Presidential Documents. Final rule

103,360 words·~470 min read·/register/2007/07/16/07-3485

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Billing code 4710-10-P 72 135 Monday, July 16, 2007 Rules and Regulations Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving; Final Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-AR-2006-0897;

FRL-8330-1] RIN 2060-AN44 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is issuing six national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants for seven area source categories.

The final emissions standards and associated requirements for two area source categories (Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication) are combined in one subpart. These final rules include emission standards that reflect the generally available control technologies or management practices in each of these area source categories. DATES: These final rules are effective on July 16, 2007. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these rules is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0897. All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , confidential business information 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 form.

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is

(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Nizich, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number:

(919)541-2825; fax number:

(919)541-3207; e-mail address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Outline.* The information presented 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? C. Judicial Review II. Background Information for Final Area Source Standards III. Summary of Final Rules and Changes Since Proposal A. NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources B. NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources C. NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds D. NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources E. NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources F. NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources IV. Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from Title V Permitting Requirements A. Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production B. Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication C. Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing D. Wood Preserving V. Summary of Comments and Responses A. Basis for Area Source Standards B. Proposed NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources C. Proposed NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources D. Proposed NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds E. Proposed NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources F. Proposed NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources G. Proposed NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources H. Proposed Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from Title V Permitting Requirements I. Compliance with Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks J. Compliance with Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by these final standards include: Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities Industry: Acrylic and modacrylic fibers production 325222 Area source facilities that manufacture polymeric organic fibers using acrylonitrile as a primary monomer. Carbon black production 325182 Area source facilities that manufacture carbon black using the furnace, thermal, or acetylene decomposition process. Chemical manufacturing: chromium compounds 325188 Area source facilities that produce chromium compounds, principally sodium dichromate, chromic acid, and chromic oxide, from chromite ore. Flexible polyurethane foam production 326150 Area source facilities that manufacture foam made from a polyurethane polymer. Flexible polyurethane foam fabrication operations 326150 Area source facilities that cut or bond flexible polyurethane foam pieces together or to other substrates. Lead acid battery manufacturing 335911 Area source facilities that manufacture lead acid storage batteries made from lead alloy ingots and lead oxide. Wood preserving 321114 Area source facilities that treat wood such as lumber, ties, poles, posts, or pilings with a preservative. 1 North American Industry Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11393 of subpart LLLLLL (NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources), 40 CFR 63.11400 of subpart MMMMMM (NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources), 40 CFR 63.11407 of subpart NNNNNN (NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds), 40 CFR 63.11414 of subpart OOOOOO (NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources), 40 CFR 63.11421 of subpart PPPPPP (NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources), or 40 CFR 63.11428 of subpart QQQQQQ (NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions). B. Where can I get a copy of this document? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web

(WWW)through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.* The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. C. Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of these final rules is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 14, 2007. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to these final rules that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. II. Background Information for Final Area Source Standards Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least 30 hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which, as the result of emissions of area sources, 1 pose the greatest threat to public health in urban areas. Consistent with this provision, in 1999, in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the “Urban HAP.” See 64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999. Section 112(c)(3) requires 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. EPA listed the source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP emissions in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. 2 Sierra Club sued EPA, alleging a failure to complete standards for the area source categories listed pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) within the time frame specified by the statute. See *Sierra Club* v. *Johnston* , No. 01-1537 (D.D.C.). On March 31, 2006, the court issued an order requiring EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d) for those area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3). 1 An area source is a stationary source of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)emissions that is not a major source. A major source is a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year

(tpy)or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. 2 Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy in 1999, EPA has revised the area source category list several times. Among other things, the order requires that, by June 15, 2007, EPA complete standards for six area source categories. On April 4, 2007, we proposed NESHAP for the following seven listed area source categories that we have selected to meet the June 15, 2007 deadline:

(1)Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production;

(2)Carbon Black Production;

(3)Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds;

(4)Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production;

(5)Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations;

(6)Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing; and

(7)Wood Preserving. See 72 FR 16632. These final NESHAP complete the required regulatory action for seven area source categories. Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of standards requiring maximum achievable control technology

(MACT)under section 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards or requirements for area sources “which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.” As explained in the proposed NESHAP, we are setting standards for these seven area source categories pursuant to section 112(d)(5). See 72 FR 16638, April 7, 2007. III. Summary of Final Rules and Changes Since Proposal This section summarizes the final rules and identifies and discusses changes since proposal. For changes that were made as a result of public comments, we have provided detailed explanations of the changes and the rationale in the responses to comments in section V of this preamble. A. NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources 1. Applicability and Compliance Dates This final rule applies to any existing or new acrylic or modacrylic fibers production plant that is an area source of HAP. The owner or operator of an existing area source must comply with all the requirements of this area source NESHAP by January 16, 2008. The owner or operator of a new area source must comply with this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007 or upon initial startup, whichever is later. 2. Emissions Standards The Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of the Urban HAP acrylonitrile (AN). In response to comments, we have revised the proposed AN requirements for existing area sources to include a new compliance alternative. We have also revised the compliance provisions for existing area sources to allow facilities to change the operating limits for a wet scrubber control device. *Existing area sources.* The final standards for existing area sources apply to emissions from the control devices for polymerization and monomer recovery process equipment, spinning lines at plants that do not have a monomer recovery process, and AN storage tanks. As proposed, we are adopting the State permit requirements applicable to the one existing area source as the NESHAP for existing acrylic and modacrylic fibers production area sources. No changes have been made since proposal to the AN emissions limits for control devices for polymerization and monomer recovery process equipment. The AN emissions limit for the control device for polymerization process equipment is 0.2 pound per hour (lb/hr). The AN emissions limit for the control device for monomer recovery process equipment is 0.05 lb/hr. In response to comments, we have revised the proposed rule to include an alternative compliance option for existing area sources. The new compliance option in § 63.11395(b)(3) allows an existing area source to comply with the same requirements that apply to process vents for new area sources. Although the two requirements are expressed in different units, they provide an equivalent level of control. No changes have been made since proposal to the control device parameter operating limits for wet scrubbers. The daily average water flow rate to the wet scrubber control device for polymerization process equipment must not drop below 50 liters per minute (l/min). For the wet scrubber control device for monomer recovery process equipment, the daily average water flow rate must not drop below 30 l/min. We have revised the proposed standard to include procedures for changing the operating limits based on the results of a performance test. These procedures are contained in § 63.11395(k). As explained in the proposed rule, this rule does not include requirements for spinning lines for existing sources that remove residual AN using a monomer recovery process prior to spinning. As proposed, existing sources that do not have a monomer recovery process prior to spinning must meet the requirements for spinning lines in 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. Acrylonitrile storage tanks meeting certain capacity/vapor pressure conditions must comply with one of three control options:

(1)A fixed roof in combination with an internal floating roof,

(2)an external floating roof, or

(3)a closed vent system and control device. In response to comments, we are clarifying in the final rule that process and maintenance wastewater containing AN must be treated in a wastewater treatment system. We are deleting the definition of “wastewater” because we have specifically defined “process wastewater” and “maintenance wastewater.” *New area sources.* No changes have been made to the proposed emissions standards for new area sources. The final standards apply to process vents, fiber spinning lines, AN storage tanks, process wastewater, maintenance wastewater, and equipment leaks. The process vent requirements apply to each vent stream with an AN concentration of 50 parts per million by volume

(ppmv)or greater and a flow rate of 0.005 cubic meters per minute or greater. The owner or operator must control AN emissions from process vents meeting this threshold by reducing uncontrolled emissions by 98 weight percent or meeting an emissions limit of 20 ppmv by venting vapors through a closed vent system to a recovery device, control device, or flare. The owner or operator must determine which process vents meet the threshold noted above by using the procedures and methods in § 63.1104 of subpart YY. The emissions limits for fiber spinning lines require the owner or operator to:

(1)Reduce AN emissions by 85 weight-percent (e.g., by venting emissions from a total enclosure through a closed vent system to a control device that meets the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS),

(2)reduce AN emissions from the spinning line to 0.5 pounds of AN per ton (lb/ton) of acrylic and modacrylic fiber produced, or

(3)reduce the AN concentration of the spin dope to less than 100 parts per million by weight (ppmw). The requirements in § 63.1103(b)(4) of subpart YY apply to an enclosure for a fiber spinning line. For all AN storage vessels at a new area source, the owner or operator must:

(1)Reduce AN emissions by 98 weight-percent by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices as specified in § 63.982(a)(1) of subpart SS or reduce AN emissions by 95 weight-percent or greater by venting emissions through a closed system to a recovery device as specified in § 63.993 of subpart SS; or

(2)comply with the equipment standards for internal or external floating roofs in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. Process wastewater and maintenance wastewater at new sources are subject to the requirements in § 63.1106(a) and

(b)of subpart YY. We are clarifying that wastewater that contains AN but which is below the thresholds for control in subpart YY must be treated in a wastewater treatment system. The owner or operator is also required to comply with the equipment leak requirements in subpart YY. Subpart YY applies the requirements in either subpart TT or UU to equipment that contains or contacts 10 percent by weight or greater of AN and that operates at least 300 hours per year. 3. Compliance Requirements No significant changes have been made to the compliance provisions for existing sources. As proposed, we are including in this final NESHAP the monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the State operating permit for the one existing area source. The only change since proposal is the addition of records of process and maintenance wastewater streams that are treated in a wastewater treatment system. Specifically, for existing sources, continuous parameter monitoring systems

