National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Metal Coil Coating

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for facilities that coat metal coil. The EPA has identified metal coil coating as a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions such as methyl ethyl ketone, glycol ethers, xylenes (isomers and mixtures), toluene, and isophorone. These proposed standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The proposed standards would eliminate approximately 55 percent of nationwide HAP emissions from these major sources.

DATES:

Comments. Submit comments on or before September 18, 2000.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by August 7, 2000, a public hearing will be held on August 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES:

Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-47, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at our Office of Administration Auditorium in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. You should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-7946 to request to speak at a public hearing or to find out if a hearing will be held.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Rhea Jones, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2940, facsimile number (919) 541-5689; electronic mail address: jones.rhea@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect® version 5.1, 6.1, or Corel 8 file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A-97-47. No confidential business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Rhea Jones, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. The 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 the EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter.

Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-7946 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also call Ms. Eck to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing would provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.

Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed rule is also available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Plain Language. In compliance with President Clinton's June 1, 1998 Executive Memorandum on plain language in government writing, this preamble is written using plain language, thus, the use of “we” and “us” in this document refers to the EPA. The use of “you” refers to the reader, and may include industry; State, local, and tribal governments; environmental groups; and other interested individuals.

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in section II of this preamble and in § 63.5090 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.

Background Information Document. The Background Information Document (BID) for the proposed standard may be obtained from the TTNWWW; the metal coil coating docket (A-97-47); the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2777; or the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650. Please refer to “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Metal Coil Coating NESHAP—Background Information for Proposed Standards” (EPA 453/P-00-001).

Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. What are the subject and purpose of this proposed rule?

II. Does this proposed rule apply to me?

III. What is the proposed emission standard?

IV. When do I show initial compliance with the proposed rule?

V. What testing and monitoring must I do?

VI. What notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements must I follow?

VII. What are the environmental, energy, and economic impacts of this proposed rule?

VIII. What is the basis for selecting the level of the proposed standards?

IX. What is the basis for selecting the format of the proposed standards?

X. Why did we select the proposed monitoring requirements?

XI. Why did we select the proposed test methods?

XII. Why did we select the proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?

XIII. Administrative Requirements

I. What Are the Subject and Purpose of This Proposed Rule?

The CAA requires us to establish standards to control HAP emissions from source categories identified under section 112(c). An initial source category list was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The source category list identifies “Metal Coil Coating (Surface Coating)” as a source category because it contains major sources. Under the CAA, 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, at least 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP.” Sources that emit or have the potential to emit less than these amounts are considered area sources. We have estimated that there are over 90 existing facilities in the source category; all are believed to be major sources.

The purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce emissions of HAP from major sources that coat metal coil. We estimate that annual baseline HAP emissions from this source category are approximately 2,258 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (2,484 tpy). The proposed rule would eliminate approximately 1,241 Mg/yr (1,366 tpy) or 55 percent of the major source organic HAP emissions.

The major HAP emitted from the metal coil coating process include methyl ethyl ketone and gycol ethers. These compounds account for over 50 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category. Other HAP identified in emissions include xylenes (isomers and mixtures), toluene, and isophorone. Each of these major HAP can cause reversible or irreversible toxic effects following sufficient exposure. The potential toxic effects include eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation, and blood cell, heart, liver, and kidney damage.

The degree of adverse effects to human health from exposure to HAP can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the human health effects may be experienced are dependent upon (1) the ambient concentration observed in the area (as influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); (2) the frequency and duration of exposures; (3) characteristics of exposed individuals (genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary significantly with the population; and (4) pollutant-specific characteristics (toxicity, half-life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence).

II. Does This Proposed Rule Apply to Me?

A. What Facilities Are Subject to This Proposed Rule?

Metal coil surface coating is a process-specific rather than a product-specific operation. Accordingly, the proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate any metal coil coating operation at a facility that is a major source of HAP emissions. We have defined a coil coating operation as the application system used to apply an organic coating to the surface of any continuous metal strip at least 0.006 inch thick that is packaged in a roll or coil, which includes the web unwind or feed station; the series of one or more coating stations and any associated curing ovens; the wet section/pretreatment operations; equipment and parts cleaning operations; the quenching operations; the mixing/thinning operations; and the storage and wastewater operations.

A major source would also be subject to all other applicable NESHAP for the various source categories, other than metal coil coating, that may be present at the facility. This means your facility may be subject to multiple NESHAP, and you would be responsible for complying with the standards set for each NESHAP. Coating equipment that is dedicated to research and development is not covered by the proposed NESHAP.

B. How Is the Affected Source Defined?

We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific emission standard applies. Within a source category, we select the specific emission sources (emission points or groupings of emission points) that will make up the affected source for that category. To select these emission sources, we mainly consider the constituent HAP and quantity emitted from individual or groups of emission points.

