Home/Federal/Federal Register/2021-24203

Proposed Rule2021-24203

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources Technology Review

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

November 19, 2021

Effective

January 3, 2022

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the results of the technology review conducted in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources and proposing amendments to the NESHAP. The EPA is proposing no changes to the standards as a result of the technology review. The EPA is proposing to amend provisions regarding electronic reporting; make miscellaneous clarifying and technical corrections; simplify the petition for exemption process; and clarify requirements addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 221 (Friday, November 19, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 221 (Friday, November 19, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66130-66145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24203]

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 221 / Friday, November 19, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 66130]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0016; FRL-8339-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV34

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources
Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
the results of the technology review conducted in accordance with the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations at Area Sources and proposing amendments to the
NESHAP. The EPA is proposing no changes to the standards as a result of
the technology review. The EPA is proposing to amend provisions
regarding electronic reporting; make miscellaneous clarifying and
technical corrections; simplify the petition for exemption process; and
clarify requirements addressing emissions during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 3, 2022. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before December 20, 2021.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before November 24, 2021, we will hold a virtual public hearing.
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and
registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0016 for 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart
HHHHHH, Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at
Area Sources, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2d39fd3dcd69fc09fd6ddd1d9d7c6f2d7c2d39cd5ddc4">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0016 in the subject line of the message.
<bullet> Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0016.
<bullet> Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0016, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
<bullet> Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the applicable
Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted
without change to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance of caution
for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and
Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only to reduce the
risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff also continues
to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. Hand
deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only.
For further information on EPA Docket Center services and the current
status, please visit us online at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action contact Mr. John Feather, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3052; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#10767571647875623e7a7f787e507560713e777f66">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Participation in virtual public hearing.
Please note that because of current Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) recommendations, as well as state and local orders for
social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, the EPA cannot hold
in-person public meetings at this time.
To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b787b7b6f5b5e49474248434e4a5942454c6b4e5b4a054c445d">[email&#160;protected]</a>. If
requested, the virtual hearing will be held on December 6, 2021. The
hearing will convene at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude
at 9:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the last
pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional
speakers. The EPA will announce further details at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paint-stripping-and-miscellaneous-surface-coating-operations">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paint-stripping-and-miscellaneous-surface-coating-operations</a>.
If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing upon publication of this document
in the Federal Register. To register to speak at the virtual hearing,
please use the online registration form available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paint-stripping-and-miscellaneous-surface-coating-operations">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paint-stripping-and-miscellaneous-surface-coating-operations</a> or contact the public hearing
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ca999a9a8ebabfa8a6a3a9a2afabb8a3a4ad8aafbaabe4ada5bc">[email&#160;protected]</a>. The
last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be December 1,
2021. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that
will list pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paint-stripping-and-miscellaneous-surface-coating-operations">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paint-stripping-and-miscellaneous-surface-coating-operations</a>.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral
testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#25434044514d40570b4f4a4d4b654055440b424a53">[email&#160;protected]</a>. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of
your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.

[[Page 66131]]

Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will
be posted online at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paint-stripping-and-miscellaneous-surface-coating-operations">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paint-stripping-and-miscellaneous-surface-coating-operations</a>.
While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above,
please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at (888)
372-8699 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1b2b1b1a59194838d888289848093888f86a1849180cf868e97">[email&#160;protected]</a> to determine if there
are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in the
Federal Register announcing updates.
If you require the services of a translator or special
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by
November 26, 2021. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations
without advanced notice.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking:
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0016. All documents in the docket are
listed in <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket
materials are available electronically in <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0016. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit electronically any information that you consider
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. This type of information should be submitted by mail as
discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
The <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, 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, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket
Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only. Our
Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries or couriers will be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the CDC, local area health departments, and our Federal partners
so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS
Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0016. Note that written
comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and no
hand deliveries will be accepted.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document
wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to
the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While
this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble
and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and
acronyms here:

ACA American Coatings Association
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HVLP high volume, low pressure
kg kilogram
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MeCL methylene chloride
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PDF portable document format
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PTE permanent total enclosure

[[Page 66132]]

RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC volatile organic compounds

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What are the source categories and how does the current
NESHAP regulate their HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
E. How does the EPA perform the technology review?
III. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?
B. What other actions are we proposing, and what is the
rationale for those actions?
C. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the
rationale for the proposed compliance dates?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. Request for Comments
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
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 Risks 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 (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal.
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely
to affect. The proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH,
once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources.
These three area source categories, Paint Stripping, Miscellaneous
Surface Coating, and Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Surface
Coating, were listed as part of the Urban Air Toxics Strategy and
include methylene chloride (MeCl)-containing paint stripping operations
and certain surface coating operations located at area sources. The
NESHAP's title of Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources refers to a single set of emission standards
that addresses all three source categories. Paint stripping is often
used as preparation for surface coating operations, so was included
along with the other two source categories in this NESHAP but is
treated separately within this NESHAP due to differences in practices
and standards. The Miscellaneous Surface Coating and Motor Vehicle and
Mobile Equipment Surface Coating source categories are subject to
similar standards for the same HAP, so they are grouped together as
``surface coating'' operations for most purposes within this action.
However, as explained in this section and section II.B of this
preamble, there are some differences in applicability and standards
between the two source categories. 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) or more of any single HAP or
25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. Paint stripping operations
are those that perform paint stripping using MeCl for the removal of
dried paint (including, but not limited to, paint, enamel, varnish,
shellac, and lacquer) from wood, metal, plastic, and other substrates
at area sources as either (1) an independent activity where paint
stripping is the principal activity at the source or (2) an activity
incidental to the principal activity (e.g., surface coating,
inspection, maintenance, etc.) at the source. Co-located paint
stripping activities that use one ton or less per year are considered
to be incidental to the principal activity and those using more than
one ton to be performing paint stripping as a principal activity. Motor
vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating operations are those that
spray apply coatings at area sources to automobiles, light trucks,
heavy duty trucks, buses, construction equipment, self-propelled
vehicles and equipment that may be drawn and/or driven on a roadway.
Miscellaneous surface coating operations are those that involve the
spray application of coatings that contain compounds of chromium, lead,
manganese, nickel, or cadmium, herein after referred to as target HAP,
to miscellaneous parts and/or products made of metal or plastic, or
combinations of metal and plastic. In general, the facilities and
entities potentially affected by the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part
63, subpart HHHHHH 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 amendments if they meet the applicability criteria.