(CPMS)are required to measure and record the scrubber water flow rates at least every 15 minutes. The owner or operator of an existing source must determine compliance with the daily average operating limits for the scrubber water flow rates on a monthly basis and submit quarterly compliance reports to EPA or the delegated authority. Compliance with the operating limits is to be determined on a monthly basis; quarterly compliance reports also are required. The owner or operator must keep records of each monthly compliance determination and retain the records for at least 2 years following the date of each compliance determination. If the daily average water flow rate falls below the required operating limit, the owner or operator must submit a report to EPA or the delegated authority that identifies the exceedance; the owner or operator would be required to submit the report within 10 days of the exceedance. The owner or operator of an existing source must conduct a performance test for each control device for polymerization process equipment and monomer recovery process equipment. A performance test is not required for an existing source if a prior performance test has been conducted using the methods required by this rule, which are the requirements contained in § 63.1104 of subpart YY, and either no process changes have been made since the test, or the owner or operator can demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes. For AN storage tanks at existing sources, the owner or operator must comply with the applicable testing, inspection, and notification procedures in 40 CFR 60.113b(a) and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 60.115b and 60.116b of subpart Kb. The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 65, subpart C apply if the owner or operator elected to comply with the part 65 control option for AN storage tanks. See 40 CFR 60.110b(e). The owner or operator of an existing area source must comply with certain notification requirements in § 63.9 of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These requirements include a notification of applicability and a notification of compliance status. In the notification of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h), the owner or operator of an existing source may certify initial compliance with the emissions limits based on a previous performance test if applicable. We have revised the proposed certification of compliance for the emissions limit to include a certification for the new alternative compliance option for process vents. The owner or operator must also certify initial compliance with the NSPS requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. We are also requiring that the owner or operator of an existing source comply with the requirements for startup, shutdown, and malfunction

(SSM)plans, reports, and records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3). As proposed, we are allowing additional time (6 months after promulgation) to allow for preparation of the plan. No changes have been made since proposal to the compliance provisions for new area sources. The owner or operator of a new area source must perform assessments 3 to identify affected process vents, equipment, and wastewater streams; conduct initial performance tests and/or compliance demonstrations; and comply with the monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in each applicable subpart. For process vents, the owner or operator must comply with all testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. For other emissions sources, the owner or operator must comply with all testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS or WW for AN tanks, and subpart TT or UU for equipment leaks. Only specified provisions in subpart G apply for process wastewater and maintenance wastewater. 3 These assessments are used to determine which process vents and wastewater streams must be controlled. The owner or operator of a new area source is also required to comply with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), including requirements for notifications; performance tests and reports; SSM plans and reports; recordkeeping, and reporting. We have identified in the final NESHAP the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 applicable to existing and new sources. B. NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources 1. Applicability and Compliance Dates The final NESHAP applies to each new or existing carbon black production facility that is an area source of HAP. The owner or operator of an existing affected source must comply with all the requirements of this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007. The owner or operator of a new affected source must comply by July 16, 2007 or upon initial startup, whichever is later. 2. Emissions Standards The Carbon Black Production area source category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for regulation for its contribution of the Urban HAP POM (polycyclic organic matter). We have made no changes since proposal to the emissions standards for this source category. This final NESHAP requires the owner or operator of an existing or new source to control HAP emissions from each carbon black production main unit filter process vent that has a HAP concentration equal to or greater than 260 ppmv. The specific control requirements are:

(1)Reduce emissions of HAP by using a flare meeting all the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS; or

(2)reduce total HAP emissions by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is less, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements 40 CFR 63.982(a)(2). 3. Compliance Requirements We have made no changes to the proposed compliance provisions for carbon black production area sources. For existing and new area sources, we are adopting in this final NESHAP the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in subpart YY. The owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with the emissions limit for existing and new area sources by monitoring the operating parameters of the control device or devices selected to comply with the requirements of the NESHAP. The owner or operator of an existing or new area source must comply with the subpart YY notification requirements in 40 CFR 63.1110. In the notification of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.1110(d), the owner or operator of an existing source may demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions standards based on the results of a performance test that has been previously conducted provided certain conditions are met ( *e.g.* , using the same methods as the test methods in the final rule). As proposed, we are requiring that the owner or operator of an existing area source comply with the SSM requirements in 40 CFR 63.1111. Section 63.1111(a)(1) of subpart YY requires that the source include provisions for an SSM plan. C. NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds 1. Applicability and Compliance Dates The final rule applies to the owner or operator of a new or existing area source that manufactures chromium compounds. The owner or operator of an existing area source must comply with all the requirements of this area source NESHAP by January 16, 2008. The owner or operator of a new affected source must comply by July 16, 2007 or upon initial startup, whichever is later. In response to comments, we have also added a definition of “chromium compounds manufacturing facility.” 2. Emissions Standards The Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds area source category was listed for regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of the Urban HAP chromium. We have not revised the emissions standards for this area source category since proposal. However, we have revised Table 1 of subpart NNNNNN to clarify the regulated process equipment. These changes include revising the title of Table 1 to refer to emissions sources instead of emissions points, changing the “filter for sodium chromate slurry” to “residue dryer system”, changing the “reactor used to produce chromic acid” to the “melter used to produce chromic acid”, and removing the “sodium evaporation unit” from the table. These changes do not affect the estimated level of emissions control or reduction for the rule. The final NESHAP requires new and existing facilities to operate a capture system that collects gases and fumes from each emissions source and conveys the gases to a PM control device that controls emissions to the levels required in the rule. Emissions limits for PM, in lb/hr format, are established based on the process rate of the emissions source. The PM emissions limits apply to more than 20 emissions sources in the production of chromium compounds, including sodium chromate, sodium dichromate, chromic acid, chromic oxide, and chromium dehydrate at new and existing sources. 3. Compliance Requirements for Existing Area Sources As proposed, the compliance requirements for existing area sources are based on the operation and maintenance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the title V permit of the area source located in North Carolina. The title V permit includes requirements for inspections and maintenance of each type of control device, semiannual reports of any deviation, and records of control device inspections and maintenance. The control devices used by the existing area sources in this source category include baghouses, dry electrostatic precipitators, wet electrostatic precipitators, and wet scrubbers. The monitoring requirements for existing area sources consist of inspection and maintenance requirements specific to the type of control device. In response to comments, we have revised the proposed requirements for initial and periodic inspections of control devices in several respects. The final rule requires an initial inspection for each installed control device which has operated within 60 days of the compliance date. An initial inspection for an installed control device which has not operated within 60 days of the compliance date must be conducted prior to startup. In addition, we have revised the requirements for initial inspections of the internal components of control devices to state that an initial inspection is not required if an inspection has been performed within the past 24 months (for an electrostatic precipitator) or within the past 12 months (for a baghouse or wet scrubber). The proposed requirements for initial inspections that do not require shutting down the process and control device, such as inspecting baghouses and ductwork for leaks and verifying proper operation of electrostatic precipitators and wet scrubbers, have not been revised. We have also clarified the timing for periodic inspections by requiring subsequent inspections 12 or 24 months after the last inspections and then annual or biennial inspections thereafter. We have also revised the final rule to clarify that the requirements for internal inspections of control devices do not apply to cyclonic scrubbers installed upstream of electrostatic precipitators. For a baghouse, this final NESHAP requires monthly visual inspections of the system ductwork and baghouse units for leaks. The plant owner or operator must conduct an annual inspection of the interior of each baghouse for structural integrity and condition of the filter fabric. For electrostatic precipitators, plants are required to conduct:

(1)A daily check to verify that the electronic controls for corona power and rapper operation are functioning, that the corona wires are energized, and that adequate air pressure is present on the rapper manifold;

(2)a monthly visual inspection of the system ductwork, cyclones (if applicable), housing unit, and hopper for leaks; and

(3)a biennial internal inspection to determine the condition and integrity of corona wires, collection plates, plate rappers, hopper, and air diffuser plates. For wet electrostatic precipitators, plants also must conduct a daily check to verify water flow and a biennial internal inspection to determine the condition and integrity of plate wash spray heads. For wet scrubbers, plants are required to conduct:

(1)A daily check to verify water flow to the scrubber;

(2)a monthly visual inspection of the system ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks; and

(3)an annual internal inspection for structural integrity and condition of the demister and spray nozzle. The owner or operator of an existing plant must record the results of each inspection, the results of any maintenance performed on the control device, and the date and time of each recorded action. The results of inspections and maintenance of control equipment must be recorded in a logbook (written or electronic). The logbook must be kept onsite and made available to the permitting authority upon request. The owner or operator of an existing plant is required to report any deviations from the emissions limits or monitoring requirements in a semiannual report submitted to the permitting authority. The owner or operator of an existing area source must submit an initial notification of applicability and a notification of compliance status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). In the notification of compliance status required by 40 CFR 63.9(h), the owner or operator must certify that equipment has been installed and is operating for each regulated emissions point and that the plant will comply with the inspection and maintenance requirements. A performance test is not required if a performance test has been conducted within the past 5 years using the specified test methods, and either no process changes have been made since the test, or the owner or operator can demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes. The final rule also requires that the owner or operator comply with either the requirements for SSM plans and reports in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) or with the requirements in this final rule. The owner or operator is required to submit a report if an event occurs that results in emissions in excess of a PM limit and lasts for more than 4 hours. 4. Compliance Requirements for New Area Sources No changes have been made to the compliance requirements for new area sources. The owner or operator of a new source must install and operate a bag leak detection system for each baghouse used to comply with a PM emissions limit. For additional information on bag leak detection systems that operate on the triboelectric effect, see “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 1997, EPA-454/R-98-015, NTIS publication number PB98164676. This document is available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5385 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. The owner or operator of a new source that uses a control device other than a baghouse must submit a monitoring plan to the permitting authority for approval. The plan must describe the control device, the parameters to be monitored, and the operating limits for the parameters established during a performance test. The owner or operator of a new source is required to demonstrate initial compliance with each applicable PM emissions limit by conducting a performance test according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.7. EPA Method 5 or 5D (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), as applicable, is to be used to determine the PM emissions. All of the testing, monitoring, operation and maintenance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the part 63 General Provisions apply to a new area source. We have identified in the final NESHAP the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 applicable to existing and new sources. D. NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources 1. Applicability and Compliance Dates This final NESHAP applies to both new and existing flexible foam production and flexible foam fabrication plants that are area sources. In response to comments, we have revised the compliance dates to allow more time for certain existing area sources to comply with the NESHAP. The owner or operator of an existing slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production-affected source must comply with all of the requirements of this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2008 instead of July 16, 2007. As proposed, the owner or operator of an existing molded flexible polyurethane foam production, an existing rebond foam production, or an existing flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source must comply by July 16, 2007. The owner or operator of a new area source must comply by July 16, 2007 or at startup, whichever is later. 2. Emissions Standards and Management Practices The Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories were listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for their contribution of the Urban HAP methylene chloride. No changes have been made since proposal to the required emissions standards and management practices. Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the various types of foam production and fabrication area sources covered by this final rule and the corresponding regulatory strategies. As shown in the table below, slabstock foam producers may still use limited amounts of methylene chloride as an auxiliary blowing agent (ABA). The technologies determined to be GACT for slabstock foam production area sources significantly reduce, but do not always eliminate the use of methylene chloride as an ABA. Methylene chloride use is prohibited for other uses at foam production and foam fabrication facilities. Table 1.—Foam Production and Fabrication Processes and Corresponding Regulations Area source types Final regulation 1. Slabstock polyurethane foam production a. Emission limits for methylene chloride used as an auxiliary blowing agent (ABA); b. Controls on storage vessels; c. Management practices for equipment leaks; and d. Prohibition on use of methylene chloride as an equipment cleaner; or Eliminate use of methylene chloride in slabstock foam production processes. 2. Molded polyurethane foam production Prohibit use of methylene chloride as mold release agent or equipment cleaner. 3. Rebond foam production Prohibit use of methylene chloride as mold release agent. 4. Foam fabrication adhesive use Prohibit use of methylene chloride adhesives. For slabstock foam production area sources, we are requiring emissions limits and management practices to reduce methylene chloride emissions from the production line, storage tanks, leaking equipment, and equipment cleaning. Emissions limits for methylene chloride used as an ABA are based on a formula which varies depending on the grades of foam being produced. Vapor balance systems or carbon beds are required for methylene chloride storage vessels. The management practices require plants to identify and correct leaking pumps and other equipment in methylene chloride service. Specifically, owners or operators must check periodically for equipment leaks (from quarterly for pumps and valves to annual for connectors) using EPA Method 21 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Leaks, which are defined as a reading of 10,000 parts per million