For the proposed metal coil NESHAP, the floor level of control on which the emission standard is based is 98 percent overall control efficiency of the capture and control system. The affected source subject to the emission standard is proposed to be the collection of coil coating lines at a facility. Specific emission sources that will be subject to the proposed emission limitations include the coating application stations and associated curing ovens. Wet section/pretreatment and quench operations are part of the metal coil coating line, but are not subject to the proposed emission limitations.

We are not proposing requirements for the storage, wastewater, mixing/thinning, and parts and equipment cleaning operations. The proposed standard would apply to emissions of all organic HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA and apply to HAP present in coatings applied to the metal coil.

Some facilities may perform both foil and coil coating operations on the same equipment. Where this situation occurs, both coating operations will be subject to the proposed metal coil coating NESHAP.

III. What Is the Proposed Emission Standard?

A. What Are the Emission Limits?

In the proposed rule, you have two options to limit HAP emissions: (1) Reduce emissions of the organic HAP applied for the month by 98 percent; or (2) limit HAP emissions to no more than 0.029 kilograms per liter (kg/l) of solids applied (0.24 pounds per gallon (lbs/gal)) for the month. The second option can be met through a combination of coating formulation and add-on capture and control devices, or by limiting the amount of HAP in your coatings to no more than 0.029 kg/l of solids (0.24 lbs/gal) on average for the month.

Before your initial compliance demonstration, you would choose one of these emission limit options for your coating lines. In your initial compliance certification, you would notify the Administrator of your choice, and after that you would monitor and report compliance results accordingly. If you decide to change to the other emission limit option, you are required to notify the Administrator, as with other changes at the facility discussed in section VI of this preamble.

In submitting comments, please specify whether the comment pertains to one or all of the emission limitation and compliance options. We will further evaluate the standard based on our review of public comments and other information we may receive. The final rule may reflect either or both of the proposed options to limit HAP emissions.

The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) would also apply to you, as outlined in table 1 of the proposed rule. The General Provisions codify procedures and criteria we use to carry out all part 63 NESHAP promulgated under the CAA. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review procedures, and procedures for conducting compliance-related activities such as notifications, recordkeeping and reporting, performance testing, and monitoring. The proposed subpart SSSS refers to individual sections of the General Provisions to highlight key sections that we believe will be of particular interest to you. However, unless specifically overridden in table 1 of subpart SSSS, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements would apply to you.

You may be subject to the proposed metal coil NESHAP and other future or existing rules, such as State rules requiring reasonably available control technology limits on volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions or the new source performance standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TT. You must comply with all rules that apply to you. Compliance with different numerical standards should be resolved through your title V permit.

B. What Pollutants Are Limited by This Proposed Rule?

We propose to limit total organic HAP emissions from coating lines. Inorganic HAP are present in pigments and film-forming components of some coatings. These components remain on the substrate for the life of the product and are not expected to be emitted into the air. Therefore, inorganic HAP are not covered by the proposed NESHAP. In section 112, the CAA lists the HAP to be regulated.

IV. When Do I Show Initial Compliance With the Proposed Rule?

Existing sources would have to comply with the final rule no later than 3 years after the effective date of the final rule. The effective date is the date on which the final rule is published in the Federal Register. New or reconstructed sources would have to comply upon start-up of the affected source or the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. Details of compliance demonstrations can be found in the General Provisions, as outlined in table 1 of subpart SSSS.

V. What Testing and Monitoring Must I Do?

In addition to the testing and monitoring requirements specified below for the affected source, the proposed rule adopts the testing requirements specified in § 63.7.

A. Test Methods and Procedures

You may comply with the proposed standards by applying materials meeting the organic HAP emission rate limit, by using capture and control equipment to reduce organic HAP emissions by 98 percent, or by using a combination of low organic HAP materials and capture and control equipment to meet the organic HAP emission rate limit.

If you demonstrate compliance based on the materials applied on your coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP content or the volatile matter content, and the solids content of materials applied. To determine organic HAP content, you may either use EPA Method 311 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, use an alternative method for determining the organic HAP content (but only after obtaining EPA approval), or use the volatile matter content of the materials applied as a surrogate for the organic HAP content. The volatile matter content must be determined by EPA Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, or an EPA approved alternative method. The volume solids content of the material must be determined using ASTM D2697-86, or ASTM D6093-97. You may rely on manufacturer's data to determine the organic HAP content or volatile matter and solids content when these data are equivalent to those obtained from Method 311, Method 24, ASTM D2697-86, or ASTM D6093-97 (or an EPA approved alternative method), respectively. You must determine the mass of each coating material applied using company records. If diluent solvents or other ingredients are added to a material prior to application, then the total organic HAP fractions and mass must be adjusted appropriately to account for such additions. You must calculate the organic HAP content and mass of all materials applied on the coating lines for each monthly period. However, only changes in a material formulation would require a re-determination of total organic HAP weight fraction for that material. To demonstrate compliance, you must calculate the average mass of organic HAP in materials applied and show that it is less than the organic HAP emission limit.

