standard is
consistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(5) and have a
reasonable basis for its GACT determination. Thus, in developing
standards for area sources of HAP emissions, EPA evaluates the control
technologies and management practices that reduce HAP emissions that
are generally available for each area source category, and, in
determining GACT, may establish standards on either (or both) generally
available control technologies or (and) management practices that
reduce the emission of HAP. EPA's analysis supporting the proposed GACT
requirements is discussed in detail in section IV of this preamble.
D. What are the sources of emissions and the HAP for which these area
source categories were listed?
EPA listed the area source paint stripping category pursuant to CAA
section 112(c)(3) based on emissions of MeCl contained in paint
stripper formulations. The emissions of MeCl comes from evaporative
losses during the use or storage of MeCl. EPA listed
[[Page 52963]]
the area source miscellaneous coating operations category pursuant to
section 112(c)(3) based on emissions of cadmium, chromium, lead
compounds (lead), manganese and nickel compounds that are in the
coatings, as part of the pigment in topcoats or for the corrosion
protection in primers. For purposes of this proposal we will refer to
these HAP as the ``target HAP.''
The anticipated national impacts of these proposed standards is
summarized in section V of this preamble.
E. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants emitted
by paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operations?
Emissions data collected in the development of this proposed rule
shows that HAP emitted from paint stripping and miscellaneous surface
coating operations are associated with a variety of adverse health
effects. These adverse health effects include chronic health disorders
(e.g., central nervous system effects, blood disorders, cancer) and
acute health disorders (e.g., irritation of eyes, nose and throat, with
long-term impairment of lung function possible at high acute
exposures). The proposed rule protects air quality and promotes the
public health by reducing the emissions of the HAP for which the three
source categories at issue in this proposed rule were listed.
F. How has EPA regulated major sources in the same industrial sectors
(similar sources) and what has EPA learned about available control
technologies and management practices from regulating these major
sources?
Major sources performing paint stripping and surface coating of
miscellaneous parts and/or products made of metal or plastic, or
combinations of metal and plastic; or motor vehicles and mobile
equipment (e.g., heavy duty-trucks, buses, construction equipment,
self-propelled vehicles and equipment that may be drawn and/or driven
on a roadway), were addressed in different surface coating NESHAP
requiring MACT level of control, of which the last NESHAP was
promulgated in 2004. Major sources must currently be in compliance with
those surface coating NESHAP.
Paint stripping was a separately listed major source category under
CAA section 112 (c)(1), however, during the data gathering phase EPA
determined that there were no major source paint stripping operations
conducted independent of surface coating. Therefore, all paint
stripping operations were covered in each surface coating NESHAP, as
part of the cleaning material used for surface preparation activities.
Each NESHAP assumed that the initial emission control technology would
be reduction of the usage of HAP cleaners or implementation of
management practices to reduce the evaporative losses from these
cleaning activities.
The data gathering for the major source categories revealed that
when the coatings are spray-applied, it was common practice to perform
application of the coatings within the confines of a spray booth to
minimize worker exposure. This limited the dispersion of the HAP to the
parts being coated as solids in the dry coating film, deposition onto
the walls, floor, and grates of the spray booths in which they are
applied, or some of the HAP particles would be entrained in the spray
booth exhaust air. We have learned, as part of the data gathering phase
of this area source proposal that although most, if not all, sources
are spray applying these coatings in a spray booth, not all of the
spray booths are capable of capturing and controlling the target HAP
(the HAP for which the area source categories at issue here were listed
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3).
III. Proposed NESHAP for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Coating
Operations at Area Sources
A. What are the affected area sources?
The sources that would be affected by the proposed standards are
area sources engaged in paint stripping using MeCl, and/or engaged in
coating of miscellaneous parts and/or products made of metal or
plastic, or combinations of metal and plastic, or autobody refinishing.
The proposed standards would not apply to any of these operations that
are specifically covered under another area source NESHAP (e.g., the
NESHAP for Defense Land Systems and Miscellaneous Equipment currently
under development). While these sources are not currently listed
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) or 112(k)(3)(b), we intend to list
them under these provisions of the act.
B. What are the HAP and primary sources of emissions for which these
source categories were listed?
Paint Stripping Operations
The primary source of emissions from paint stripping operations and
the HAP for which this source category was listed pursuant to CAA
section 112(c)(3) (the ``target HAP'') is the MeCl contained in paint
stripper formulations. The primary source of the MeCl emissions in this
source category comes from evaporative losses during the use or storage
of MeCl.