(ppm)or greater, must be corrected within 15 days of when they are detected. The use of methylene chloride to clean mix heads and other equipment is prohibited. Slabstock foam facilities that do not use any methylene chloride at the facility are not subject to these emissions limitations and management practices. Such facilities are, however, required to submit a one-time report. This final rule prohibits the use of methylene chloride-based mold release agents at molded and rebond foam facilities, methylene chloride-based equipment cleaners at molded foam facilities, and methylene chloride-based adhesives for foam fabrication. 3. Compliance Requirements No changes have been made since proposal to the compliance requirements. Slabstock foam area sources continuing to use methylene chloride are required to monitor methylene chloride added at slabstock production mixheads and the methylene chloride contained in and added to methylene chloride storage tanks. Plants using carbon adsorber systems to control emissions from methylene chloride storage tanks must monitor the methylene chloride content of exhaust streams from outlet vents. Plants using a recovery device to reduce methylene chloride emissions are required to comply with a recovered methylene chloride monitoring and recordkeeping program. The owner or operator of a slabstock foam production area source that continues to use methylene chloride as an ABA must submit semiannual reports containing information on allowable and actual methylene chloride emissions, carbon adsorbers on storage tanks, and equipment leaks. Owners and operators are also required to submit annual compliance certifications. Records are required to demonstrate compliance, including a daily operating log of foam runs containing the grades of foam produced and related data, and records related to storage tanks and equipment leaks. Slabstock foam plants that do not use any methylene chloride must submit a one-time certification as part of their notification of compliance status. Molded foam, rebond foam, and foam fabrication area source facilities which operate loop slitters must prepare, and keep on file, compliance certifications which certify that the facility is not using the prohibited methylene-chloride based products. The area source plants must also maintain records documenting that the products they are using do not contain any methylene chloride. These can be records that would be kept in the absence of this final rule such as adhesive usage information and Material Safety Data Sheets. Foam fabrication area source plants which do not operate loop slitters have no compliance certification or recordkeeping requirements. The owner or operator of each slabstock foam affected source that continues to use methylene chloride and, therefore, is subject to the methylene chloride emissions limits, is required to comply with several requirements of the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. We have identified in the final NESHAP the General Provisions that apply to existing and new sources. For slabstock foam production facilities that have eliminated the use of methylene chloride and are not subject to the emissions limitations in this final rule, we are requiring that owners or operators submit a notification certifying that they do not use any methylene chloride. Slabstock foam facilities that choose to use methylene chloride in the future will be subject to the emission limits and other requirements discussed above. E. NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources 1. Applicability and Compliance Dates This final NESHAP applies to new and existing lead acid battery manufacturing plants that are area sources. The owner or operator of an existing source must comply with all the requirements of this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2008. The owner or operator of a new source must comply with this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007 or at startup, whichever is later. 2. Emissions Standards and Management Practices The Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category was listed for regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of the Urban HAP lead and cadmium. As proposed, we are adopting as the NESHAP for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category the numerical emissions limits for grid casting, paste mixing, three-process operations, lead oxide manufacturing, lead reclamation, and other lead emitting processes in 40 CFR 60.372 of the new source performance standards

(NSPS)for lead acid batteries. These lead discharge limits are: • 0.40 milligram of lead per dry standard cubic meter of exhaust (mg/m 3 ) from grid casting facilities, • 1.00 mg/m 3 from paste mixing facilities, • 1.00 mg/m 3 from three-process operation facilities, • 5.0 mg per kilogram of lead feed from lead oxide manufacturing facilities, • 4.50 mg/m 3 from lead reclamation facilities, and • 1.0 mg/m 3 from any other lead-emitting operations. We are also adopting the opacity limits from the lead acid battery NSPS. The opacity of emissions must be no greater than 5 percent from lead reclamation facilities and no greater than 0 percent from any affected facility except lead reclamation facilities. 3. Compliance Requirements At proposal, we stated that we would adopt in this NESHAP the compliance requirements in the NSPS for lead acid batteries. We incorrectly stated in the proposal that title V would not add monitoring to the proposed NESHAP. While that statement was accurate for emissions units controlled by scrubbing systems, it was not accurate for emissions units controlled by fabric filters. We recognized our error during our consideration of comments submitted on the proposal. We have incorporated the part 63 monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for all emissions units instead of those in part 60. We concluded that the part 63 General Provisions are more appropriate for this NESHAP than are the part 60 General Provisions that were proposed. We have also added periodic monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for emissions units controlled by fabric filters. We are adopting in this NESHAP the testing and monitoring and requirements in the NSPS for lead acid batteries. These provisions include the requirement to conduct a performance test and opacity measurement for each source. They also require continuous monitoring of the pressure drop for sources controlled by scrubbing systems. In addition to these requirements, we added to the final rule daily recordkeeping and semiannual reporting requirements for emissions units that are controlled by scrubbing systems. We added to the final rule monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for emissions units that are controlled by fabric filters. These requirements direct facilities to conduct semiannual inspections of fabric filter structure and bags, and to either:

(1)Measure and record the pressure drop across the fabric filter once per day, or

(2)conduct daily visible emission observations. If visible emissions are detected, the final rule requires that an opacity measurement be made. A weekly rather than daily alternative monitoring frequency is also available for emissions units that utilize high efficiency particulate air

(HEPA)filters in combination with fabric filters. We are also adopting the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements and the initial notification and notification of compliance requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). We concluded that the part 63 General Provisions are more appropriate for this NESHAP than the part 60 General Provisions that were proposed. We have clarified the deadline for submission of initial notifications required by § 63.9 of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The initial notification of applicability required for existing facilities is due by November 13, 2007. The notification of compliance status is due 60 days after the 1 year deadline for compliance September 15, 2008. We have identified in the final NESHAP the applicable General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. The final NESHAP allows existing plants to utilize previously conducted performance tests, when they are representative of current conditions, to demonstrate compliance. Plants without representative prior performance tests are required to conduct performance tests by 180 days after the compliance date. F. NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources 1. Applicability and Compliance Dates This final NESHAP applies to new and existing wood preserving plants that are area sources. The owner or operator of an existing source must comply with all the requirements of this area source NESHAP by July 16, 2007. The owner or operator of a new source must comply by July 16, 2007 or at startup, whichever is later. 2. Emissions Standards and Management Practices The Wood Preserving area source category was listed for regulation under section 112(c)(3) for its contribution of the following Urban HAP: arsenic, chromium, methylene chloride, and dioxin. The only changes to the rule made since proposal are clarifications of applicability and the required management practices. We are adopting as the NESHAP for the Wood Preserving area source category the control technologies and management practices that we have determined are generally available, considering cost, for the wood preserving industry. We have revised the rule since proposal to clarify that the management practices and other recordkeeping and notification requirements in the NESHAP apply to those facilities that are using a wood preservative containing arsenic, chromium, dioxins, or methylene chloride. The NESHAP requires that facilities using a pressure treatment process use a retort or similarly enclosed vessel for the preservative treatment of wood involving any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride. Facilities using a thermal treatment process involving any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride are required to use process treatment tanks equipped with air scavenging systems to capture and control air emissions. This final rule also requires facility owners or operators using any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride to minimize emissions from process tanks and equipment ( *e.g.* , retorts, other enclosed vessels, and thermal treatment tanks), as well as storage, handling, and transfer operations. These standards are to be documented in a management practices plan that must include, but not be limited to, the following activities: • Minimizing preservative usage; • Maintaining records on the type of treatment process and types and amounts of wood preservatives used at the facility; • For the pressure treatment process, maintaining charge records identifying pressure reading(s) inside the retort (or similarly enclosed vessel, if applicable); • For the thermal treatment process, maintaining records that an air scavenging system is installed and operated properly during the treatment process; • For the pressure treatment process, we proposed a requirement for facilities to fully drain the retort prior to opening the retort door. In the final rule, we have clarified this provision to require facilities to fully drain the retort to the extent practicable, prior to opening the retort door; • Storing treated wood product on drip pads or in a primary containment area to convey preservative drippage to a collection system until drippage has ceased; • Promptly collecting any spills; and • Performing relevant corrective actions or preventative measures in the event of a malfunction before resuming operations. Existing written standard operating procedures may be used as the management practices plan if those procedures include the minimum activities required for a management practices plan. 3. Compliance Requirements No changes have been made since proposal to the compliance requirements for wood preserving facilities. Plants that use any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride are required to comply with the notification requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). This final rule establishes the content and deadlines for submission of the notifications. We have explicitly identified in this final NESHAP the applicable General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. The final standards require recordkeeping to serve as monitoring and deviation reporting to demonstrate compliance. The compliance requirements for new and existing area sources are based on certain notification requirements in the part 63 General Provisions. The initial notification of applicability required by 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2) requires the owner or operator to identify the plant as an area source subject to the standards. The notification of compliance status requires the owner or operator to certify compliance with the standards. No other recordkeeping or reporting requirements in the General Provisions are applicable. IV. Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories From Title V Permitting Requirements Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that compliance with title V requirements is “impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome” on an area source category. See CAA section 502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502 and developed a four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005 (“Exemption Rule”). The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for determining whether title V is “unnecessarily burdensome” on a particular area source category include:

(1)Whether title V would result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source category (70 FR 75323);

(2)whether title V permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324);

(3)whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and

(ICR)for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05. There are certain activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules that are mandatory and impose burdens on the source. They include reading and understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of written, verbal, and other communications methods; collecting information, preparing, and submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual services of professional scientists and engineers (consultants) to help them understand and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR for part 70 may help to understand the overall burdens and costs, as well as the relative burdens, of each activity described here. Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7. In considering the second factor for the one existing area source acrylic and modacrylic fibers plant, we examined the potential economic resources of the parent company and whether the source would have any difficulty in obtaining assistance from the permitting authority. Although this area source plant is small ( *i.e.* , it is the smallest of the four known plants in the source category), the parent company is a multi-national corporation and is not a small business. In addition, the plant has worked closely with the State permitting authority to obtain State operating permits and a designation as a synthetic minor source, which means the plant must keep HAP emissions below the major source threshold. The State agency has assigned a staff person who is specifically responsible for the permitting of sources at the plant. This staff person is familiar with the production processes, emissions sources, and permitting requirements for the plant; therefore, the staff person can provide permitting assistance as needed. Consequently, we have no evidence that obtaining a title V permit would impose a significant burden on this particular area source or that the burden would be aggravated by any difficulty in obtaining assistance from permitting authorities. However, we do not know what circumstances would exist for new sources in this category. The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources. While we concluded that the one existing area source could sustain the cost of title V permit requirements without a significant economic impact on the company as a whole, we do not think the costs for the one existing area source are justified because we do not think title V permitting would lead to gains in compliance by the source. As discussed above for factor one, we determined that the compliance requirements of this NESHAP are substantially equivalent to the requirements of title V. Furthermore, as discussed below for factor four, there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP. We conclude, therefore, that the costs of title V are not justified for the one existing area source in this category, even though we concluded the costs would not be burdensome on the existing area source in this category. Furthermore, for new sources, the requirements of title V may be a significant burden and, since we have determined consistent with the first factor that there would not be significant improvements in compliance under title V, we likewise conclude that the cost would not be justified. The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the proposal, we considered whether there are State programs in place to enforce these area source NESHAP. We stated that we believe that the State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP. We also noted that EPA retains authority to enforce these NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We concluded that title V permitting is “unnecessary” to assure compliance with these NESHAP because the statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement of these NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to assure compliance with these area source NESHAP without title V permits. We also noted that small business assistance programs required by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been exempted from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We determined that these additional programs will supplement and enhance the success of compliance with these area source NESHAP and concluded that in light of all of the above, that there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP without relying on title V permitting. In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted, but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. We do not have similar data for this rule because we are issuing this final NESHAP today. In the Exemption Rule, EPA exempted the categories from the requirements of title V after the NESHAP was issued. Although we do not have the type of enforcement data we had in the Exemption Rule, we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have adequate programs to enforce section 112 regulations and provide assurances that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. There are State programs in place to enforce this area source NESHAP and assure compliance with the NESHAP. In light of the above, we conclude that there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the final rule without relying on title V permitting. Considering the factors in combination supports the finding in the proposal that title V is unnecessarily burdensome on this area source category. We found in the proposal and again here that title V would not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements applicable to this area source category and that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Although we concluded that the cost of title V permitting would not be burdensome on the one known existing area source, we cannot conclude that title V would not be a significant burden on new sources in the category. We also found that the cost is not justified because we could not identify any potential gains in compliance within the category if title V were required for this category. Thus, we conclude that title V permitting is “unnecessarily burdensome” for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category. In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V requirements is “unnecessarily burdensome”, EPA also considered, consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether exempting these area source categories from title V requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment. We stated at proposal that exemption of this area source category from title V requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the level of control would remain the same even if a title V permit were required. We continue to believe that there would be no adverse effects for all of the reasons supporting the exemptions as discussed above. Importantly, the title V permit program does not impose new substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable to existing or new area sources. We conclude, therefore, that exempting this area source category from title V permitting requirements in the final rule would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment. Moreover, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve compliance with the requirements. In this case, placing all requirements for the one existing area source in a title V permit would do little to clarify the requirements applicable to that source or assist it in compliance with those requirements because of the simplicity of the source and the NESHAP, and the fact that this source is not subject to other NESHAP or to other requirements under the CAA. Given that the emissions profile for new sources should be similar to the existing source, we believe that new sources would be subject to similar CAA requirements. For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category from title V permitting requirements. B. Flexible Polyurethane Foam and Fabrication As discussed in the proposal, to determine whether title V permits would result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements in the final NESHAP for flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication area source categories (factor one in determining whether title V permitting is “unnecessarily burdensome”), we compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to those requirements in the final NESHAP for these source categories. This final NESHAP does not contain monitoring or periodic reporting requirements for molded foam production, rebond foam production, and foam fabrication facilities that must eliminate the use of methylene chloride, or for slabstock foam production facilities that elect to totally eliminate the use of methylene chloride. Since these facilities have discontinued the use of methylene chloride entirely, Urban HAP emissions would be reduced without the need for continuous or periodic monitoring of equipment or operations. For slabstock foam production facilities still using methylene chloride as an ABA, the final NESHAP requires the same periodic monitoring in the form of quantifying methylene chloride usage that must be performed by major sources. Therefore, title V would not add any monitoring to the final NESHAP. See the Interpretive Rule (71 FR 75422, December 15, 2006). We also considered the extent to which title V could enhance compliance for area sources through recordkeeping or reporting requirements, including title V requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an annual compliance certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. The final NESHAP requires area source foam plants that have discontinued the use of methylene chloride to certify compliance with the prohibition on methylene chloride in their Notification of Compliance Status reports. For slabstock foam plants still using methylene chloride, the final NESHAP requires the same recordkeeping or reporting that must be performed by major sources. The information required in the final reports and records is similar to the information that must be provided in the deviation reports and required for title V permitting under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). The final NESHAP requires a report if a deviation occurs, but does not require periodic compliance reports. The addition of periodic reports for sources that are subject to monitoring requirements would not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements in the final NESHAP for these area source categories. The final NESHAP does not require an annual compliance certification report for slabstock facilities that continue to use methylene chloride, as would be required under a title V permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(c)(9)(iii) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). EPA believes that the annual certification reporting requirement is not necessary because the deviation reports are adequate to ensure compliance for new and existing sources. Furthermore, even absent the requirement to submit annual compliance certifications, sources must comply with all emission standards in the NESHAP. In conclusion, we do not believe that title V would lead to significant improvements in the compliance requirements for these categories. The second factor considered in determining whether title V is “unnecessarily burdensome” is whether title V permitting would impose significant burdens on the flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication area sources and whether these burdens would be aggravated by difficulty they may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies. Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. The EPA estimated that the true average annual cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was $38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA Number 1587.05. The EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication area sources; however, there are certain source activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are mandatory and impose burdens on the source. They include reading and understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of written, verbal, and other communications methods; collecting information, preparing, and submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual services of professional scientists and engineers (consultants) to help them understand and meet the permitting programs’ requirements. The ICR for part 70 further explains the overall burdens and costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here. Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7. In the proposal, we stated that we believed the cost of a title V program would be a significant burden for the area sources in all the categories that we proposed to exempt. For flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication, that conclusion was based on the types of smaller establishments that make up these categories. We estimate that over 90 percent of the firms in the NAICS code for these categories are small businesses, with over half the firms having less than 20 employees. We believe that these small sources will likely lack the technical resources needed to comprehend and comply with the permitting requirements and the financial resources needed to hire the necessary staff or outside consultants. Accordingly, we conclude that title V would be a significant burden for these categories because almost all the sources are small businesses with limited resources, and that it would be difficult for them to meet the numerous requirements applicable to sources under part 70 or 71, whether they have a standard or general permit. Also, we are not sure what level of title V related assistance permitting authorities would be able to provide such small sources. Thus, for the final rule, we believe factor two supports title V exemption for flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication sources because title V compliance would impose a significant economic and non-economic burden on sources in these categories. The third factor is whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources. We concluded after consideration of the first factor that title V would not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements in the final rule for flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication source categories. We also concluded in our consideration of the second factor that title V permitting would be a significant burden on the facilities and that the burden was associated with both the financial cost of compliance as well as the time and effort that these small facilities would have to devote to compliance with title V. Furthermore, as discussed in our consideration of the fourth factor below, there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place sufficient to ensure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both economic and non-economic, are burdensome on these sources, and title V would not lead to significant improvements in compliance with the NESHAP, we conclude that requiring title V permitting is not justified for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories. The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the proposal, we considered whether there are State programs in place to enforce these area source NESHAP. We stated that we believe that the State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP. We also noted that EPA retains authority to enforce these NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We concluded that title V permitting is “unnecessary” to assure compliance with these NESHAP because the statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement of these NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to assure compliance with these area source NESHAP without title V permits. We also noted that small business assistance programs required by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been exempted from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We determined that these additional programs will supplement and enhance the success of compliance with these area source NESHAP and concluded that in light of all of the above, that there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permitting. In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted, but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we did not have similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have adequate programs to enforce the HAP regulations and provide assurances that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication NESHAP without relying on title V permitting. Balancing the four factors for these area source categories strongly supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome. We determined in the proposal and above that title V would not significantly improve the compliance requirements of the NESHAP and that the requirements of title V would be a significant burden on the facilities. We also determined that the costs of compliance with title V would not be justified because it would not likely lead to gains in compliance with the NESHAP and that there are sufficient implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance without reliance on title V. All four factors weigh in favor of exemption, and we conclude that title V permitting is “unnecessarily burdensome” for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories. In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V requirements is “unnecessarily burdensome”, EPA also considered, consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether exempting the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories from title V requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories from title V requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the level of control would remain the same if a title V permit were required. The title V permit program does not impose new substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable to existing or new area sources. Therefore, we conclude that exempting the flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication area sources from title V permitting requirements in these rules will not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment. Moreover, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, we do not believe that a title V permit is necessary to understand the requirements applicable to these area sources, as the requirements are not complicated to understand or implement. Furthermore, the sources in this category are not subject to any other NESHAP or CAA requirements to combine into one title V permit. For these reasons, we do not find that title V permitting is necessary to improve understanding of and achieve compliance with these standards. For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories from title V permitting requirements. C. Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing In the proposal, we discussed whether title V permitting was “unnecessarily burdensome” for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category. Factor one in determining whether title V permitting is “unnecessarily burdensome” is to determine whether title V permits would result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements in the final NESHAP. In this NESHAP, we proposed adopting the compliance requirements in the NSPS for lead acid battery manufacturing as the compliance requirements for this area source category. The final rule includes the same provisions and requires monitoring, recordkeeping and deviation reporting to ensure compliance with the NESHAP. Specifically, the final rule requires that a facility using a scrubbing system install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring device that measures and records the pressure drop across the scrubbing system at least once every 15 minutes. Opacity requirements are zero percent for five of the six emission sources and five percent for the sixth. In addition to these requirements, we are adding in the final rule monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for emissions units controlled by fabric filters. These requirements direct facilities to perform and keep records of semiannual fabric filter inspections and to either:

(1)Measure and record the pressure drop across the fabric filter once per day or

(2)conduct daily visible emission observations. If visible emissions are detected, the final rule requires that an opacity measurement be made. The alternative of weekly monitoring is also available for emissions units that utilize HEPA filters in combination with fabric filters. Each facility must demonstrate compliance by either conducting a performance test or submitting the results of a recent performance test conducted using the methods and procedures in the final NESHAP. Because both the continuous and noncontinuous monitoring methods required by the final NESHAP constitute periodic monitoring, title V would not result in significant improvements to monitoring in the final NESHAP. *See* the Interpretive Rule (71 FR 75422, December 15, 2006). We also considered the extent to which title V could enhance compliance through recordkeeping or reporting requirements, including title V requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an annual compliance certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. Records are required to demonstrate compliance. Plants are required to comply with the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The information required in the NESHAP is similar to the information that must be provided in the deviation reports and semiannual monitoring reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). The NESHAP for lead acid battery manufacturing requires the owner or operator to submit an initial certification of compliance that must be signed by a responsible official. The NESHAP does not require an annual compliance certification report, as would be required under a title V permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(c 9)(iii) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). EPA believes that the title V annual certification reporting requirement is not necessary because the semiannual reports are adequate to ensure compliance for new and existing sources. Furthermore, even absent the requirement to submit annual compliance certifications, sources must comply with all emission standards in the NESHAP. Therefore, the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the final NESHAP for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category are substantially equivalent to requirements under title V. We conclude that title V would not result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements for this area source category. The second factor considered in determining whether title V permitting is “unnecessarily burdensome” is whether title V permitting would impose a significant burden for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty these sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies. Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA previously estimated that the true average annual cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was $38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05. EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting lead acid battery manufacturing area sources; however, there are certain source activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are mandatory and impose burdens on the source. They include reading and understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of written, verbal, and other communications methods; collecting information, preparing, and submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual services of professional scientists and engineers (consultants) to help them understand and meet the permitting programs' requirements. The ICR for part 70 may help to understand the overall burdens and costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here. Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7. In considering the second factor for lead acid battery manufacturing, we examined the potential economic resources of the plants and their parent companies and whether they would have any difficulty in obtaining assistance from the permitting authority. There are a few multi-national corporations that own several lead acid battery manufacturing plants that would be subject to this NESHAP, and those facilities would have resources adequate to absorb the economic and non-economic burdens associated with complying with the title V permitting requirements. However, there are many plants that are small businesses for which the title V permitting requirements would be a significant burden, both economic and non-economic. In addition to the small businesses currently subject to the NSPS, there are some small plants 4 that are not subject to the NSPS that will be subject to the NESHAP. These small businesses will be burdened complying with the NESHAP, even if title V compliance is not required. 4 The new source performance standard

(NSPD)applied only to plants that produced or had the design capacity to produce in one day batteries containing an amount of lead equal to or greater than 5.9 megagrams (6.5 tons). Through discussions with the industry trade organization, we have learned that very few lead acid battery manufacturing facilities currently are subject to a title V permit for either lead or other criteria pollutants. Some plants have synthetic minor permits to remain below the threshold for title V permitting for criteria pollutants. As such, if title V permits were required the sources would have difficulty obtaining assistance from the permitting authorities as they developed and applied for title V permits. This difficulty stems from the fact that there are about 60 plants in this area source category, and permitting authorities” resources are limited. Thus, the difficulty sources would have obtaining appropriate guidance from permitting authorities would only increase the already significant economic and non-economic burdens of title V on the small facilities with limited resources. The third factor is whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources. We evaluated the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting requirements of the proposed NESHAP when considering the first factor and concluded above that title V would not lead to significant improvements to the compliance requirements for this category. In considering the second factor, we concluded that some of the existing area sources could comply with the title V permit requirements without a significant economic impact on the company as a whole. But, we also concluded that the costs would be a significant burden for small facilities, particularly those not currently covered by the NSPS because they would have to comply with the NESHAP and title V simultaneously. In addition, under the fourth factor below, we find that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to enforce the provisions of the NESHAP. We believe that the costs of compliance with title V are, therefore, not justified for this area source category given the little potential for gain in compliance benefits. The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the proposal, we considered whether there are State programs in place to enforce these area source NESHAP. While we did not state this in the proposal, we know that States have been enforcing the NSPS on which the NESHAP is based for this source category for some time and that the State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP. We noted at proposal that EPA retains authority to enforce these NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We concluded that title V permitting is “unnecessary” to assure compliance with these NESHAP because the statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement of these NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to assure compliance with these area source NESHAP without title V permits. We also noted that small business assistance programs required by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been exempted from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We determined that these additional programs will supplement and enhance the success of compliance with these area source NESHAP and concluded that in light of all of the above, that there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP without relying on title V permitting. In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted, but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we did not have similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption Rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide assurances that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP without relying on title V permitting. Balancing the four factors for this area source category supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome. In considering the first factor, we concluded that title V would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance requirements. We concluded after consideration of the second factor that title V would impose a significant burden on the small facilities, particularly those not subject to the NSPS, but that the burden would not be significant for sources owned by larger companies. We concluded that the costs would not be justified given the little potential gain in the compliance likely to occur. We also determined that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to enforce the NESHAP and, furthermore, States have in fact been enforcing the provisions of the NSPS. All four factors individually support exemption, and collectively they support the finding in the proposal. Therefore, we conclude that title V permitting is “unnecessarily burdensome” for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category. In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V requirements is “unnecessarily burdensome”, EPA also considered, consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether exempting the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category from title V requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category from title V requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the level of control would remain the same if a permit were required. The title V permit program does not impose new substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable to existing or new area sources. There is no evidence in the record that leads us to question these conclusions. Therefore, we conclude that exempting the lead acid battery manufacturing area sources from title V permitting requirements in this rule will not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment. Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, we do not believe that a title V permit is necessary to understand the requirements applicable to the lead acid battery manufacturing area sources. These plants are straightforward in design and are not covered by regulations with requirements that are very complicated to understand or implement. The permits we have examined for the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category currently consist of a single document that applies to all sources and to lead and the other criteria pollutants emitted. For these reasons, we do not find that title V permitting is necessary to improve understanding of and achieve compliance with these standards. For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category from title V permitting requirements. D. Wood Preserving As discussed in the proposal, we compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements (factor one) to the requirements in the NESHAP for the Wood Preserving area source category. EPA determined that the management practices currently used at most facilities is GACT and the rule requires recordkeeping that serves as monitoring and deviation reporting to ensure compliance with the NESHAP. The monitoring component of the first factor favors title V exemption because title V is unnecessary to provide adequate monitoring for wood preserving area sources. Because the NESHAP requires management practices for certain treatment processes and requires recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring, additional monitoring requirements that might be added under title V would be unnecessary to assure compliance. Monitoring other than recordkeeping is not practical or appropriate in this case because the requirements are management practices. Records are required to ensure that the management practices are followed, including records of the type of preservative treatment process used, the types and quantities of preservatives used, and charge records of retort pressure. As part of the first factor, we have considered the extent to which title V could potentially enhance compliance for area sources covered by this final rule through recordkeeping or reporting requirements. For any affected wood preserving area source facility, the NESHAP requires an initial notification, a compliance status report, and deviations must be reported within 30 days. We considered the various title V recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. The wood preserving NESHAP also requires affected facilities to certify compliance with the management practices required by the rule. In addition, wood preserving facilities must maintain records showing compliance with the required management practices and report deviations. The information required in the deviation reports and records is similar to the information that must be provided in the deviation reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge that title V might impose additional compliance requirements on this category, but, as stated in the proposal, we conclude that the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the NESHAP for wood preserving are sufficient to ensure compliance with the provisions of the NESHAP, and title V would not significantly improve those compliance requirements. Under the second factor, we determine whether title V permitting would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. The EPA estimated that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was $38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05. The EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting wood preserving area sources; however, there are certain source activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are mandatory and impose burdens on the source. They include reading and understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of written, verbal, and other communications methods; collecting information, preparing, and submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual services of professional scientists and engineers (consultants) to help them understand and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR for part 70 provides additional information on the overall burdens and costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here. Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7. In assessing the second factor for wood preserving facilities, we found that over 90 percent of the 393 plants are small businesses, most with only a few employees. These small sources lack the technical resources needed to comprehend and comply with permitting requirements and the financial resources needed to hire the necessary staff or outside consultants. As discussed above, title V permitting would impose significant economic and non-economic costs on these area sources, and, accordingly, we conclude that title V is a significant burden for sources in this category. Most are small businesses with limited resources, and under title V they would be subject to numerous mandatory activities with which they would have difficulty complying, whether they were issued a standard or a general permit. Furthermore, given the large number of sources in the category and the relatively small size, it would likely be difficult for them to obtain assistance from the permitting authority. Thus, we find that factor two strongly supports title V exemption for wood preserving facilities. The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources. We explained above under the second factor that the economic and non-economic costs of compliance with title V would impose a significant burden on most of the 393 wood preserving facilities. We also concluded in considering the first factor that, while title V might impose additional requirements, the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP assure compliance with the management practices imposed in the NESHAP. In addition, below in our consideration of the fourth factor we find that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both economic and non-economic, of compliance with title V are so high, and the potential for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is not justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor supports title V exemptions for wood preserving area sources. The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. In the proposal, we considered whether there are State programs in place to enforce these area source NESHAP. We stated that we believe that the State programs are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP. We also noted that EPA retains authority to enforce these NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113, and 114. We concluded that title V permitting is “unnecessary” to assure compliance with these NESHAP because the statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement of these NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA are sufficient to assure compliance with these area source NESHAP without title V permits. We also noted that small business assistance programs required by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been exempted from title V permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We determined that these additional programs will supplement and enhance the success of compliance with these area source NESHAP and concluded that in light of all of the above, there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with these NESHAP without relying on title V permitting. In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted, but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we did not have similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide assurances that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. In light of all of the above, we conclude that there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the Wood Preserving NESHAP without relying on title V permitting. Balancing the four factors for this area source category strongly supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome. While title V might add additional compliance requirements if imposed, we concluded that there would not be significant improvements to the compliance requirements in the NESHAP because the requirements in this final rule are specifically designed to assure compliance with the standards and management practices imposed on this area source category. We also concluded that the economic and non-economic costs of compliance with title V, in conjunction with the likely difficulty this large number of small sources would have obtaining assistance from the permitting authority, would impose a significant burden on the sources. We determined that the high relative costs would not be justified given that there is likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance if title V were required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Thus, we conclude that title V permitting is “unnecessarily burdensome” for the Wood Preserving area source category. In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V requirements is “unnecessarily burdensome”, EPA also considered at proposal, consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether exempting the Wood Preserving area source category from title V requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the Wood Preserving area source category from title V requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the level of control would remain the same if a permit were required. The title V permit program does not impose new substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable to existing or new area sources. Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve understanding of these requirements and to help sources to achieve compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, placing all requirements for the sources in a title V permit would do little to clarify the requirements applicable to the sources or assist them in compliance with those requirements because of the simplicity of the sources and the NESHAP, and the fact that these sources are not subject to other NESHAP or to other requirements under the CAA. We have no reason to think that new sources would be substantially different from the existing sources. In addition, we explained in the Exemption Rule that requiring permits for the large number of area sources could, at least in the first few years of implementation, potentially adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment by shifting State agency resources away from assuring compliance for major sources with existing permits to issuing new permits for these area sources, potentially reducing overall air program effectiveness. For the final rule, we conclude that title V exemptions for the wood preserving area sources will not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment for all of the reasons explained above. For the foregoing reasons, we are exempting the Wood Preserving area source category from title V permitting requirements. V. Summary of Comments and Responses We received a total of 18 comments on the proposed NESHAP from seven industry trade associations, representatives of eight affected facilities, one environmental group, and two State agencies during the public comment period. Sections V.A through V.J of this preamble provide responses to the significant public comments received on the proposed NESHAP. A. Basis for Area Source Standards *Comment:* One commenter stated that EPA's decision to issue GACT standards pursuant to section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), for six of the seven area source categories at issue in the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because EPA provided no rationale for its decision to issue GACT standards. The commenter makes this argument for the following six source categories: Acrylic and modacrylic fibers production, carbon black production, chemical manufacturing: Chromium compounds, flexible polyurethane foam production/flexible polyurethane foam fabrication, and lead acid battery manufacturing. *Response:* As the commenter itself recognizes, in section 112(d)(5), Congress gave EPA explicit authority to issue alternative emission standards for area sources. Specifically, section 112(d)(5), which is entitled “Alternative standard for area sources,” provides: With respect *only* to categories and subcategories of area sources listed pursuant to subsection