If you use an emission capture and control system to comply with the standard, you must demonstrate that the overall control efficiency reduces total organic HAP by at least 98 percent. Alternatively, you may use capture and control equipment in combination with low organic HAP materials and demonstrate you meet the organic HAP emission limitation specified. To comply using the combined approach, you must determine the overall control efficiency of the equipment and the organic HAP and solids content of the materials applied. These values must be determined for each monthly period.

The overall control efficiency for a capture and control system would be demonstrated based on capture and reduction efficiency. You must determine the capture efficiency or verify the presence of a total enclosure using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M. The EPA Method 204A through F of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, is used to determine the capture efficiency of enclosures that do not meet the criteria for total enclosures. You must determine the emission reduction efficiency of a control device by conducting a performance test or using a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS). If you use CEMS, you must determine the inlet and outlet concentration to calculate the control efficiency. The CEMS must comply with performance specification 8 or 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.

If you conduct a performance test, we are proposing that the removal efficiency of a control device be determined based on three runs, each run lasting 1 hour. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is used for selection of the sampling sites. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine the gas volumetric flow rate. Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine stack moisture. Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine organic volatile matter concentration. Alternatively, any other test method or data that have been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, may be used upon obtaining EPA approval.

If you use a solvent recovery system, you may alternatively determine the overall control efficiency using a liquid-liquid material balance. If you demonstrate compliance with the material balance, you must measure the amount of all materials applied during each month and determine the volatile matter content of these materials. You must also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month and calculate the overall solvent recovery efficiency.

B. Monitoring Requirements

Monitoring is required by the proposed standards to ensure that the affected source is in continuous compliance. Monitoring requirements apply if you comply with the proposed rule using emission capture and control devices to meet the standards expressed as a percent control or as an organic HAP emission rate limit.

Monitoring to demonstrate compliance is accomplished by measuring site-specific operating parameters, the values of which you establish during the performance test described in section V.A of this preamble. You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate all monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications. If you use control devices other than those identified in the proposed standards you must submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by the Administrator and is not delegated.

The operating parameter value is defined as the minimum or maximum (as applicable) value established for a control device or process parameter achieved during the most recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission standard.

If you use a capture and control system to meet the proposed standards and you do not use liquid-liquid material balances to demonstrate compliance, you are required to submit a plan identifying the operating limit and monitoring procedures for the capture efficiency. You must monitor in accordance with your plan unless we require an alternate monitoring procedure.

If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you must monitor temperature using a continuous recorder. If you use a thermal oxidizer, you must establish the minimum combustion temperature recorded during the performance test as the operating limit. If you use a catalytic oxidizer, you must establish as the operating parameters the minimum gas temperatures both upstream and downstream of the catalyst bed. These minimum temperatures are the operating parameters used to demonstrate continuous compliance. The time weighted average of the values recorded during the performance test shall be computed to establish the parameter value(s). For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed immediately before and after the catalyst bed. For thermal oxidizers, the temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs.

If you operate metal coil coating lines with intermittently-controllable work stations, you must demonstrate that HAP emissions from each curing oven associated with these work stations are being routed to the control device by monitoring for potential bypass of the control device. You may choose from the following four procedures:

(1) Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether the exhaust stream is directed to the control device;

(2) Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures to secure the bypass line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating;

(3) Valve closure continuous monitoring to ensure any bypass line valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating; or

(4) Automatic shutdown system to stop operation of the metal coil coating line when flow is diverted from the control device when the control device is operating.

If you use a solvent recovery system, you must conduct monthly liquid-liquid mass balances or operate CEMS as described above in the test methods and procedures section of this preamble.

If you use a combination of capture and control devices and low-HAP materials, you are required to monitor the parameter of the capture and control device as indicated above. In addition, you must record data on the HAP and solids content of the materials applied to determine the HAP emission rate as described in the performance test section.

VI. What Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements Must I Follow?

A. Initial Notification

If the NESHAP apply to you, you must send notification to the appropriate EPA Regional Office, and to your State or local agency, at least 1 year before the compliance date for existing sources and within 120 days after the date of initial start-up for new and reconstructed sources, or 120 days after publication of the final rule, whichever is later. New major affected sources must submit an application for approval of construction or reconstruction according to § 63.5(d)(1). This application satisfies the initial notification requirement. The initial notification informs us and your State agency that you have an existing facility that is subject to the proposed NESHAP or that you have constructed a new facility. Thus, it allows you and the enforcement agency to plan for compliance activities.