Table 1--NESHAP, Industrial and Government Sources Affected by This Proposed Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP source category NAICS code Regulated entities \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace Equipment....................... 336413 Aircraft engines, aircraft parts,
336414 aerospace ground equipment.
336415
54171

[[Page 66133]]

Automobiles and Automobile Parts.......... 335312 Engine parts, vehicle parts and
336111 accessories, brakes, axles, etc.
336211 Motor vehicle body manufacturing and
336310 automobile assembly plants. New and
used car dealers. Automotive body,
paint, and interior repair and
maintenance.
33632
33633
33634
33637
336390
441110
441120
811121
Chemical Manufacturing and Product 325110 Petrochemicals, Industrial Gases,
Preparation. 325120 Inorganic Dyes and Pigments, Basic
325130 Inorganic and Organic Chemicals,
325180 Cyclic Crude and Intermediates, Ethyl
Alcohol, Miscellaneous Chemical
Production and Preparation.
325192
325193
325199
325998
Extruded Aluminum......................... 331318 Extruded aluminum, architectural
331524 components, coils, rod, and tubes.
332321
332323
Government................................ Not Applicable 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 machinery.
333611
333618
Job Shops................................. 332312 Manufacturing industries not elsewhere
332722 classified (e.g., bezels, consoles,
panels, lenses).
332813
332991
332999
334118
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
containers.
81131
322219
331513
332439
Metal Pipe and Foundry.................... 331110 Plate, tube, rods, nails, etc.
331513
33121
331221
331511
Rail Transportation....................... 33651 Brakes, engines, freight cars,
locomotives.
482111
Recreational Vehicles and Other 321991 Mobile Homes. Motorcycles, motor
Transportation Equipment. 3369 homes, semi-trailers, truck trailers.
331318 Miscellaneous transportation related
equipment and parts. Travel trailer
and camper manufacturing.
336991
336211
336112
336212
336213
336214
336390
336999
33635
56121
8111
56211
Rubber-to-Metal Products.................. 326291 Engine mounts, rubberized tank tread,
326299 harmonic balancers.

[[Page 66134]]

Structural Steel.......................... 332311 Joists, railway bridge sections,
332312 highway bridge sections.
562211
Waste Treatment, Disposal, and Materials 562212 Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Recovery. 562213 Disposal, Solid Waste Landfill, Solid
562219 Waste Combustors and Incinerators,
562920 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment
and Disposal, Materials Recovery.
Other Industrial and Commercial........... 211130 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction.
311942 Spices and Extracts.
331313 Alumina Refining.
337214 Office furniture, except wood.
811420 Reupholstery and Furniture Repair.
325211 Plastics Material Synthetic Resins,
and Nonvulcanizable Elastomers.
325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing.
32614, 32615 Plastic foam products (e.g., 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).
333316 Office machines.
33422 Radio and television broadcasting and
communications equipment (e.g.,
cellular telephones).
339112, 339113, 339114, Medical equipment and supplies.
339115, 339116
33992 Sporting and athletic goods.
33995 Signs and advertising specialties.
336611, 336612 Boat and ship building.
713930 Marinas, including boat repair yards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Regulated entities means area source facilities that use MeCl to strip paint or apply surface coatings to
these parts or products.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

In addition to being available in the docket for this action, an
electronic copy of this proposed action is available on the internet.
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy
of this proposed action at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paint-stripping-and-miscellaneous-surface-coating-operations">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paint-stripping-and-miscellaneous-surface-coating-operations</a>.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at
this same website.
The proposed changes to the CFR that would be necessary to
incorporate the changes proposed in this action are set out in an
attachment to the memorandum titled Proposed Regulation Edits for 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH, available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0016). The document includes the
specific proposed amendatory language for revising the CFR and, for the
convenience of interested parties, a redline version of the regulation.
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will also post a
copy of this memorandum and the attachments to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paint-stripping-and-miscellaneous-surface-coating-operations">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paint-stripping-and-miscellaneous-surface-coating-operations</a>.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section
112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA
section 112(d) and revise them ``as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no
less often than every 8 years following promulgation of those
standards. This is referred to as a ``technology review'' and is
required for all standards established under CAA section 112(d)
including generally available control technology (GACT) standards that
apply to area sources.\1\ This action constitutes the 112(d)(6)
technology review for the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations at Area Sources area source NESHAP.
Several additional CAA sections are relevant to this action as they
specifically address regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions
from area sources. Collectively, CAA sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), and
(k)(3) are the basis of the Area Source Program under the Urban Air
Toxics Strategy, which provides the framework for regulation of area
sources under CAA section 112.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to identify at
least 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban
areas with a primary goal of achieving a 75-percent reduction in cancer
incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources. As
discussed in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38706,
38715, July 19, 1999), the EPA identified 30 HAP emitted from area
sources that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas,
and these HAP are commonly referred to as the ``30 urban HAP.''
Section 112(c)(3), in turn, requires the EPA to list sufficient
categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are
subject to regulation. The EPA implemented these requirements through
the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy by identifying and setting
standards for categories of area sources including the Paint Stripping
and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources source
categories that are addressed in this action.
CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that for area source categories, in
lieu of

[[Page 66135]]

setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards (which
are generally required for major source categories), the EPA may elect
to promulgate standards or requirements for area sources ``which
provide for the use of generally available control technology or
management practices [GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of
hazardous air pollutants.'' In developing such standards, the EPA
evaluates the control technologies and management practices that reduce
HAP emissions that are generally available for each area source
category. Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider
costs and economic impacts in determining what constitutes GACT.
GACT standards were set for the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous
Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources source categories in 2008.
As noted above, this proposed action presents the required CAA
112(d)(6) technology review for those source categories.