(c)of this section, the Administrator *may, in lieu of* the authorities provided in paragraph

(2)and subsection

(f)of this section, elect to promulgate standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants. ( *Emphasis added* ). There are two critical aspects to section 112(d)(5). First, section 112(d)(5) applies only to those categories and subcategories of area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c). The commenter does not dispute that EPA listed the six area source categories noted above pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Second, section 112(d)(5) provides that for area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c), EPA *“may, in lieu of”* the authorities provided in section 112(d)(2) and 112(f), elect to promulgate standards pursuant to section 112(d)(5). Section 112(d)(2) provides that emission standards established under that provision “require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions” of HAP (also known as MACT). Section 112(d)(3), in turn, defines what constitutes the “maximum degree of reduction in emissions” for new and existing sources. See section 112(d)(3). 5 Webster's dictionary defines the phrase “in lieu of” to mean “in the place of” or “instead of.” See Webster's II New Riverside University (1994). Thus, section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to promulgate standards under section 112(d)(5) that provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT), *instead of* issuing MACT standards pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The statute does not set any condition precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case here. 6 5 Specifically, section 112(d)(3) sets the minimum degree of emission reduction that MACT standards must achieve, which is known as the MACT floor. For new sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source, and for existing sources, the degree of emission reduction shall not be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of the existing sources for which the Administrator has emissions information. Section 112(d)(2) directs EPA to consider whether more stringent—so called beyond-the-floor limits—are technologically achievable considering, among other things, the cost of achieving the emission reduction. 6 Section 112(d)(5) also references section 112(f). See CAA section 112(f)(5) (entitled “Area Sources” and providing that EPA is not required to conduct a review or promulgate standards under section 112(f) for any area source category or subcategory listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and for which an emission standard is issued pursuant to section 112(d)(5)). The commenter argues that EPA must provide a rationale for issuing GACT standards under section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards. The commenter is incorrect, however. Had Congress intended that EPA first conduct a MACT analysis for each area source category and only if cost or some other reason made applying the MACT standard inappropriate for the category would EPA be able to issue a standard under section 112(d)(5), Congress would have stated so expressly in section 112(d)(5). Congress did not require EPA to conduct any MACT analysis, floor analysis or beyond-the-floor analysis, before the Agency could issue a section 112(d)(5) standard. Rather, Congress authorized EPA to issue GACT standards for area source categories listed under section 112(c)(3), and that is precisely what EPA has done in this rulemaking. Although EPA has no obligation to justify why it is issuing a GACT standard for an area source category as opposed to a MACT standard, EPA must set a GACT standard that is consistent with the requirements of section 112(d)(5) and have a reasoned basis for its GACT determination. As explained in the proposed rule and below, in determining what constitutes GACT for a particular area source category, EPA evaluates the control technologies and management practices that reduce HAP emissions that are generally available for the area source category. See 72 FR 116638. The legislative history supporting section 112(d)(5) provides that EPA may consider costs in determining what constitutes generally available control technologies or management practices for the area source category (GACT). 7 EPA cannot consider cost in setting MACT floors, pursuant to section 112(d)(3). Congress plainly recognized that area sources differ from major sources, which is why Congress permitted EPA to consider costs in setting GACT standards for area sources under section 112(d)(5), but did not permit that consideration in setting MACT floors for major sources. This important dichotomy between section 112(d)(3) and section 112(d)(5) provides further evidence that Congress sought to do precisely what the title of section 112(d)(5) states—provide EPA the authority to issue “[a]lternative standards for area sources.” EPA properly issued standards for the area source categories at issue here under section 112(d)(5), and as demonstrated below, EPA has a reasoned basis for each of its GACT determinations. 7 Additional information on the definition of “generally available control technology or management practices”

(GACT)is found in the Senate report on the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act (S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st session. 171-172). That report states that GACT is to encompass: . . . methods, practices and techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems. Finally, even accepting, for arguments sake, the commenter's assertion that EPA must provide a rationale basis for setting a GACT standard as opposed to a MACT standard, we did so in the proposed rule. In the proposal, we explained that we can and do consider costs and economic impacts in determining GACT. We also explained that the facilities in the source categories at issue here are already well controlled for the Urban HAP for which the source category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). See 72 FR 16638. We believe the consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially important for the well-controlled area sources at issue in this final action because, given current well-controlled levels, a MACT floor determination, where costs cannot be considered, could result in only marginal reductions in emissions at very high costs for modest incremental improvement in control for the area source category. *Comment:* One commenter stated that EPA's alternative proposal (72 FR 16647) that GACT is no further emissions reduction for existing area sources in three source categories (chromium compounds manufacturing, carbon black production, and acrylic and modacrylic fibers production) is unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter stated that the Agency provided no basis whatsoever for concluding that GACT is no further emission reduction. In particular, the commenter claimed that EPA provided no basis for concluding that:

(1)Chromium compounds manufacturers cannot reduce their emissions of such pollutants through the use of generally available control measures,

(2)carbon black manufacturers cannot reduce all their emissions of HAP at least to the 98 weight percent reduction or 20 ppmv standards, and