B. Notification of Performance Test

If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture and control system to reduce emissions of HAP, you must conduct a performance test as described above. Prior to conducting the performance test, you must notify us (or the delegated State or local agency) at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as indicated in the General Provisions for the NESHAP.

C. Notification of Compliance Status

Your compliance procedures will depend on which compliance option you choose. You are required to send a notification of compliance status within 180 days after the compliance date. The notification of compliance status should specifically identify whether low-HAP materials, emission capture and control systems, or a combination of the two were used to demonstrate compliance, and, for capture and control systems, the results of performance tests and monitoring, and a description of how you will determine continuing compliance. Your notice must also specify what operating limits were established during the performance test, the range of each monitored parameter for your affected source, information verifying that this range shows compliance with the emission standard, and information showing that the source has operated within its designated operating parameters. To comply with the proposed NESHAP, your compliance report must contain at least 5 months of coating content data where low-HAP materials are used and monitoring data where capture and control systems are used to demonstrate that you have been in compliance since the compliance date.

D. Recordkeeping Requirements

Depending on the compliance approach you choose, you may have to keep records of one or more of the following:

• Organic HAP, volatile matter, and solids content of the coatings, as applied.
• Monthly usage of all coatings and other materials applied.
• Equipment monitoring parameter measurements.

Deviations from the proposed standard, as calculated from these records, need to be reported as described in the section below.

E. Periodic Reports

Each reporting year is divided into two semiannual reporting periods. If no deviations occur during a semiannual reporting period you would submit a semiannual report stating that the affected source has been in compliance. The following semiannual reports would be required under this proposal when deviations occur:

• If you are complying by using oxidizers, report all times when a 3-hour average temperature was below the average temperature established during the most recent performance test when compliance was demonstrated.
• If you are complying with the HAP percent reduction limitation by using solvent recovery systems and you choose to show compliance by means of a liquid-liquid mass balance, report information on all months when the material balances did not meet the standard.
• If you are complying by using oxidizers or solvent recovery systems where liquid-liquid material balances are not conducted, report all days when, for any 3-hour period, the average value of the site-specific operating parameter used to monitor the capture system performance was greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established for the capture system.
• If you are complying by using low-HAP materials, report each deviation from the emission limit.
• If you are complying by using a combination of capture and control systems and low-HAP materials, report information on control device parameter deviations as described above. In addition, you would be required to submit semiannual reports of deviations of monthly calculated HAP emission limitations.

You would also have to send us reports for each semiannual reporting period in which the following occur:

• A change occurs at your facility or within your process that might affect its compliance status.
• A change occurs at your facility or within your process that you must normally report in the initial notice.
• You decide to change to another emission limitation option.

F. Other Reports

You are required to submit other reports, including those you must do for periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction. For example, if you use a capture and control system to reduce HAP emissions, you must develop a start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan. You would have to make the plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. It would stay in your records for the life of the affected source or until the source is no longer subject to the standard. If the procedures you follow during any start-up, shutdown, or malfunction are inconsistent with your plan, you must report those procedures with your semiannual reports.

VII. What Are the Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of This Proposed Rule?

As explained below, we do not expect any significant adverse environmental or energy impacts resulting from the proposed rule. Any negative economic impacts are also expected to be small. Actual compliance costs will depend on each source's existing equipment and the modifications made to comply with the standard. We have estimated that the installation of permanent total enclosures and the installation of, or improvement to, thermal oxidizers at existing facilities could require nationwide capital costs of approximately $11.6 million and annual operating costs of about $6.2 million. Costs could be much lower if facilities choose to use low-HAP coatings.

A. Emission Reductions

For existing sources in the metal coil coating industry, the nationwide baseline HAP emissions are estimated to be 2,258 Mg/yr (2,484 tpy). We estimate that implementation of the final rule would reduce emissions from these sources by 1,241 Mg/yr (1,366 tpy), or approximately 55 percent.

Since the emission limits for new and existing sources are the same, emission reductions for new sources are expected to be similar to the 55 percent emission reduction estimated for existing sources.

B. Secondary Environmental Impacts

Secondary environmental impacts are considered to be any air, water, or solid waste impacts, positive or negative, associated with the implementation of the final standards. These impacts are exclusive of the direct organic HAP air emission reductions discussed in the previous section.