B. What are the source categories and how does the current NESHAP
regulate their HAP emissions?

1. Source Category Descriptions
The NESHAP for the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations at Area Sources source categories was promulgated on
January 9, 2008 (73 FR 1738), and is codified at 40 CFR 63, subpart
HHHHHH. Technical corrections were promulgated on February 13, 2008 (73
FR 8408).
The sources that are affected by 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH,
and would be affected by the proposed amendments 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 motor vehicle or mobile equipment
refinishing.
The affected source is broadly defined to include all operations
associated with the removal of dried paint from a substrate using MeCl
or the spray application of coatings. These paint stripping 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. These surface
coating operations include the 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.
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 and mobile equipment refinishing.
The NESHAP defines a ``coating'' as ``a material spray-applied to a
substrate for decorative, protective, or functional purposes. For the
purposes of this subpart, coating does not include the following
materials: (1) Decorative, protective, or functional materials that
consist only of protective oils for metal, acids, bases, or any
combination of these substances. (2) Paper film or plastic film that
may be pre-coated with an adhesive by the film manufacturer. (3)
Adhesives, sealants, maskants, or caulking materials. (4) Temporary
protective coatings, lubricants, or surface preparation materials. (5)
In-mold coatings that are spray-applied in the manufacture of
reinforced plastic composite parts.'' (40 CFR 63.11180).
The NESHAP does not apply to paint stripping or surface coating
operations that are specifically covered under another area source
NESHAP, and does not apply to paint stripping or surface coating
operations that meet any of the following:
<bullet> 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), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or the
National Nuclear Security Administration.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> Paint stripping or surface coating performed by
individuals on their personal vehicles, possessions, or property,
either as a hobby or for maintenance of their personal vehicles,
possessions, or property. The NESHAP also does not apply when these
operations are performed by individuals for others without
compensation. An individual who spray applies surface coating to more
than two motor vehicles or pieces of mobile equipment per year is
subject to the requirements in this subpart that pertain to motor
vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating regardless of whether
compensation is received.
<bullet> Paint stripping or surface coating for research and
laboratory activities, for quality control activities, or for
activities that are covered under another area source NESHAP.
Based on our search of the National Emission Inventory (NEI)
(<a href="http://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei">www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei</a>) and the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)
database (<a href="http://echo.epa.gov">echo.epa.gov</a>), we estimate that at least 3,000 facilities are
subject to the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources NESHAP. A list of facilities subject to the
NESHAP found in the ECHO database is included in a file, titled
Facility List for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources, which is available in the docket for this
action. However, these data are not likely to be comprehensive for
these source categories because not all states submit data to ECHO for
smaller sources such as these. We also observed that some states with
large populations did not have as many facilities in the ECHO database
as expected based on population, indicating inconsistent reporting of
these facilities among states.
2. HAP Emission Sources
This section describes the emission sources for paint stripping and
miscellaneous coating operations.
Paint Stripping Operations
The HAP for which the EPA listed this source category pursuant to
CAA section 112(c)(3) 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 and storage of
MeCl-containing paint strippers.
Surface Coating Operations
The EPA listed the area source surface coating operations
categories pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) based on emissions of
cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel compounds. These target
HAP emissions from miscellaneous coating operations are the heavy
metals contained in the coatings (e.g., in corrosion-resistant primers
and as the pigments in topcoats). The target 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

[[Page 66136]]

``overspray.'' The fraction that becomes overspray depends on many
variables, but two of the most important are the type of spray
equipment being used 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 the spray gun for
the next coating job. 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, target HAP from the coating may be
emitted if the cleaning solvent is sprayed through the gun during
cleaning.
3. Current NESHAP Requirements for Control of HAP
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 more than
one ton of MeCl, per year, must 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 specify 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- or low-MeCl-containing chemical strippers; (2) mechanical
stripping; (3) abrasive blasting (including dry or wet media); or (4)
thermal and cryogenic decomposition.
The management practices 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 are required to submit the plan to
their delegated 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. They are also required to review the plan annually
and update it based on the experiences of the previous year or the
availability of new methods of stripping, and to keep a record of the
review and changes made to the plan on file. Sources must maintain
copies of the specified records for a period of at least five years
after the date of each record.
Surface Coating Operations
All motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating operations
and those miscellaneous surface coating operations that spray-apply
coatings containing the target HAP must apply the coatings with a high
volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray gun, electrostatic spray gun, airless
spray gun, air-assisted airless spray gun, or a gun demonstrated to be
equal in transfer efficiency to an HVLP spray gun. All spray-applied
coatings must be applied in a prep station or spray booth. For motor
vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating, prep stations and spray
booths that are large enough to hold a complete vehicle must have four
complete side walls or curtains and a complete roof. For motor vehicle
and mobile equipment subassemblies and for miscellaneous surface
coating, coatings must be spray applied in a booth with a full roof and
at least three walls or side curtains. Openings are allowed in the
sidewalls and roof of booths used for miscellaneous surface coating to
allow for parts conveyors, if needed. The exhaust from the prep station
or spray booth must be fitted with filters demonstrated to achieve at
least 98 percent capture efficiency of paint overspray.
Additionally, sources are required to demonstrate that (1) all
painters that spray-apply coatings are certified as having completed
operator training to improve coating transfer efficiency and minimize
overspray and (2) that no spray gun cleaning is performed by spraying
solvent through the gun creating an atomized mist (i.e., spray guns are
cleaned in an enclosed spray gun cleaner or by cleaning the
disassembled gun parts by hand). Each painter must be certified as
having completed classroom and hands-on training in the proper
selection, mixing, and application of coatings, and must complete
refresher training at least once every 5 years. The initial and
refresher training must address the following topics:
<bullet> Spray gun equipment selection, set up, and operation,
including measuring coating viscosity, selecting the proper fluid tip
or nozzle, and achieving the proper spray pattern, air pressure and
volume, and fluid delivery rate.
<bullet> Spray technique for different types of coatings to improve
transfer efficiency and minimize coating usage and overspray, including
maintaining the correct spray gun distance and angle to the part, using
proper banding and overlap, and reducing lead and lag spraying at the
beginning and end of each stroke.
<bullet> Routine spray booth and filter maintenance, including
filter selection and installation.
<bullet> Environmental compliance with the requirements of this
subpart.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?

For this technology review, we used information from the EPA's ECHO
database to identify facilities subject to the NESHAP. The ECHO
database provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for
approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. We supplemented
the ECHO database information with data provided by EPA Region 4. Using
the feature in ECHO to search by NESHAP subpart, the EPA identified
approximately 3,000 facilities as subject to this NESHAP. However,
these data are not likely to be comprehensive for these source
categories because not all states submit data to ECHO for smaller
sources such as these, and we also observed that some states with large
populations did not have as many facilities in the ECHO database as
expected based on population. The compliance history data in ECHO does
not contain detailed information on non-compliance and enforcement
actions involving the facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHHH, that could be used to identify developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies, or other rule changes that are
needed.
Also, for the technology review, we collected information from the
reasonably available control technology (RACT), best available control
technology (BACT), and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)
determinations in the EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC).\1\
This database contains case-specific information on air pollution