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
The primary sources of emissions from miscellaneous coating
operations are the metal pigments that are in the coatings and/or
refinish material. The target HAP for which these source categories
were listed are the heavy metals including cadmium, chromium, lead,
manganese and nickel compounds. The primary source of emissions of
these HAP are the spray application of the coatings and curing process.
The heavy metals are contained primarily in the coatings (e.g.,
primers and the pigments in topcoats) and include compounds of lead
(Pb), trivalent chromium (Cr-III), or hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI), plus
compounds of other metals that are considered HAP, such as cadmium,
manganese, and nickel. The metal HAP compounds are emitted as the
coatings are atomized during spray application. A substantial fraction
of coating that is atomized does not reach the part and becomes what is
termed ``overspray.'' The fraction that becomes overspray depends on
many variables, but two of the most important are the type of equipment
and the skill of the painter. Some overspray lands on surfaces of the
spray booth and the masking paper that is usually placed around the
surface being sprayed, but the rest of the overspray is drawn into the
spray booth exhaust system. If the spray booth has filters, most of the
overspray is captured by the filters; otherwise, it is exhausted to the
atmosphere.
After coating application, the spray gun must be cleaned to remove
the remaining coating before it cures and to prepare it for the next
coating job. Solvents used for equipment cleaning may contain the same
HAP as the coatings they remove. Spray guns are usually cleaned in a
device, commonly referred to as an enclosed spray gun washer, that
consists of a solvent reservoir and a covered enclosure that dispenses
solvent for gun cleaning. The enclosure may hold the gun for automated
gun cleaning. During gun cleaning, HAP from the cleaning solvent and
the coating may be emitted as the cleaning solvent is sprayed through
the gun during cleaning from the equipment that stores and dispenses
the cleaning solvent while it is opened.
C. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?
The area source requirements specified in the proposed rule would
apply to your source if your source (or
[[Page 52964]]
facility) is an area source that performs (1) paint stripping using
MeCl-containing chemicals or (2) surface coating using spray equipment.
The area source requirements specified in the proposed rule would
not apply if your paint stripping or surface coating operations meet
any of the following:
Paint stripping or surface coating performed on-site at
installations owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the United
States (including the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such
State), or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because
these activities will be subject to the area source NESHAP for military
operations which is in development.
Paint stripping or surface coating of military munitions
manufactured by or for the Armed Forces of the United States (including
the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such State) or equipment
directly and exclusively used for the purposes of transporting
munitions manufactured by or for the Armed Forces of the United States
(including the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such State)
because these activities will be subject to the area source NESHAP for
military operations which is in development.
D. What emissions control requirements is EPA proposing?
This section describes the proposed emissions control requirements
for paint stripping and miscellaneous coating operations. The basis for
these proposed requirements is discussed in section IV, below.
Paint Stripping Operations
All sources conducting paint stripping involving the use of MeCl
must implement management practice standards that reduce emissions of
MeCl by minimizing evaporative losses of MeCl.
In addition to the management practices, sources that use 150 gal
or more of paint stripper containing MeCl, per year would need to
develop and implement a MeCl minimization plan consisting of a written
plan with the criteria to evaluate the necessity of MeCl in the
stripping operations and management techniques to minimize MeCl
emissions when it is needed in the paint stripping operation.
The MeCl minimization plan evaluation criteria would involve only
using a MeCl-containing paint stripper when an alternative on-site
stripping method or material is incapable of accomplishing the work as
determined by the operator. Alternative methods to reduce MeCl usage
may include: (1) Non-MeCl-containing chemical strippers; (2) mechanical
stripping; (3) blasting (including dry or wet media); or (4) thermal
and cryogenic decomposition.
The management practices that would be required to be contained in
the plan include optimizing stripper application conditions, reducing
exposure of stripper to the air, and practicing proper storage and
disposal of materials containing MeCl. Sources would be required to
submit the plan either to EPA or to the delegated state permit
authority, keep a written copy of the plan on site and post a placard
or sign outlining the evaluation criteria and management techniques in
each area where MeCl-containing paint stripping operations occur.
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
All sources conducting surface coating operations involving spray-
applied coatings would need to apply the coatings with a high volume,
low pressure (HVLP) spray gun, electrostatic spray gun, or a gun
demonstrated to be equal in transfer efficiency to an HVLP spray gun.
All spray-applied coatings would need to be applied in a prep station
or spray booth, with a full roof and at least three complete walls or
complete side curtains, ventilated so that air is drawn into the booth.
The exhaust from the prep station or spray booth would need to be
fitted with fiberglass or polyester fiber filters or some other filter
technology demonstrated to achieve at least 98 percent capture
efficiency of paint overspray. As explained further below, we are
proposing that the combination of these technologies are GACT for the
miscellaneous surface coating operations.