Most of the organic HAPs are VOC. Capture and control of HAP that are presently emitted will result in a decrease in VOC emissions. In addition, the proposed emission control systems used to reduce HAP emissions will reduce non-HAP VOC emissions as well. We do not have information on non-HAP VOC emissions from metal coil coating operations; consequently, we cannot quantify the reduction of VOC emissions. However, the percent reduction should be similar to the percent reduction in HAP emissions (i.e., about 55 percent). Emissions of VOC have been associated with a variety of health and welfare impacts. The VOC emissions, together with nitrogen oxides, are precursors to the formation of ground level ozone, or smog. Exposure to ambient ozone is responsible for a series of public health impacts, such as alterations in lung capacity and aggravation of existing respiratory disease. Ozone exposure can also damage forests and crops.

The use of newly installed or upgraded control devices will result in greater electricity consumption. Increases in emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as well as certain HAP, from electric utilities could result. In the metal coil coating industry, some plants will comply by installing or upgrading oxidizers. Supplemental fuel, typically natural gas, will be used, particularly for thermal oxidizers. Combustion of this fuel will result in additional carbon dioxide emissions and may result in additional emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide.

A small number of facilities using waterborne coatings may install condenser systems to comply with the proposed standard. This will result in the generation of wastewater streams that may require treatment to remove the HAP. It also is expected that some metal coil coating facilities will comply with the proposed standard by substituting non-HAP materials for HAP presently in use. In some cases, the non-HAP materials may be VOC, however, in other cases, non-VOC (e.g., water) materials may be used. Facilities converting to waterborne materials as a means or partial means of compliance may have reduced Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste disposal if the status of the waste material changes from hazardous to nonhazardous. An increase in wastewater discharge may occur if waste material and waterborne wash-up materials are discharged to publicly owned treatment works. There is no assurance that facilities converting to low-HAP formulations will adopt waterborne rather than non-HAP VOC-based materials.

New and upgraded catalytic oxidizers will require catalysts. Catalyst life is estimated to be more than 10 years. Spent catalysts will represent a small amount of solid waste, and sometimes the spent catalyst will be regenerated by the manufacturer for reuse. Activated carbon used in solvent recovery systems is returned to the manufacturer at the end of its useful life and converted to other salable products. Little solid waste impact is expected from this source.

C. Energy Impacts

The operation of new and upgraded control devices will require additional energy. Capture of previously uncontrolled solvent-laden air will require fan horsepower. Operation of oxidizers, particularly thermal oxidizers, may require supplemental fuel (typically natural gas).

The total additional electrical energy required to meet the standard is estimated to be 14.6 million kilowatt-hours per year. Nationwide incremental natural gas usage is expected to increase by 110.6 million standard cubic feet per year.

D. Cost Impacts

The total nationwide capital and annualized costs (1997 dollars) attributable to compliance with the proposed standards have been estimated for existing sources. These costs are based on model plant analysis of the least-cost measure needed for facilities to attain one of the compliance options. For existing facilities, with the exception of facilities applying waterborne coatings that do not meet the emission rate limit, the compliance costs represent the incremental costs associated with upgrading existing HAP emission controls.

Compliance Costs for New Sources. Since the proposed HAP emission limits for existing and new sources are the same, the incremental costs required to upgrade existing HAP emission controls are an indication of the incremental costs that will be incurred by new sources to install and operate the level of HAP emission controls required to achieve the proposed emission limits. For example, for a small coating line with one application station enclosed by a permanent total enclosure and a thermal oxidizer to control HAP emissions, the incremental capital costs are estimated to be about $213,000, and the annual costs including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs approximately $78,000. Similarly, for a large coating line with two application stations enclosed by permanent total enclosures and two thermal oxidizers, the incremental capital costs are estimated to be about $406,000, and the annual costs around $182,000, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs. A coating line applying waterborne coatings is estimated to incur capital costs of around $780,000 and annual costs of approximately $277,000, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting to install and operate a condenser system to control HAP emissions.

The incremental costs incurred for coating lines controlled by thermal incinerators include retrofit factors, and, thus for new sources, the incremental costs are probably overstated. Nonetheless, the estimated costs should not deter the construction of new metal coil coating lines or the entry of new companies into the industry.

Capital Costs for Existing Sources. Capital costs would be incurred by installing capture and control systems at those facilities presently without controls and upgrading capture and control systems at existing facilities that do not meet the proposed standard. Additionally, the purchase of monitoring equipment may be needed as a capital investment to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the proposed rule. Total nationwide capital costs are estimated at $11.6 million, based on the use of permanent total enclosures, thermal oxidizers, solvent recovery systems, and monitoring equipment. The total nationwide capital costs with other methods of control are expected to be lower.

Annual Costs at Existing Sources. Total nationwide annual costs of the proposed standard have been estimated at approximately $6.0 million per year with the use of permanent total enclosures and new or upgraded thermal oxidizers or solvent recovery systems. These costs include capital recovery over a 15-year period, operating costs for the newly installed and upgraded capture and control systems, and costs for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. These are net costs after taking into account the costs presently being incurred for the baseline control level. The total nationwide annual costs with methods of control other than thermal oxidizers are expected to be lower.