[[Page 66137]]

technologies that have been required to reduce the emissions of air
pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA's New Source Review
(NSR) program, an NSR permit must be obtained if a facility is planning
new construction that increases the air emissions of any regulated NSR
pollutant at or above 100 or 250 tpy (or a lower threshold depending
upon nonattainment severity) or a modification that results in a
significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase
of any regulated NSR pollutant (``significant'' emissions increase is
defined in the NSR regulations and is pollutant-specific, ranging from
less than 1 pound (lb) to 100 tpy of the applicable regulated NSR
pollutant). This central database promotes the sharing of information
among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case determinations for
NSR permits. We examined information contained in the RBLC to determine
what technologies are currently used for these surface coating and
paint stripping operations to reduce air emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information">https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional information about these data collection activities for
the technology review is contained in the memoranda titled Technology
Review for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations
at Area Sources, July 2021, available in the docket for this action.
The EPA also performed a literature search for information on
alternatives to coatings that contain the target metal HAP and
alternative processes to reduce emissions from the application of these
coatings, and for alternatives to chemical paint stripping using MeCl-
containing paint stripping materials.
The EPA also reviewed data collected as part of the National Small
Business Environmental Assistance Program (SBEAP) (<a href="https://nationalsbeap.org/">https://nationalsbeap.org/</a>). This program and the data collected are used to
assist companies in complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH.
These data include lists of coatings provided by the coating
manufacturers that are commonly used in autobody and mobile equipment
refinishing operations. The lists indicate whether each coating
contains the target HAP, and whether substitute coatings are available
that do not contain the target HAP. The EPA also contacted coatings
suppliers, through state members of the SBEAP, to collect information
on alternative coatings that do not contain the target HAP and current
best practices to minimize emissions during coating application. The
EPA also reached out to industry representatives for input regarding
developments in technology and practices that have occurred since
promulgation of the original rule.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

As part of the technology review for the Paint Stripping and
Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources NESHAP source
categories, we reviewed information available in the American Coatings
Association's (ACA) Industry Market Analysis' 9th Edition (2014-
2019).\2\ The ACA Industry Market Analysis provided information on
trends in coatings technology that can affect emissions from the source
categories. Additional details regarding our review of this information
source are contained in the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations at Area Sources Technology Review Memo, available in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Prepared for the ACA, Washington, DC, by The ChemQuest
Group, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. How does the EPA perform the technology review?

Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the GACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
<bullet> Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original GACT
standards;
<bullet> Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original GACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
<bullet> Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original GACT
standards;
<bullet> Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original GACT
standards; and
<bullet> Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original GACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of
potential practices, processes, or controls that may have not been
considered during development of the NESHAP. Among the sources we
reviewed were the NESHAP technology reviews for various industries that
were completed after the GACT standard being reviewed in this action
(e.g., NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GG), NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products (40
CFR part 63, subpart MMMM), and NESHAP for Surface Coating of Plastic
Parts and Products (40 CFR 63, subpart PPPP)). We also reviewed the
regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these
regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control
technologies considered in these efforts that could be applied to
emission sources in the Paint Stripping and Surface Coating source
categories, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy
implications associated with the use of these technologies. Finally, we
reviewed information from other sources, such as state and/or local
permitting agency databases and industry-specific market analyses and
trade journals, to research advancements in add-on controls and lower
HAP technology for coatings. For a more detailed discussion of our
methods for performing these technology reviews, refer to the Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources
Technology Review Memo, available in the docket for this action.

III. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review, and what is the rationale for those decisions?

As described in sections II.C, D, and E of this preamble, our
technology review focused on identifying developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies for the three source categories.
The EPA reviewed various information sources regarding emission sources
that are currently

[[Page 66138]]

regulated by the NESHAP to support the technology review. The
information sources included the following: The RBLC; state
regulations; facility operating permits; other NESHAP-related
regulatory actions, including technology reviews for other surface
coating NESHAPs promulgated after this NESHAP was finalized in 2008;
and industry information. The primary emission sources for the
technology review included the following: The spray applied coating
operations and paint stripping operations using MeCl containing paint
stripping materials.
Based on our review, we did not identify any add-on control
technologies, process equipment, management practices or procedures
that were not previously considered during development of the 2008
Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area
Sources NESHAP, and we did not identify any new or improved add-on
control technologies that would result in additional emission
reductions. A brief summary of the EPA's findings in conducting the
technology review of Paint Stripping and Surface Coating operations
follows. For a detailed discussion of the EPA's findings, refer to the
memorandum, Technology Review for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous
Surface Coating Source Categories, in the docket for this action.
During the development of the 2008 Paint Stripping and
Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources NESHAP,
management practices were determined for new and existing area sources
performing spray applied coating operations using coatings containing
the target HAP and for paint stripping operations using MeCl containing
materials. The development of the surface coating management practices
was based on the following:
<bullet> Numerous visits to area source surface coating operations;
<bullet> The surface coating industry's use of high efficiency
coatings spray equipment, filtered spray booths, and enclosed spray gun
cleaners; and
<bullet> The EPA's review of available operator training programs.
The paint stripping management practices were based on a detailed
study of the paint stripping industry \3\ and visits to numerous paint
stripping operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Source Reduction and Recycling of Halogenated Solvents in
Paint Stripping--Technical Support Document--A Report on Research
Performed by the Source Reduction Research Partnership for the
Metropolitan Water District and the Environmental Defense Fund.
Prepared By Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Pasadena, CA. 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paint Stripping Operations
Our search of the RBLC database for improvements in paint stripping
technologies provided results for two facilities with permit dates of
2008 or later. Facilities reported the use of VOC emission limits, and
work practices in compliance with the Aerospace NESHAP.
We also reviewed the results of the technology review for the
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GG). The Aerospace NESHAP regulates emissions from depainting
operations (40 CFR 63.746) and limits the amount of organic HAP in
chemical strippers used per aircraft, and also has provisions to limit
inorganic HAP emissions from non-chemical (e.g., abrasive blasting)
depainting operations. As part of that technology review for chemical
depainting, the EPA examined Washington State's records of permits for
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities and identified a 2013 PSD
permit amendment that requires the VOC vapor pressure of cleaning
solvents and chemical strippers used in depainting operations to be
less than 45 mm Hg. It should be noted that the Aerospace NESHAP does
not prescribe vapor pressure limits to chemical depainting strippers,
but instead has capture and control and volume usage limits for
chemical depainting operations that use HAP containing chemical
strippers. Otherwise, facilities must use non-HAP chemical strippers.
Therefore, the EPA determined that the Aerospace NESHAP was at least as
stringent as the Washington State PSD permit requirements. The
technology review for the Aerospace NESHAP did not identify any
developments in processes or control technologies to reduce organic HAP
emissions from chemical depainting operations. (80 FR 8392, February
17, 2015). The Idaho state general permit program for automobile body
shops was more restrictive, such that Idaho will not issue a general
permit to body shops that are using MeCl as a paint remover.\4\
However, the 2008 Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources NESHAP did consider numerical emission
limits but determined that they would not be feasible due to the
variability in operational parameters and variety of work being
performed. Similar to the Aerospace NESHAP, the 2008 Paint Stripping
and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources NESHAP
decided to not limit or ban the use of MeCl-based paint strippers,
determining instead to set management practices that reduced emissions
and encourage the substitution of alternative stripping technologies
where they could feasibly be employed. All of these control
technologies were in use by the paint stripping industry during
development of the NESHAP or already were considered in the development
of the NESHAP. In this review, for purposes of these area source GACT
standards, we have again determined that these measures could not
feasibly be broadly applied to the industry. Therefore, we concluded
that the results of the search did not result in any broadly applied
improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Streamlined air
permitting processes for qualifying automotive coating operations.
Revision 6; April 2017. (Accessed June 2021 <a href="https://www2.deq.idaho.gov/admin/LEIA/api/document/download/5194">https://www2.deq.idaho.gov/admin/LEIA/api/document/download/5194</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In conclusion, for the Paint Stripping source category, we did not
identify developments in practices, processes, or control technologies
broadly applied to the industry during review of the RBLC, the state
rules, and subsequent NESHAP that were not already identified and
considered during the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources NESHAP development. We are maintaining our
approach of setting widely applicable control technology and management
practice standards, while encouraging emissions reductions, such as
from product reformulations, where appropriate. The current standards
effectively reduce emissions while encouraging sources to further
reduce emissions. We identified no improvements broadly applied to the
industry or changes in costs. We do not consider the practices we found
to be developments for the purposes of this technology review, and
continue to determine that they do not warrant revisions to the current
emission standards.
Surface Coating Operations
For this technology review, we consulted state rules and operating
permits. California has an existing surface coating rule, Airborne
Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium
from Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coatings (ATCM),\5\ that
prohibits the use, possession, sale,