(3)acrylic and modacrylic fibers manufacturers cannot reduce their emissions of HAP at least to the levels EPA has identified as GACT. *Response:* In the preamble to the proposed rule for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category, we solicited comments as follows: We are alternatively proposing that GACT for this existing area source is no further emission reduction. We request comment on the basis, consistent with section 112(d)(5), for asserting that GACT is no further control for the existing source. We request comment on this issue because the standard proposed above will not result in any emission reductions beyond what is already required by the State permit to which the existing facility is already subject. We included the same request for comments in the preamble for the Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds area source category and the Carbon Black Production area source category. We are not finalizing this approach in the final rule. Rather, we are finalizing the proposed emissions standards with minor changes. B. Proposed NESHAP for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources *Comment:* One commenter stated that EPA's decision to reject steam stripping of wastewater streams as GACT for the one existing area source plant on cost effectiveness grounds is unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter asserted that in the proposed rule, EPA did not dispute that steam stripping was commercially available and appropriate and did not claim that the economic impact was too great. The commenter further asserted that EPA presented only its own subjective views on cost effectiveness, which are not relevant under section 112(d)(5). 8 According to the commenter, EPA's decision to reject steam stripping is arbitrary because the Agency did not consider the relevant factors (availability, appropriateness, and cost) in determining what constitutes GACT. The commenter further stated that EPA failed to explain why it based its rejection of steam stripping on its claims about cost effectiveness or to explain why it did not consider the reductions cost effective. 8 The commenter cites legislative history, noting that GACT must reflect the “methods, practices and techniques that are commercially available and appropriate for application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts” (72 FR 16638, quoting S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171-172). *Response:* As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007): Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control technologies and management practices that are generally available to the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine if the control technologies and management practices are transferable and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies and practices could be considered generally available for the area source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and management practices on that category. Prior to proposal, we reviewed the generally available control technologies and management practices that have been applied to wastewater at the one existing acrylic and modacrylic fibers area source plant. This plant has a wastewater stream with a low concentration of AN, and the wastewater is processed in a wastewater treatment system to remove organic compounds and degrade the AN. We also considered the control technologies and management practices employed at major sources in this category for treating wastewater streams and determined that the major sources were treating similar low-HAP concentration wastewater streams in the same manner as the area sources in this category. We also evaluated the feasibility of steam stripping to remove the AN even though it was not employed in the category for low-HAP concentration wastewater streams. We stated at proposal that steam stripping the wastewater stream would require a capital expenditure of $700,000 with a recurring total annualized cost of $630,000 per year. We stated that, assuming a 90 percent removal rate, the emissions reduction from steam stripping for the existing area source facility would be 7 tpy. The cost effectiveness would be $90,000 per ton of AN. 9 We determined that steam stripping of the wastewater stream at the only known existing area source was not appropriate for application for the source because it was not cost effective. See *e.g.* , *Husqvarna AB* v. *EPA* , 349 U.S. App. DC 118, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (DC Cir. 2001) (Finding EPA's decision to consider costs on a per ton of emissions removed basis reasonable because CAA section 213 did not mandate a specific method of cost analysis). Consequently, we concluded that GACT was the plant's current management practice of processing the water in a wastewater treatment system. 9 We recognize that in other contexts the effectiveness of steam stripping is 96 percent, which results in a cost effectiveness of $85,000 per ton of AN. In response to comments, we evaluated plants in similar industrial categories ( *e.g.* , the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry subject to subpart G in 40 CFR part 63) and found that the general management practice for low-HAP concentration wastewater streams is to process the water in a wastewater treatment system similar to that employed by the existing acrylic and modacrylic area source. We conclude here that the current practice employed at the existing facility is GACT and, consistent with our finding at proposal, stream stripping is not GACT for this area source category. *Comment:* One commenter stated that the proposed rule for existing sources was very specific to the one area source plant that EPA identified and stated that it should more appropriately be based on efficiencies or concentrations to allow some operating flexibility. While the commenter acknowledged that this facility is the only acrylic fiber manufacturer currently known to be an area source, the commenter believed that future facilities may struggle to comply with such site-specific requirements. Specifically, the commenter suggested that the proposed emissions limit for polymerization process equipment, which is expressed in terms of pounds per hour (lb/hr), should be written more generally for different types of processes and control equipment that might be used and should require a control efficiency or outlet concentration. According to the commenter, this would more closely match the approach provided for new sources which used efficiency and concentration limits. The commenter also noted that the control device parameter operating limit for existing sources specifies the water flow rate of the scrubbers. The commenter stated that the standard should require the operating parameters to be established based on performance testing. The commenter asserted if past testing is used and parameters were previously set, this should still be acceptable. According to the commenter, this approach would allow the existing facility flexibility to change these parameters based on performance testing should it become necessary. *Response:* We agree that the proposed emission limit for process vents is very site-specific to the one known area source plant. We are providing existing sources with the option of complying with the standards for new sources. Although the standards for new and existing sources are expressed in different formats, both standards require the same level of emission control, and both ensure that the technology identified as GACT is in place. Thus, the compliance alternative we are adopting in the final rule provides an equivalent level of control and additional flexibility for existing sources to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP. We also agree with the commenter's suggestion about establishing operating limits for the scrubbers during a performance test and have revised the rule accordingly. The scrubber water flow must be monitored during the performance test, and the test must demonstrate compliance with the emission limit. The operating limit for scrubber water flow is determined from the lowest average flow rate during any test run that shows compliance with the emissions limit. C. Proposed NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Area Sources *Comment:* Two commenters stated that there are no area sources in the source category producing carbon black by the furnace or thermal processes. The commenters believed that the 2002 National Emissions Inventory

(NEI)incorrectly designated the Degussa Engineered Carbon facility in Belpre, Ohio, as an area source. Both commenters claimed that the emissions reported in the NEI and the 2005 Toxics Release Inventory