E. Economic Impacts

The Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) (included in the BID, EPA 453/P-00-001) shows that the expected price increase for coated metal coils would be approximately 0.2 percent as a result of the proposed standards. Therefore, no adverse impact is expected to occur for those industries that consume coated metal coils such as building and construction, appliances, automotive parts, and other consumer products.

The distribution of costs across metal coil coating facilities is slanted toward the lower impact levels with many facilities incurring no costs or only those related to initial performance testing and annually recurring monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The EIA indicates that these regulatory costs are expected to represent less than 1 percent of the value of coating services, which should not cause producers to cease or alter their current operations. Hence, no firms or facilities are at risk of closure because of the proposed standards. For more information, consult the docket for this project.

VIII. What Is the Basis for Selecting the Level of the Proposed Standards?

A. Source of Authority for Standards Development

Section 112(c) of the CAA directs us to develop a list of all categories of major sources and appropriate area sources that emit one or more of the 188 HAP listed under section 112(b). Metal coil coating is a listed source category because of its HAP emissions that include, but are not limited to, toluene, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, xylenes, phenol, methylene chloride, ethylene glycol and glycol ethers, hexane, methyl isobutyl ketone, cresols and cresylic acid, dimethylformamide, vinyl acetate, formaldehyde, and ethyl benzene.

B. What Is the Basis for Defining the Affected Source?

In defining the affected source for the proposed metal coil coating NESHAP, we considered available information on HAP emissions, control configurations, industry practices, and products produced.

A metal coil coating operation is the application system used to apply an organic coating to the surface of any continuous metal strip at least 0.006 inch thick or more that is packaged in a roll or coil. It includes the affected source and associated operations that support the coating process.

In general, metal coil-coating facilities are covered by the SIC codes listed in the Regulated Entities table. However, facilities classified under other SIC codes may be subject to the proposed standards if the facility meets the definition of a major source and conducts metal coil coating.

Although the coil coated metal is used in an extensive list of products, the coating processes used by the different segments of the coil coating industry are very similar. Typically, the coil (or roll) of bare sheet metal strip is unwound, cleaned and treated in a wet section, air-dried, and coated on one or both sides. A prime coat is applied, cured in an oven and quenched (i.e., cooled by an air or water spray), followed by application of a top or finish coat. Curing and quenching are repeated, and the finished strip is cut or rewound and packaged for shipment or additional processing. The coating line may include one coating station or multiple coating stations. A variety of coatings may be applied. These may be decorative or protective, adhesives, or printed patterns.

The primary HAP emission source in metal coil coating is the solvent used in the coatings. The solvent basically acts as a vehicle for the material that is used to coat the coil; this solvent is usually evaporated in curing ovens, with HAP emissions occurring from both application and curing of the coating. Most, if not all, of the solvent emitted can be collected if capture equipment is installed to collect solvent vapors. Solvents are also contained in cleaning solutions that are used to clean residual coating material from the coating equipment. If a facility mixes coatings on site, this process can also be a source of HAP solvent emissions.

In the various segments of the metal coil coating industry, the same primary HAP emission sources can be found. On average, coating application and curing oven HAP emissions represent about 90 percent of the total HAP emissions from metal coil surface coating operations.

We have identified one facility that coats metal coil by electrodeposition. This method of coating application is different than the roll coating method used by most coil coaters. The company which operates this facility has expressed concern about the appropriateness of having the electrodeposition coil coating line subject to the same emission limits as other coil coaters. We have not determined that electrodeposition coating of metal coil warrants a different emission limit. Therefore, in this proposed rule, the electrodeposition coating of metal coil is subject to the same emission limits as all other coil coating. We welcome specific comments on the appropriateness of the proposed emission limits to electrodeposition coating of metal coil.

The affected source is broadly defined as the collection of all coil coating lines at a facility. This definition allows for flexibility with compliance demonstrations, i.e., averaging emissions from all coil coating lines rather than demonstrating compliance for each individual line. The proposed rule limits would apply to only the coating application and curing sections of the affected source.

C. What Is the MACT Floor That Is the Basis for the Proposed Standards?

Quantitative data on HAP use and emission control were obtained from a total of over 90 metal coil coating facilities. Qualitative data providing descriptions of metal coil coating processes, HAP control technologies, and process and control technology concerns also were obtained from site visits and industry trade groups, such as the National Coil Coaters Association. These data verified that the metal coil coating processes and HAP emission sources are similar across all industry segments, and that HAP control technologies also are the same.