[[Page 66139]]

supply, or manufacture for sale in California of any motor vehicle or
mobile equipment coating that contains hexavalent chromium or
cadmium.\6\ While increased compliance costs were expected to raise the
prices of coating materials for automotive body paint shops, the
California Air Resources Board predicted that these shops would pass
the material price increase to consumers, so the impacts to auto body
shops would be negligible.\7\ In the original NESHAP, the EPA chose not
to prohibit the use of coatings that contain any of the heavy metals or
target HAP for these source categories. We determined that 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.\8\ For this technology review, we determined that vendors
representing a large market share in the sectors relevant to the
NESHAP, specifically coating manufacturers that supply automobile and
mobile equipment refinishing coatings, have modified product lines such
that non-target HAP products are more readily available. However, in
this technology review we still determined that a nationwide
prohibition would impose unreasonable burden on the industry, and that
other approaches are better suited to reduce emissions. Sources carry
out a wide variety of surface coating operations, with different
performance criteria, and target HAP-free alternatives would not be
viable substitutes for many purposes. Furthermore, as demonstrated by
wider adoption of target HAP-free products, the industry is already
reducing the usage of target-HAP containing coatings as available, and
within their operating requirements, alongside the emission reductions
already achieved by implementation of the NESHAP. In addition to the
ATCM outlined above, California's South Coast Air Quality Management
District (AQMD) adopted a rule for Spraying Operations Using Coatings
Containing Chromium (Rule 1469.1) in March 2005.\9\ This rule includes
requirements for spray transfer efficiency, spray booth operation,
housekeeping, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping, and in June
2021, South Coast AQMD proposed an amended rule. These amendments aim
to further reduce emissions of hexavalent chromium from spraying
operations as well as operations such as dried chromate coating
removal. They also minimize the accumulation of materials that may
contain chromates outside of spray booths that may lead to fugitive
emissions.\10\ However, these practices were already identified during
development of the 2008 Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations at Area Sources NESHAP, and as stated above, we do
not consider the burden imposed by these practices to be warranted for
requirements that would apply to these disparate industries and
applications. We are maintaining our approach of setting widely
applicable control technology and management practice standards, while
encouraging emissions reductions, such as from product reformulations,
where appropriate. The current standards effectively reduce emissions
while encouraging sources to further reduce emissions. Therefore, we do
not consider these practices to constitute new or improved add-on
control technologies that would result in additional emission
reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ California Air Resources Board. Automotive Refinishing.
<a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/coatings/automotive-refinishing">https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/coatings/automotive-refinishing</a>.
\6\ California Code of Regulations. Hexavalent Chromium and
Cadmium Airborne Toxic Control Measure--Motor Vehicle and Mobile
Equipment Coatings. 17 CCR Sec. 93112. (Accessed April 2021 <a href="https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I317A88D0D60811DE88AEDDE29ED1DC0A?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=">https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I317A88D0D60811DE88AEDDE29ED1DC0A?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=</a>(sc.Default
)).
\7\ California Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons
for Proposed Rulemaking: Airborne Toxic Control Measure for
Emissions of Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium from Motor Vehicle and
Mobile Equipment Coatings, p. V-1. (Accessed April 2021 <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/ISOR_auto_finish_9-01.pdf">https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/ISOR_auto_finish_9-01.pdf</a>).
\8\ US EPA. (September 2007). Proposed rule: National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and
Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources. 72 FR
52967.
\9\ South Coast Air Quality Management District. Spraying
Operations Using Coatings Containing Chromium. (Accessed June 2021
<a href="http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xiv/rule-1469-1.pdf">http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xiv/rule-1469-1.pdf</a>).
\10\ South Coast Air Quality Management District. Draft Staff
Report: Proposed Amended Rule 1469.1--Spraying Operations Using
Coatings Containing Chromium. (Accessed June 2021 <a href="http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1469.1/par1469-1_dsr_040621.pdf?sfvrsn=6">http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1469.1/par1469-1_dsr_040621.pdf?sfvrsn=6</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the authority of the Federal Minor Source Review Program (40
CFR 49.151), the EPA issued a permit by rule for new or modified true
minor source automobile body repair and miscellaneous surface coating
operations in Indian Country (40 CFR 49.162). This permit by rule
addresses VOC emissions, but does not address inorganic HAP emissions
and does not address paint stripping operations. The permit by rule
mirrors the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH, for
operator training, spray booths and spray booth filters, and high-
efficiency spray guns, but differs in that the exemption for spray guns
with a cup capacity less than 3.0 fluid ounces does not apply in
serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas; instead, in
those areas all spray-applied coating operations must be applied with
an HVLP spray gun, low volume low pressure (LVLP) spray gun, or air
brush spray operation, or with an equivalent spray technology that has
been demonstrated by the spray gun manufacturer to achieve a transfer
efficiency comparable to that of an HVLP spray gun. The EPA examined 10
state permitting examples for the permit by rule. Three of the 10 state
general permit programs for automobile body shops include the
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH, but some individual
states are more restrictive.\11\ These issues were considered during
development of the 2008 Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations at Area Sources NESHAP and do not represent new or
improved add-on control technologies that would result in additional
emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (February 2017).
Background Document: Air Quality Permit by Rule for New or Modified
True Minor Source Auto Body Repair and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations in Indian Country. (Accessed April 2021 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/autobodybackgrounddocument032315final.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/autobodybackgrounddocument032315final.pdf</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The RBLC database search for improvements in surface coating
technologies provided results for 10 facilities with permit dates of
2011 or later (the compliance date for existing sources in 40 CFR part
63, subpart HHHHHH, is January 10, 2011). Facilities reported the use
of high-efficiency application methods (e.g., robotic application,
electrostatic spray), good work practices, and regenerative thermal
oxidizers (RTO) with an established reduction and exhaust gas VOC
concentration limits (i.e., 3-hour average of 95 percent removal and 12
parts per million by volume). However, RTO are used to destroy organic
compounds and would not be effective at reducing emissions of metal
target HAP from spray applied coating operations. All of these control
technologies were in use by the surface coating industry during
development of the NESHAP and already were considered in the
development of the NESHAP. We identified no improvements or changes in
costs. Therefore, we concluded that the results of the RBLC search did
not result in any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment.