Additionally, sources would be required to comply with the
management practices by demonstrating that (1) all painters that spray-
apply coatings are certified and (2) that all spray gun cleaning
performed by spraying HAP solvent through the gun is performed in an
enclosed spray gun cleaner or by cleaning the disassembled gun parts by
hand (i.e., spraying HAP solvent through a gun outside of a gun cleaner
would be prohibited). The painter would need to be certified as having
completed classroom and hands-on training in the proper selection,
mixing, and application of coatings. Refresher training would need to
be repeated at least once every 5 years. The initial and refresher
training would need to address the following topics:
Surface preparation (prep).
Spray gun set up and operation and spray technique for
different types of coatings to improve transfer efficiency and minimize
coating usage and overspray.
Routine spray booth and filter maintenance.
Paint mixing, matching, and applying.
Resolving paint application problems.
Finish defects causes and cures.
Safety precautions.
Environmental compliance.
E. What are the initial compliance requirements?
If your facility is a new source (one that began construction or
reconstruction after the date this rule is proposed) and you use MeCl
in your paint stripping operations or you spray apply coatings, you
would be required to comply with all of the requirements established in
this subpart as of the date of promulgation of the final rule or upon
startup, whichever is later.
If your facility is an existing source (one that began construction
or reconstruction before the date this rule is proposed), you would be
required to comply with the requirements no later than 2 years after
the date the final rule is published. In addition, each painter would
need to comply with the training requirements of the rule no later than
60 days after hiring. Painters would be allowed to use training that
was completed within 5 years prior to the date training is required to
meet this requirement. All painters would need to receive refresher
training and be re-certified every 5 years.
To demonstrate initial compliance for paint stripping operations,
you would need to:
Certify that you have implemented a best management
practices plan, and
If you are a source that uses 150 gal or more of paint
stripper containing MeCl, per year, certify that you have developed and
implemented a MeCl minimization plan consisting of a written plan with
the criteria to evaluate the necessity of MeCl in the stripping
operations and management techniques to minimize MeCl emissions when it
is needed in the paint stripping operation.
To demonstrate initial compliance for miscellaneous surface coating
operations, you would need to:
Certify that all coatings are sprayed in booths or prep
stations that are fitted with filters.
Certify that all spray guns are HVLP or an equivalent.
Certify that all painters that apply coatings using a
spray gun have completed the training described in section III.D. of
this preamble.
[[Page 52965]]
Certify that all gun cleaning is performed in enclosed gun
cleaners or by hand.
After the compliance date for your source, you would have 120 days
if you are a new source, and 30 days if you are an existing source, to
submit a notification of compliance status to the EPA or a delegated
State or local air pollution control agency.
You would also be required to submit an initial notification to the
EPA or the delegated agency that you are subject to the standard. You
would have 120 days after startup or publication of the final rule
(whichever is later) to submit the initial notification if you are a
new source. If you are an existing source, you would have 1 year after
publication of the final rule to submit the initial notification.
If your facility is an existing source, you would be required to
comply with the requirements no later than 2 years after the date the
final rule is published. In addition, each painter would need to comply
with the training requirements of the rule no later than 60 days after
hiring. Painters would be allowed to use training that was completed
within 5 years prior to the date training is required to meet this
requirement. All painters would need to receive refresher training and
be re-certified every 5 years.
F. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
To demonstrate continuous compliance, you would need to continually
maintain the emission control requirements (i.e., management practices
and equipment requirements) that are described in section III.D. of
this preamble.
G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
You would be required to submit an initial notification to the EPA
or the delegated agency that you are subject to the standard. If you
are a new source, you would have 120 days after startup or publication
of the final rule (whichever is later) to submit the initial
notification. If you are an existing source, you would have 1 year
after publication of the final rule to submit the initial notification.
After the compliance date for your source, you would have 120 days
if you are a new source and 30 days if you are an existing source to
submit a notification of compliance status to the EPA or a delegated
State or local air pollution control agency.
Paint Stripping Operations
For paint stripping operations, you would need to maintain records
demonstrating the following:
Annual usage of MeCl in paint strippers is below 150
gallons (if you are a source qualifying for the best management
practices, only); or
You have complied with the MeCl minimization plan.
If you are required to have a MeCl minimization plan, you would
also be required to submit annual compliance reports in which you
certify that the source is in compliance, or report the date, duration,
and description of any deviations from the MeCl minimization plan that
occurred and the corrective actions taken.