The most common approach is capture/control of emissions. At many facilities, coating application stations are enclosed in rooms, and the ventilation air is directed to the control device. This type of capture system can achieve 100 percent capture of emissions when designed to meet the criteria specified in EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M. This capture system is called a permanent total enclosure (PTE). Of the surveyed facilities, 45 reported the use of PTE. Oven emissions typically are controlled by a thermal or catalytic incinerator (also known as an oxidizer). Of the surveyed facilities, 72 facilities reported they operate incinerators. Of 105 controlled lines, 79 were controlled with thermal incinerators, and 24 with catalytic oxidizers. Two lines had condenser/scrubber systems. All of the top 12 percent of existing facilities use thermal oxidizers, and eight of the facilities report achieving 100 percent capture of application station emissions through the use of permanent total enclosures. This is, therefore, the control technology that reflects the MACT floor for existing sources.

Reported values show that control systems may be capable of achieving greater than 99 percent HAP destruction, based on 100 percent capture and greater than 99 percent destruction efficiencies. The average reported overall control efficiency (OCE) of the MACT floor facilities is 99.4 percent. However, to determine the level of emission control achievable with this technology, it is important to consider not only the level of control reported, but also the control levels that EPA has generally found to be achievable for this type of control technology. This approach ensures that factors that affect control levels, such as variations in source operating conditions and inlet loadings to the control device, are accommodated in the selection of the MACT floor.

A study conducted by EPA indicated that a 98 percent reduction is the control efficiency achievable by all new oxidizers. Information from vendor guarantees supports the determination of a destruction efficiency of 98 percent for thermal incinerators. Therefore, a 98 percent facilitywide coating line OCE, based on 100 percent capture efficiency of PTE and 98 percent destruction efficiency of thermal oxidizers, was determined to be the MACT floor for existing sources.

A 98 percent facilitywide coating line OCE also was determined to be the MACT floor for new sources. No technology was identified that could achieve a better OCE, that would be applicable for all segments of the industry, than the use of PTE to capture emissions from coating application stations, and a thermal incinerator to destroy emissions from application stations and curing ovens.

Data from the surveyed facilities were used to calculate an alternative facility emission rate limit. This rate was calculated by applying the 98 percent OCE to a pre-controlled facility HAP emission rate representative for this industry. This calculation process, described in the BID (EPA 453/P-00-01), resulted in a facility HAP emission rate of 0.029 kg/l (0.24 lb/gal) of solids applied.

IX. What Is the Basis for Selecting the Format of the Proposed Standards?

Where control devices are or can be used, the proposed format for the emission standards is an overall percent reduction of emissions, taking into account both capture and control device efficiencies.

To encourage the use of low and non-HAP materials, alternative standards based on HAP content are also proposed that will achieve HAP reductions comparable to the overall percent reduction limit. Sources applying materials containing 0.029 kg organic HAP or less per l of solids applied on coating lines will not be required to operate a control device to comply with the standard because we believe that this HAP level is equivalent to an overall HAP control efficiency of 98 percent. Facilities may use a combination of capture and control systems and reduced HAP content in coatings to meet the 0.029 kg per kg of solids (0.24 lb/gal) applied emission limit.

X. Why Did We Select the Proposed Monitoring Requirements?

According to paragraph (a)(3) of section 114 of the CAA, monitoring of stationary sources is required to determine the compliance status of the sources, and whether compliance is continuous or intermittent. For affected sources complying with the proposed standards with capture and control systems, initial compliance is determined through the initial compliance test, and ongoing compliance through continuous monitoring. We are proposing the parameters to be monitored for certain types of control devices now used in the industry. The values of these parameters that correspond to compliance with the proposed standards are set by the owner or operator during the initial compliance test. These values are your operating limits. If future monitoring shows that control equipment is operating outside operating limits, then you are deviating from the operating limits, except as specified for malfunctions.

We believe that the selected monitoring parameters will adequately establish that the facility is limiting HAP emissions to the same level as the proposed MACT standards. The rationale for selecting the control device parameters for thermal and catalytic oxidizers in this proposed rule is long standing. The same monitoring parameters have also been required for previous standards. For more information, see the proposal notice for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry reactor processes NSPS (55 FR 26966, June 29, 1990).

XI. Why Did We Select the Proposed Test Methods?

The proposed rule requires emissions tests for cases in which a source uses an add-on control device to reduce emissions. For the case in which no add-on control device is used, the proposed rule would require determination of the HAP content of each material applied. The test methods we propose to require are existing EPA methods that are familiar to the industry, readily available, and appropriate to the device or the parameter being measured. The tests selected are expected to adequately establish whether the facility is complying with the standard.

XII. Why Did We Select the Proposed Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements?

The proposed rule requires you to comply with notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, generally as described in the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) (see table 1 of subpart SSSS) and specifically as designed to support demonstration of compliance with this proposed rule. We believe that these requirements are necessary and sufficient to ensure that you comply with the requirements in proposed subpart SSSS.

XIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule, the EPA did consult with State and local officials to enable them to provide timely input in the development of this proposed rule.

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”

Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments own or operate metal coil coating operations. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposed rule.

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

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks and because it is not “economically significant.”

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on State, local, or tribal governments, i.e., they own or operate no sources subject to this proposed rule and, therefore, are not required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of this proposed rule. Regarding the private sector, EPA believes the proposed rule will affect approximately 90 existing facilities nationwide. The EPA projects that annual economic effects will be $6.2 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Nevertheless, in developing this proposed rule, EPA consulted with States to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of this proposed rule.

In addition, the EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

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

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards by 4-digit SIC code of the owning entity (in this case, ranging from 100-1,000 employees); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

In accordance with the RFA and SBREFA, EPA conducted an assessment of the proposed standard on small businesses within the metal coil coating industry. Based on SBA size definitions and reported sales and employment data, EPA identified 19 of the 49 companies owning metal coil coating facilities as small businesses. Although small businesses represent almost 39 percent of the companies within the source category, they are expected to incur only 8.5 percent of the total industry compliance costs of approximately $6.0 million. Under the proposed standards, the average annual compliance cost share of sales for small businesses is less than 0.2 percent with 7 of the 19 small businesses not expected to incur any additional costs because they are permitted as synthetic minor HAP emission sources. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to limit the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. For example, the requirements of the proposed rule only apply to major sources as defined in 40 CFR part 63 and a title V or part 70 permit application can be used in lieu of an initial notification under certain conditions. Also, during the background information development phase of the rulemaking, numerous stakeholder meetings were held at which input was solicited from small entities. 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.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1957.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.

The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

The public burden of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for this collection is estimated to average 281 hours per year per coil coating facility for each year after the date of promulgation of the rule including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs also include the startup costs associated with initial performance tests and associated notifications and reports required to demonstrate initial compliance; emission rate limit monthly compliance determinations; semiannual reports when someone does not follow a plan for start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions; quarterly and semiannual reports on excess emissions; maintenance inspections; notices; and recordkeeping. The total annualized costs associated with monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting have been estimated at $784,179, which include the estimated annualized capital costs of $232,076.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503 marked “Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.” Include the ICR number in any correspondence.

Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after July 18, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 17, 2000. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by one or more VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when EPA does not use available and applicable VCS.

Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS for use in emissions monitoring. The search for emissions monitoring procedures identified 20 VCS that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA standard reference methods. However, after reviewing the available standards, EPA determined that ten of the candidate consensus standards (ASTM D3154-91, ASTM D3271-87, ASTM D3464-96, ASTM D3796-90, ASTM D3960-98, ASTM D6053-96, ASTM E337-84, ISO 9096: 1992, PTC 19-10-1981, and EN 1093-4:1996) identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the proposed rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, and validation data (Docket A-97-47). Seven of the remaining candidate consensus standards (BSR/ASME MFC 13m, ASTM Z6871Z, ISO/DIS 14164, ISO PWI 17895, ISO/DIS 11890-1, ISO/DIS 11890-2, and PREN 12619) are under development. The EPA plans to follow, review, and consider adopting these standards after their development is completed.

The ASTM 2369-95 is practical for EPA use as an acceptable alternative in measuring the volatile matter content of surface coatings. This VCS uses the same techniques, equipment, and procedures as Method 24. The EPA will incorporated by reference (IBR) ASTM D2369-95 into 40 CFR 63.14 in the near future.

The ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 98) and ASTM D6093-97 are acceptable procedures for use in determining the volume fraction of solids for a variety of coatings. The EPA will IBR ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 98) and ASTM D6093-97 into 40 CFR 63.14 in the near future.

Six consensus standards: ASTM D1475-90, ASTM D2369-95, ASTM D3792-91, ASTM D4017-96a, ASTM D4457-85 (Reapproved 91), and ASTM D5403-93 are already IBR in EPA Method 24; and five consensus standards: ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS 9-94 are IBR in EPA Method 311.

The EPA takes comment on proposed compliance demonstration requirements proposed in this rule and specifically invites the public to identify potentially-applicable VCS. Commentors should also explain why this proposed rule should adopt these VCS in lieu of EPA's standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).

Section 63.5160 of the proposed standards lists EPA testing methods and performance standards included in the proposed rule. Most of the standards have been used by States and industry for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, § 63.5160 allows any State or source to apply to EPA for permission to use alternative methods in place of any of the EPA testing methods or performance standards listed in § 63.5160.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

• Environmental protection
• Administrative practice and procedure
• Air pollution control
• Hazardous substances
• Intergovernmental relations
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

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

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart SSSS to read as follows:

Subpart SSSS—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Metal Coil Coating

What This Subpart Covers