[[Page 66140]]

We also reviewed the results of the technology review for the
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GG). The Aerospace NESHAP regulates emissions of inorganic HAP
from the spray application of primers and topcoats (40 CFR 63.745) by
requiring the spray application of coatings containing inorganic HAP to
be performed in a spray booth or similar enclosure that is exhausted
through a filter. The technology review for the Aerospace NESHAP did
not identify any developments in processes or control technologies to
reduce inorganic HAP emissions from primer and topcoat operations. (80
FR 8392, February 17, 2015)
In conclusion, for the Surface Coating source categories, we did
not identify developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies during review of the RBLC, the state rules, and subsequent
NESHAP that were not already identified and considered during the Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources
NESHAP development. We identified no improvements or changes in costs.
We do not consider the practices that we found to be developments for
the purposes of this technology review, and continue to determine that
they do not warrant revisions to the current emission standards.

B. What other actions are we proposing, and what is the rationale for
those actions?

1. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of paint stripping
and surface coating facilities submit electronic copies of initial
notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and 63.11175(a), notifications
of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 63.11175(b), the
annual notification of changes report required in 40 CFR 63.11176(a),
and the report required in 40 CFR 63.11176(b) through the EPA's Central
Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI). For further information regarding the electronic
data submission process, please refer to the memorandum titled
Electronic Reporting for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, available in the docket for this action. No specific form is
necessary for the initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b) and
63.11175(a), notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR
63.9(h) and 63.11175(b), the annual notification of changes report
required in 40 CFR 63.11176(a), and the report required in 40 CFR
63.11176(b). The notifications will be required to be submitted via
CEDRI in portable document format (PDF) files.
Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or
CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system
and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.9(b),
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), the
annual notification of changes report required in 40 CFR 63.11176(a),
and the MeCl report required in 40 CFR 63.11176(b). The situation where
an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or
operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR
63.3120(g). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of
the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking has several benefits: Electronic submittal will increase the
usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with
current trends in data availability and transparency, will further
assist in the protection of public health and the environment, will
improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities
to demonstrate compliance with requirements and by facilitating the
ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies
and the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately
reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the
EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual
processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry,
eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and
providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air
agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is
consistent with the EPA's plan \12\ to implement Executive Order 13563
and is in keeping with the EPA's agency-wide policy \13\ developed in
response to the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\14\ For more
information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for this action, Docket ID No.
EPA-OAR-2021-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154">https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154</a>.
\13\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf</a>.
\14\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html">https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Rule Clarifications and Other Changes, Including Incorporation by
Reference
We are proposing plain language clarifications and revisions to
better reflect regulatory intent. We also are proposing other changes,
including updating references to equivalent test methods, making
technical and editorial revisions, incorporation by reference (IBR) of
alternative test methods, and simplifying the petition for exemption
process. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are
discussed in the sections below.
a. Coating HAP Content Definition
The EPA is proposing to clarify that the definition of coatings
that do not contain the target HAP is based on the HAP content of the
coating as applied, not on the HAP content of the coating components as
purchased from the coating supplier. However, coatings that meet the
definition of coatings that do not contain the target HAP based on the
HAP content as purchased will also meet the definition based on the HAP
content as applied.
b. Spray Gun Cup Liners
The EPA is proposing to clarify that the allowance to use spray
guns outside

[[Page 66141]]

of a spray booth is based on the volume of the spray gun paint cup
liner and not the volume of the paint cup, in those spray guns that use
a disposable cup liner.
c. Submarines and Tanks Applicability
The EPA is proposing to clarify in this preamble that the surface
coating and paint stripping of certain types of military equipment at
area sources, such as military submarines (as opposed to those used for
scientific research, for example) and military tanks is potentially
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH, unless the surface coating
or paint stripping is 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), the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, or the National Nuclear Security
Administration. Surface coating of this type of military equipment at
original equipment manufacturers or offsite at a contractor's facility
would not be covered by the provisions in 40 CFR 63.11169(d)(1), and
would be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH.
d. Circumvention of Paint Cup Capacity Intent
The EPA is proposing to clarify that the exclusion of spray guns
with paint cup capacities equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces from
the definition of spray-applied coatings operations was not intended to
constitute an exemption from the NESHAP but was a threshold by which
rule applicability for potentially regulated sources may be determined.
This was due to the type and scope of operations which were to be
regulated under the NESHAP. This clarification is consistent with, and
would ensure that the rule clearly reflects, the position provided in a
letter issued by the Office of Environmental Compliance and Assurance
(OECA) stating that the EPA may find that persons who repeatedly refill
and use a three-ounce cup, as a means of avoiding rule applicability,
are attempting to circumvent the NESHAP. The EPA accordingly reserves
the right to bring enforcement actions against any person whose action
equates to rule circumvention.
e. OSHA Carcinogenic Content
The EPA is proposing to remove references to Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as specified in 29
CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as
specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) was intended to specify the mass
percent threshold above which compounds must be counted in identifying
whether coatings are considered ``target HAP containing'' as defined in
40 CFR 63.11180. Target HAP compounds that are carcinogens must be
counted if they are present at 0.1 percent by mass or greater and all
other target HAP if they are present at 1.0 percent by mass or greater.
We are proposing to remove this reference because 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended and no longer readily defines which
compounds are carcinogens. We are proposing to replace these references
to OSHA-defined carcinogens and 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list of
those target HAP that must be counted if they are present at 0.1
percent by mass or greater. All other target HAP must be counted if
they are present at 1.0 percent or greater by mass.
f. Non-HAP Solvent Language
The EPA is proposing to remove the definition of ``non-HAP
solvent'' from 40 CFR 63.11180 because there are no requirements to use
non-HAP solvents and the definition has no other use in the rule.
g. Filter Test Method
The EPA is proposing to update the spray booth filter test method
which was previously incorporated by reference to the most recent
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) method. The rule currently cites 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. This method was retired in January 2009, and replaced by ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 52.2-2017 Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-
Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size. The EPA is
also proposing to include EPA Method 319--Determination of Filtration
Efficiency for Paint Overspray Arrestors (Appendix A to 40 CFR part
63), as an alternative to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-2017. This is the
same method referenced in the NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and
Rework (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG) to test paint spray booth filters
used to meet the requirements to limit hexavalent chromium emissions.
As discussed in section VI.I of this preamble, these methods measure
paint booth filter efficiency to measure the capture efficiency of
paint overspray arrestors with spray-applied coatings. The ANSI/ASHRAE
standard is available from the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 1791 Tullie Circle NE,
Atlanta, GA 30329. See <a href="http://www.ashrae.org">http://www.ashrae.org</a>. The EPA Method standard
is available in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63.
h. Petition for Exemption Process
The EPA is proposing a simplified petition for exemption process
for motor vehicle or mobile equipment surface coating operations that
do not spray apply any coatings that contain the target HAP. Currently
all such sources are subject to the NESHAP, unless they demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Administrator that they do not spray apply any
coatings that contain the target HAP. Due to changes in coatings
compositions across the industry, and the burden imposed without
commensurate environmental benefit, we propose to allow sources to
submit notification to the Administrator that they do not spray apply
any coatings that contain the target HAP. Such sources would still be
required to retain records that describe the coatings that are spray
applied, but that information would not need to be reported--to
determine whether that has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Administrator. The Administrator would maintain the authority to verify
records retained on site, including whether the notification of
exemption was sufficiently demonstrated. Sources may still petition for
exemption using the existing process if they wish for a formal
determination.
3. SSM Requirements
a. Elimination of the SSM Exemption
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods
of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM exemption contained in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.
We note that the EPA amended the General Provisions in March 2021
to correct the CFR to reflect the court order