Miscellaneous Coating Operations
For miscellaneous coating operations, you would need to maintain
records demonstrating the following:
All spray painters are trained and certified;
Any spray booth filters or particulate controls that are
not fiberglass or polyester fiber filters achieve at least 98 percent
efficiency; and
Any spray guns that do not meet the definition of HVLP or
electrostatic spray gun have been demonstrated to achieve comparable
transfer efficiency.
Spray gun cleaning is being performed manually or in an
enclosed gun cleaner when solvent is being atomized through the gun as
part of the cleaning process.
You would also be required to submit annual compliance reports in
which you certify that the source is in compliance, or report the date,
duration, and description of any deviations from the specified control
requirements that occurred and the corrective actions taken.
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. What area source categories are affected by this proposal?
As discussed above, this rulemaking covers facilities engaged in
MeCl paint stripping and spray applied surface coating of parts and/or
products made of metal or plastic, or combinations of metal and
plastic; and refinishing of motor vehicles and mobile equipment which
are a source of emissions of MeCl, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese
and nickel compounds which are the target HAP described above.
B. How did we select the affected source?
In selecting the affected source for emission standards, our
primary goal is to ensure that all emission points responsible for the
emissions of the target HAP (i.e., MeCl & the heavy metals) in each
listed source category are controlled as specified in CAA section
112(d)(5), described previously in Section II.C. The affected source
also serves to establish when new source standards should be applied.
Specifically, the General Provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63
define the terms ``construction'' and ``reconstruction'' with reference
to the term ``affected source'' (40 CFR part 63.2) and provide that new
source standards apply when construction or reconstruction of an
affected source occurs.
The affected source for this proposed rule is broadly defined to
include all operations associated with the removal of paint from a
substrate using MeCl and the spray application of coatings. These
operations include the use of MeCl-containing paint strippers by
immersion, brushing on, and/or spraying on to remove a coating to
change the color of the item or because the life of the coating has
been exceeded, or to remove paint for inspection purposes or during
repair; storage and mixing of coatings and other materials; surface
preparation; coating application and flash-off; drying and curing of
applied coatings; cleaning operations; and waste handling operations.
Each of the equipment items subject to regulation (e.g., containers
of paint or stripper, spray booths, spray guns, gun cleaners) is either
a relatively low cost item, or could be easily moved about inside a
paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operation, hence, for
this proposal, a broad definition of affected source that encompasses
the entire paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operation
was selected. This approach would subject the entire operation to the
same compliance date. Had we proposed a narrow definition for an
affected source, replacement or purchase of a single item could cause
that item to be considered a new source, resulting in different
compliance dates and additional reporting. Furthermore, for the most
part, new and existing affected sources are subject to the same
emission standards, so the same environmental benefit will be realized
regardless of whether the source is considered new or existing.
Defining the affected source narrowly could result in
[[Page 52966]]
a paint stripping or miscellaneous surface coating operation having
several affected sources that could be subject to different compliance
dates, but the same standards, imposing additional burdens on the
source without any environmental benefit.
C. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed standards
for new and existing sources?
As previously stated above, CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to
establish emission standards for area sources that provide for the use
of generally available control technologies or management practices
that reduce emissions of HAP (GACT). Determining what constitutes GACT
involves considering the control technologies and management practices
that are generally available to the area sources in the source
category. We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in
the same industrial sector to determine if the control technologies and
management practices are transferable and generally available to area
sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider
technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar
categories to determine whether such technologies and practices could
be considered generally available for the area source category at
issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT for a particular
area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of
available control technologies and management practices on that
category.
We began the rule development process by identifying other
standards developed for these specific processes. As discussed in
section II.E., above, we evaluated the emission control technology at
major sources for the types of operations found in these area source
categories to determine whether or not they were reasonable, feasible,
and cost-effective for the area sources. Based on the findings of the
major source NESHAP data gathering, the technology considered to be
appropriate for the target HAP, and the availability of the technology,
we considered whether or not these same emission controls were
technically feasible and generally available for the area source
categories.