[[Page 66142]]

in Sierra Club vacating the SSM exemptions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ 86 FR 13819, March 11, 2021--Court Vacatur of Exemption
From Emission Standards During Periods of SSM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards in this rule
apply at all times. We are also proposing a revision to Table 1 to
subpart HHHHHH of 40 CFR part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart HHHHHH of Part 63, hereafter referred to as the ``General
Provisions table to subpart HHHHHH''), as explained in more detail
below in section III.B.3.b of this preamble.
In proposing these rule amendments, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has
not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Startups and
shutdowns are part of normal operations for the paint stripping and
surface coating operations at area sources. Paint stripping and surface
coating operations inherently involve frequent startup and shutdown
while carrying out normal duties, and the NESHAP's emission standards
were developed to control emissions in these situations. We have no
data indicating that emissions are different during startup or shutdown
than during other normal operations, and the current emission standards
adequately control emissions during these startup and shutdown periods.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead malfunctions
are, by definition, sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable
failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40
CFR 63.2) (definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section
112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction
to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. This
reading has been upheld as reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar
Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
However, it is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a
violation of the standards or significant changes in emissions during
paint stripping and surface coating operations at area source
facilities. The NESHAP obligates facilities to follow implementation
requirements for several stages of GACT or management practices,
including application of coatings within a spray booth, using high
efficiency spray application equipment, and a variety of other
management practices. All facilities must comply with these management
practice standards to minimize target HAP emissions from paint
stripping and surface coating operations. These standards are not
susceptible to malfunctions that would affect emissions, and if such
malfunctions were to occur, the multiple layers of protection still
reduce the likelihood that any single point of failure would result in
a significant increase in emissions.
In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHHH as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
will determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The annual notification of changes report required in 40 CFR
63.11176(a) already obligates sources to report deviations from
relevant requirements in 40 CFR 63.11173. The EPA will also consider
whether the source's failure to comply with the standard was, in fact,
sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not instead
caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2
(definition of malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the Federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (D.C. Cir.
2016).
b. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHHH (Table 1) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)-(2) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i)
describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language
in that section is not necessary or appropriate in light of the absence
of an SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty
regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.11173(h) that reflects the general duty to
minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered
by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM.
Without an SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between
normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in
describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.11173(h) does not include that language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i). Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are
not necessary with the absence of an SSM exemption or are redundant
with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.11173(h). We
are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHHH (Table 1) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' We have added language to
the regulatory text at Sec. 63.11173(h) to specify that the standards
apply at all times. Although, consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA
amended 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) (and also paragraph (h)(1)) on March 11,
2021, to reflect the court order and correct the CFR to remove the SSM
exemption and is proposing to revise the description in column 2 of
table 1 to clarify that this rule applies at all times, the second
sentence of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) contains language that is premised on the
existence of an exemption and is inapposite in the absence of the
exemption. Thus, rather than cross-referencing 63.6(f)(1), we are
adding the language of 63.6(f)(1) that requires compliance with
standards at all times to the regulatory text at Sec. 63.11173(h).

C. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale
for the proposed compliance dates?

The EPA is proposing that affected sources must comply with all of
the amendments no later than 180 days after the effective date of the
final rule. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the
current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH, until the
applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not
expected to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the
effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).

[[Page 66143]]

For existing sources, we are proposing electronic reporting
requirements that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH. We are also acknowledging the change to
the requirements for SSM that removed the exemption from the
requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods. Our experience
with similar industries that are required to employ electronic
reporting shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more
typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully accomplish
these revisions. Our experience with similar industries further shows
that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period
of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; to
evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards
during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make
any necessary adjustments; and to update their operation, maintenance,
and monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements. Thus, the EPA
is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all
regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation's
effective date.
We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in these
source categories regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the
revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in
changes to the proposed compliance dates.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

Currently, we estimate 39,812 area source facilities are subject to
the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at
Area Sources NESHAP and operating in the United States. The affected
source under the NESHAP is the collection of all of the items listed in
(1) through (6) of this section. Not all affected sources will have all
of the items listed in (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.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

Estimated emissions of target HAP and MeCl from the facilities in
the Paint Stripping and Surface Coating source categories are not
expected to change in any significant way due to this review or its
associated amendments.
These proposed amendments acknowledge that all area sources in the
source categories must comply with the relevant emission standards at
all times, including periods of SSM. We were unable to quantify the
emissions that occur during periods of SSM or the specific emissions
reductions that would occur as a result of this action.
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment. The proposed amendments would have no effect on the energy
needs of the affected paint stripping and surface coating facilities
and would, therefore, have no indirect or secondary air emissions
impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

We estimate that each facility in the source categories will
experience costs of approximately $400. These costs are a combination
of the estimated reporting and recordkeeping costs (2 technical hours),
and the time to read and understand the rule amendments (2 technical
hours).\16\ Costs associated with adoption of electronic reporting were
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include
time for sources to familiarize themselves with electronic record
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ The labor costs were calculated using the applicable labor
rates from the latest version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) survey titled National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates United States located at: <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000">https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For further information on the potential costs, see the memorandum
titled Proposal Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emissions
Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and
Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources, available in
the docket for this action.

D. What are the economic impacts?

The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For
the current proposals, the EPA estimated the cost of becoming familiar
with the rule, re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems,
and transitioning to electronic reporting. To assess the maximum
potential impact, the largest cost expected to be experienced in any
one year is compared to the total sales for the ultimate owner of the
affected facilities to estimate the total burden for each facility.
For the proposed revisions to the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous
Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources NESHAP, the total cost is
estimated to be approximately $400 per facility in the first year of
the rule. These costs are not expected to result in a significant
market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the
purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to
determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Of the
facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources
NESHAP, we estimate that the vast majority are small entities. However,
the annualized costs associated with the proposed requirement is from
0.0 to 0.2 percent of annual sales revenue for the ultimate owner of
those facilities, well below the 1 percent threshold. Therefore, there
are no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small
entities from these proposed amendments.

E. What are the benefits?

As stated above in section IV.B. of this preamble, we were unable
to quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with
eliminating the SSM exemption.
Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, we did not monetize
the benefits of reducing these emissions. This does not mean that there
are no benefits associated with the potential reduction in target HAP
and MeCl from this rule.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations
of

[[Page 66144]]

concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from
environmental harms; specifically, minority populations, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 was signed to advance racial equity
and support underserved communities through Federal government actions
(86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA defines environmental justice
(EJ) as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to
the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. The EPA further defines the term fair
treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies'' (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice">https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice</a>). In recognizing
that minority and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden
of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of
air pollution. To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be
associated with the source categories, we performed a demographic
analysis, which is an assessment of individual demographic groups of
the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the
facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this analysis to the
national average for the demographic indicators.
In the analysis, we evaluated the proximity of minority and low-
income groups within the populations that live near facilities. Data
limitations preclude a complete analysis. This NESHAP applies to
sources in many different industries, often operating as small
facilities, and limited location data of subject facilities was
available. As described in the technology review memo, available in the
docket for this action, and section II.C of this preamble, we did
conduct searches for available information. However, below results do
not account for emission or risk impacts from sources and may not be
fully representative of the full distribution of facilities across all
locations and populations. This analysis is intended to function as a
guide to possible proximity disparities.
Based on the fact that there are over 3,000 facilities in this
analysis, and their proximity to urban centers, the source categories'
minority demographics are higher than the national average while
individual facilities for a large number of sites will significantly
exceed the national average demographics for every group due to being
located in urban locations. The results of the demographic analysis for
populations within 5 km of the facilities within the source categories
indicate that the minority population (being the total population minus
the white population) is higher when compared to the national
percentage (49 percent versus 40 percent). These comparisons also hold
true for other demographic groups (African American, Other and
Multiracial Groups, Hispanics, and people living in linguistic
isolation). The African American demographic group shows the highest
difference when compared to the national average (17 percent vs 12
percent). The remaining demographics identified above were above the
national average by 2 percent. The methodology and the results of the
demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near the
Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area
Sources Source Categories, available in this docket for this action
(Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0016). While demographic analysis shows
some population categories that are above the national average, this
action is not likely to change levels of emissions near facilities.
Based on our technology review, we did not identify any add-on control
technologies, process equipment, work practices or procedures that were
not previously considered during development of the 2008 Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating at Area Sources NESHAP, and
we did not identify developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies that would result in additional emission reductions.

V. Request for Comments

The EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposal, including
options for reducing emissions that the EPA may not have considered, as
well as information that may improve the Agency's understanding of this
source category and inform future actions. Among other things, the EPA
requests comment on any new add-on control technologies, process
equipment, management practices or procedures not previously
identified, including information on the availability, costs,
feasibility, and efficacy of such measures. The EPA also requests
comment on the availability, cost, and applicability of viable
substitutes for methylene chloride for automotive refinishing and
aerospace parts manufacturing uses. In addition, the EPA requests data
or estimates of emissions from facilities in this source category,
including information on how emissions, exposures, and potential
controls may differ between the different types of sources covered in
this rule (such as differences among types or sizes of automotive
refinishing sites, and differences between automotive refinishing and
aerospace parts manufacturing sites). Section VI of this preamble
provides more information on submitting data.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The information collection activities in this proposal have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA.
The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2268.07. You can find a copy
of the ICR in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0016), and it is briefly summarized here.
As part of the technology review for the NESHAP, the EPA is not
proposing to revise the emission limit requirements. The EPA is
acknowledging revisions to the SSM provisions that previously applied
to the NESHAP and is proposing the use of electronic data reporting for
future notifications and reports. This information is being collected
to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH.
Respondents/affected entities: Facilities performing paint
stripping and surface coating operations at area sources.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHHHH).
Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 39,812 respondents per year would
be subject to the

[[Page 66145]]

NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to become subject to
the NESHAP during that period.
Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is
76,388. Years 2 and 3 would have no responses.
Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the paint
stripping and surface coating operations at area source facilities over
the 3 years if the amendments are finalized is estimated to be 43,900
hours (per year). The average annual burden to the Agency over the 3
years after the amendments are final is estimated to be 0 hours (per
year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the facilities is
$5,200,000 in labor costs for the first 3 years after the amendments
are final. The average annual capital and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs is -$27,100. The total average annual Agency cost over the
first 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be $0.
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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
economic impact associated with the proposed requirements in this
action for the affected small entities is described in section IV.D.
above.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The EPA has determined, based on discussions with state, local, and
tribal governments during site visits during the original rule
development, 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 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

This action 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
any of the industries that would be affected by this action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children.

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

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

This rulemaking involves technical standards. We are proposing to
amend the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations
at Area Source NESHAP in this action to update references to 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, with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-2017 Method of
Testing General Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency
by Particle Size. Both methods measure paint booth filter efficiency to
measure the capture efficiency of paint overspray arrestors with spray-
applied coatings. The EPA is also proposing to include EPA Method 319--
Determination of Filtration Efficiency for Paint Overspray Arrestors
(Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63), as an alternative to ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 52.2-2017.
The ANSI/ASHRAE standard is available from the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 1791 Tullie
Circle NE, Atlanta, GA 30329. See <a href="http://www.ashrae.org">www.ashrae.org</a>.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented
in a technical report, Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic
Factors for Populations Living Near the Paint Stripping and
Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources Source
Categories, available in this docket for this action (Document ID EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0016).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Appendix A,
Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-24203 Filed 11-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on November 19, 2021.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.