Next, we met with industry associations and discussed their current
processes and the feasibility of adopting the emission control
technology specified as appropriate for the major sources. We learned
that, in fact, similar technology (i.e., spray booths, painter
training, HVLP guns, enclosed gun cleaners, and management practices to
reduce HAP usage) were already being employed at many of the area
sources. Therefore, it was determined that, given the availability and
cost-effectiveness of these emission control technologies, they
represent GACT for the targeted HAP from each source category (i.e.,
paint stripping, autobody refinishing, and plastic parts surface
coating). As previously stated, the target HAP emissions for which
these source categories were listed are MeCl from paint stripping
operations and cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese and nickel compounds
from the coatings operations. The resulting proposed GACT standards are
a combination of technology and management practices that control the
target HAP, and have a co-benefit of reducing other associated
emissions \1\ from these operations. The co-benefit is realized due to
the fact that the same technology applied to control the target HAP
emissions are also the best techniques for reducing some other
emissions associated with these operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The baseline emissions from the surface coating operations
are estimated to be about 38,000 tpy of HAP, including 12.4 tpy of
inorganic HAP (e.g.; Pb and Cr-VI compounds), 123,500 tpy of
criteria pollutants including 3,100 tpy of particulate matter (PM)
from paint overspray and 120,400 tpy of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) from coating and solvent evaporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the development of these proposed emission standards, EPA
visited numerous paint stripping and coating operations, collected data
from various databases, and compiled information received during
previous data collection activities. We also met with facility owners
and other representatives of these industries. These site visits, data
review and contacts with industry provided the technical basis for the
proposed standards and are included in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
Paint Stripping
MeCl is the most common solvent and the target HAP for this source
category. Since MeCl is the target HAP, our analysis in determining
GACT began with understanding alternative stripping technologies and
best management practices to minimize MeCl emissions at existing major
and area sources. In selecting GACT for affected area sources that
perform paint stripping operations, we determined that best management
practices to minimize evaporative losses (fugitive emissions) from MeCl
in paint stripper formulations was not only a practice that many in the
industry use, but also was generally cost effective for all sources in
this category.
As part of the GACT analysis, we considered whether there were
differences in processes, sizes, or other factors affecting emissions,
control technologies or management practices that would warrant
subcategorization. Under CAA section 112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ``may
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within a source category or
subcategory in establishing such standard.'' In looking to other means
by which MeCl emissions could be reduced from these operations, we did
recognize that some sources utilized alternative stripping technologies
(e.g., blasting) to accomplish much of their work. These sources,
distinguishable from the rest of the category by having other available
on site methods to strip paint not involving MeCl, could reasonably
route work away from paint stripping operations that involved MeCl as a
means of control. Pursuant to section 112(d)(1), we have subcategorized
these sources with alternative stripping methods by class. As mentioned
earlier, these different paint stripping methods include (1) non-MeCl--
containing chemical strippers; (2) mechanical stripping; (3) blasting
(including dry or wet media); and (4) thermal or cryogenic
decomposition. We also recognized that this subcategory represented the
30 percent (approximately) of the source category with the highest MeCl
emissions. We determined that sources that used 150 gallons or more per
year of paint stripper containing MeCl was the best approximation
criteria for defining this subcategory for three reasons.
First, based on our findings from: (1) A study of paint stripping
facilities (referenced in a Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (Environmental Defense Fund) document entitled ``Source
Reduction and Recycling of Halogenated Solvents in Paint Stripping--
Technical Support Document''), (2) our understanding of the affected
facilities, and (3) our analysis of the model plants, for facilities
using 150 gallons of MeCl or more per year, we believe it is reasonable
to expect cost savings from the process of routing work away from paint
stripping operations involving MeCl to other means of stripping. The
study of paint stripping facilities highlighted to us that a good
portion of paint stripping at these facilities (as high as 90 percent
at one facility) was not really necessary. In being conservative, we
believe that 5 percent of paint stripping is not necessary. An example
of paint stripping that may be found as not necessary includes the
[[Page 52967]]
refinishing of personal oxygen gas cylinder surfaces (that often
automatically get stripped of paint for cosmetic purposes during
recycling) when they actually need no refinishing for serviceability.
In addition, we believe that there is a slight cost savings associated
with routing work away from paint stripping involving MeCl to a media
blasting technique, when the media involved is recycled. Second, our
analysis of model plants suggested that most facilities using 150
gallons of MeCl or more per year had other methods of stripping
available on site (e.g., blasting or thermal) to which work could be
easily routed. Finally, we recognized that the 150 gallon threshold
reasonably coincides with exposure levels at which Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements (29 CFR 1910.123-
1910.126) are to be implemented. OSHA provided specific dip tank size
criteria to characterize which size tanks must follow specific worker
safety requirements. We calculated, based on the sizes provided by
OSHA, the volume of stripper that the minimum tank would hold and used
this volume for our size criteria. For these reasons we are proposing
that facilities using 150 gallons of MeCl or more per year must, in
addition to the best management practices to minimize evaporative
losses, develop and implement the MeCl minimization plan mentioned
earlier.
We recognize that given the wide range of paint stripping
operations and techniques, there is no single substitute that could
completely eliminate the need for MeCl-containing paint strippers,
particularly on confined and hard to reach surfaces where other methods
tend not to remove paint as well. We do, however, believe that given
the existing management practices currently exercised b