(TRI)from this facility, which are below the major source thresholds, represent levels after control but that the uncontrolled “potential to emit” emissions are considerably above the major source thresholds. The commenters asserted that this facility was identified as the only existing area source in the category and was used to form the basis for GACT. The commenters stated that EPA determined GACT based on this mistaken identification of the Belpre, Ohio facility as an area source. The commenters requested that EPA reconsider its GACT determination in light of the fact that the source considered in making such a determination is a major source and that GACT determinations require considerations of economics and a technical feasibility for the smaller sources outside of the major source category. The commenters stated that GACT for area sources should be less stringent than MACT for major sources due to the financial and technical considerations that would apply to a smaller area source. *Response:* The identification of the Degussa plant in Belpre, OH as an area source was due in part to the information in the NEI and TRI as suggested by the commenters. We also reviewed the plant's title V permit, which expires in December 2007. The permit indicated that the plant was a major source of criteria pollutants and not a major source of HAP emissions. The permit also did not indicate that the plant was subject to the MACT standard in subpart YY (40 CFR part 63). While we were aware of the plant's recent permit renewal application that incorporated the provisions of subpart YY, it was still unclear whether the plant was a major source of HAP. However, since one of the commenters is the plant itself, we accept that we made an error in considering this facility to be an area source. In light of this new information, we reevaluated our GACT determination for existing carbon black area sources. As stated in the proposal preamble (72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007): Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control technologies and management practices that are generally available to the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine if the control technologies and management practices are transferable and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies and practices could be considered generally available for the area source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and management practices on that category. Given that there are no current area sources, we examined all existing carbon black plants, which happen to be all major sources. Those sources have applied technologies to reduce organic HAP emissions from main unit process vent streams with concentrations of 260 ppmv or greater. The control technologies typically used for this source category are flares and incinerators. These control technologies have also been widely applied to many emission sources in other similar industrial source categories, such as process vents at petroleum refineries and chemical plants. These control technologies are therefore generally available. Even if by some mechanism an existing major source becomes an existing area source, that facility would already have the necessary controls in place and the facility would incur no additional costs in response to this final NESHAP. The facility would not be able to remove or discontinue use of any of the controls because they would likely exceed the major source thresholds (i.e., the commenters pointed out that their potential to emit based on emissions before control exceeds major source thresholds). Further, the controls were installed to meet permit limits for criteria pollutants, and these requirements would not change just because a source became an area source of HAP emissions. Accordingly, after considering the availability of the above-identified control technologies, which provide the most effective control of HAP emissions from these processes, their demonstrated applicability to carbon black facilities and similar emission sources, and their reasonable costs for vent streams with concentrations above 260 ppmv, we are finalizing the standard for carbon black area sources set forth in the proposal. *Comment:* One commenter stated that EPA's decision to provide a 260 ppmv applicability cutoff in the proposed rule for carbon black producers is based on factors that are irrelevant to the establishment of GACT standards under section 112(d)(5) and devoid of any rational explanation. According to the commenter, EPA determined that GACT for carbon black manufacturing is either a 98 weight-percent reduction in HAP emissions or a 20 ppmv concentration standard. The commenter claimed that EPA proposed to allow sources to meet an alternative 260 ppmv standard. According to the commenter, EPA's only explanation for allowing sources to emit 13 times as much HAP as its own GACT standard would allow is that “this cutoff represents the lowest control device inlet concentration reported at one of the best-controlled facilities” and “we do not have available information to indicate that the single existing area source controls process vent emissions with concentrations below this level.” The commenter asserted that EPA did not explain the relevance of either of those claims to its determination of GACT. According to the commenter, the control device inlet concentration at any given source is in no way indicative of the emissions level that can be achieved by the technology that EPA itself has recognized as GACT and therefore, it is irrelevant to the GACT determination. The commenter also claimed that because control device inlet information is irrelevant under section 112(d)(5), EPA's decision to base an alternative GACT decision on such information is arbitrary and that EPA's complete failure to explain why it would base its GACT decision on such information or why it believed that such information is even relevant to the determination of GACT is also arbitrary. The commenter stated that to the extent EPA based its decision on the fact that the single source currently in the area source carbon black category does not currently control vent emissions streams below the 260 ppmv level, its decision is unlawful. The commenter asserted that EPA's obligation under section 112(d)(5) is to base standards on control measures that are commercially available and appropriate for the category. According to the commenter, the fact that a source has not already voluntarily controlled its emission streams below a given level does not mean that control technology is not commercially available for use on such streams or that the use of such technology is not appropriate. The commenter stated that EPA did not even suggest that using a flare or incinerator to control emissions from vent streams with concentrations below 260 ppmv is either technically or economically infeasible. *Response:* As noted above, other commenters reported that the facility originally identified as the only existing area source in this category (upon which the proposed GACT requirements were based) is in fact a major source. Therefore, as we stated in the previous response, we reevaluated GACT for this category and determined that for sources with process vent stream emissions of 260 ppmv or greater, the technology that applies at major sources (i.e., flares or incinerators) is transferable to area sources. We have no emissions data for process vent streams below 260 ppmv, as the major sources are not required to control below this level. As an initial matter, we reject the commenter's statement that control device inlet concentration is not relevant. The inlet concentration and other stream characteristics ( *i.e.* , the characteristics of the uncontrolled emission stream) are directly related to both the effectiveness and the cost of a control device. For example, the heating value of components of the inlet stream is a key component in the effectiveness and cost of a flare. Therefore, the concentration affects flame stability, emissions, and flame structure. A lower concentration (and thus lower heating value) produces a cooler flame that does not favor combustion kinetics and is also more easily extinguished. While these limitations can sometimes be overcome through the use of auxiliary fuels, this increases the costs. Therefore, we believe that the use of concentration is an appropriate consideration in determining GACT for this source category. Flares and incinerators are established control technologies that are generally available for this source category for POM, which is the Urban HAP for which this source category was listed. Therefore, we analyzed the potential impacts associated with a requirement to control process vent streams with organic HAP concentrations of 260 ppmv or less. We estimate that the cost effectiveness of controlling a 260 ppmv stream with a flare would be around $19 million per ton of POM emission reduction (carbon black production was listed as an area source category based on emissions of POM). The cost effectiveness of an incinerator was estimated to be almost $25 million per ton of POM reduction. We believe that the costs of requiring the control of process vent streams with organic HAP concentrations less than 260 ppmv are cost prohibitive and therefore do not represent methods, practices, and techniques which are generally available for application by the sources in this category. Therefore, the final rule retains the 260 ppmv applicability threshold. D. Proposed NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds *Comment:* One commenter objected to the proposed standard requiring plants to operate a capture system that collects gases and fumes from each emissions source and conveys the gases to a PM control device because, according to the commenter, EPA did not say how efficient either the capture system or the PM control device must be. The commenter also stated that EPA appears to indicate that any capture system and control device will do, but the commenter acknowledged that EPA did provide equations that appear to establish numerical limits on PM emissions on a pounds per hour basis. The commenter stated that EPA's apparent assumption that all PM control is the same and equally sufficient for controlling emissions from this source is at odds with the record evidence and is arbitrary. According to the commenter, not all PM controls are equally effective. The commenter stated that “it is plain from the discussion of PM controls provided by both EPA itself and ICAC that PM controls vary widely in effectiveness, and is plain that chromium compound manufacturers could reduce their emissions of hexavalent chromium and other HAP by using more effective PM controls.” Examples given by the commenter include more effective fabric filters such as filters with better fabric or better baghouse design and more effective scrubbers. According to the commenter, EPA did not consider the possibility of requiring any controls other than those that are currently in use and did not discuss which technologies are currently available, their effectiveness, or how much they cost. The commenter asserted that EPA's rejection of more effective controls without even considering them is arbitrary and capricious. *Response:* We disagree with the commenter's statement that EPA concluded that any capture system or any control device is, as the commenter implies, sufficient in the abstract to comply with the NESHAP. EPA established numerical emissions limits for chromium, using PM as a surrogate, and the emissions limits are established by equations set forth in the rule. The commenter stated that the equations “appear” to establish numerical emission limits, and, in fact, the equations do establish such limits on a pounds per hour basis, and the commenter's implication that they do not is unsupported. Further, we disagree with the commenter that we assumed that all PM control devices are equally effective. We proposed an emissions standard for the metal HAP at issue using PM as a surrogate. The PM emissions standard identified as GACT was based on control technologies that are generally available, considering cost, and represent a level of control that has been achieved at the two existing chromium compound manufacturing facilities. As we discussed earlier, in determining GACT for area sources, we examine the demonstrated and generally available controls at area sources in the source category. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in the category and determine if those controls are generally available and transferable to area sources. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. In addition, in appropriate circumstances, we may consider technologies employed at similar industrial source categories. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. We also consider cost and economic impacts of generally available control technologies or management practices on a source category in determining GACT. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. In this case, at proposal, we evaluated the control technologies that are used by the existing chromium compound manufacturing area source facilities. The two processes with the greatest emissions potential are the high temperature operations of the rotary kilns used for roasting the chromite ore and the processes used for quenching the hot kiln roast. Both plants use a combination of wet scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators in series for one or both of these processes. This combination of wet scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators has been demonstrated as effective for this source category and is generally available. 10 Thus, we established GACT based on the current controls employed at the two area sources in this category. We did not find that the costs and economic impacts of compliance would be significant because the controls that we determined were generally available in the category were being employed at the existing facilities, and nothing in the record indicated that the costs would be prohibitive for new sources. 10 The effectiveness of these controls is shown by the TRI reporting for the North Carolina plant with a 95 percent reduction in chromium emissions since the control technology identified as GACT was installed. There are no major sources in this category, and we did not consider similar source categories at proposal. In response to comments, however, we have evaluated similar primary metal industries. We have found that electrostatic precipitators, often in combination with scrubbers, the same controls employed by the emissions sources in this category, are the commonly used control devices for the smelting or roasting operations in other primary metal industries, including primary steel, primary copper, and primary zinc production. We affirm our conclusion that the proposed controls are GACT for this area source category. The proposed standard, with minor changes discussed elsewhere, is finalized in this rulemaking. *Comment:* One commenter requested clarification of the performance test requirements. The commenter pointed out that for an existing facility, the proposed rule allows certification of compliance with the emission limits based on a previous performance test conducted within the past 5 years; otherwise, a facility must conduct tests to demonstrate initial compliance. The commenter noted that the proposed rule conflicted with the General Provisions table which indicates that performance test requirements apply to an existing source only if the permitting authority requests the tests. The commenter stated that he initially understood that EPA would require initial performance tests only if requested by the permitting authority. According to the commenter, the two affected plants that produce chromium compounds from chromite ore are currently performing adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting to demonstrate compliance with the proposed emissions limits, and any decision to require performance tests should be at the discretion of the permitting agency. *Response:* We acknowledge that the current title V permits for the affected plants require performance testing only at the request of the permitting authority. However, the final rule requires performance testing if a valid performance test has not been conducted within the 5 years prior to the effective date of the final rule. We found that performance tests have not been conducted within the past 5 years at the two existing plants, and a few minor emissions sources have never been tested. An initial performance test or a recent performance test is very important to ensure that the control devices are operating as designed and can be shown to meet the applicable emissions limit. Although the plants have performed the monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping required by their permits, we cannot correlate the monitoring results to the performance of the control devices to ensure the emissions limits are met unless a performance test has been conducted to demonstrate this. Once a performance test has demonstrated compliance, we will have assurance that subsequent monitoring will ensure that the emissions sources continue to operate as designed and as demonstrated by the performance test. The commenter is correct in that there were conflicting entries in the General Provisions table of the proposed rule for performance test requirements. We have corrected the table in the final rule to clarify the performance test requirements as discussed above. *Comment:* One commenter requested that EPA clarify the definition of a “new” affected source. The commenter asked if a new affected source includes new or reconstructed equipment at an existing site, or is a new affected source a new or reconstructed chromium chemical manufacturing facility. The commenter suggested that EPA add a definition of “chromium compounds manufacturing facility.” *Response:* The proposed rule stated that the “affected source” is “each chromium compounds manufacturing facility.” We have added a definition of “chromium compounds manufacturing facility” to further clarify what the affected source is. A new affected source is one for which construction or reconstruction commenced after April 4, 2007. The definitions of “construction” and “reconstruction” are given in the General Provisions (40 CFR 63.2). *Comment:* One commenter objected to the proposed requirements for initial control device inspections for plants that are already implementing the inspection requirements according to an established schedule in an approved title V permit. The commenter claimed that the proposed requirement for initial inspections will result in increased costs and result in shutdown of key emissions sources and control devices that are not due for inspection until 2008 and 2009. The commenter provided an example of kilns that must be shutdown and cooled before the internal components of the electrostatic precipitators can be inspected. According to the commenter, the shutdown and cooling period for the kilns takes several days and results in significant cost in terms of lost production and other expenses. As an alternative, the commenter suggested that EPA require an initial inspection prior to startup for installed control devices which have not operated within 60 days of the compliance date. *Response:* Our intent at proposal was to codify the control device inspection requirements currently in the permit of the North Carolina plant because we determined that these requirements represent what is generally available, and this plant had inspection requirements that were more comprehensive than those at the other area source plant. The proposed inspection requirements included daily, monthly, annual, and biennial inspections for various control devices and their components. To perform the internal inspection, it is necessary to shut down the process (the high temperature kilns) and allow the system to cool down. We agree that the 24-month period as stated in the permit is reasonable for this particular type of inspection. It provides flexibility to the facility to perform the inspection during periods of regularly scheduled kiln maintenance, which minimizes the disruption to production and the large expense that would result from a mandatory initial inspection and subsequent annual inspections. The operating processes also have to be shut down for the annual internal inspections of baghouses and wet scrubbers. Consequently, we have revised the rule to state that an initial inspection of the internal components of electrostatic precipitators does not have to be performed if an inspection has been performed within the past 24 months. The next inspection must be performed within 24 months of the last inspection, and subsequent inspections of the internal components must be performed for each following 24-month period. Similarly, an initial inspection of the internal components of baghouses and wet scrubbers does not have to be performed if an inspection has been performed within the past 12 months. The next inspection must be performed within 12 months of the last inspection, and subsequent inspections of the internal components must be performed for each following 12-month period. However, we continue to require initial inspections that do not require shutting down the process and control device, such as inspecting baghouses and ductwork for leaks, verifying the proper operation of electrostatic precipitator parameters, and water flow to wet scrubbers. We agree with the commenter's suggestion that we require an initial inspection prior to startup for installed control devices which have not operated within 60 days of the compliance date. This inspection can be performed before process operations resume and thus would not require a disruptive shutdown. *Comment:* One commenter asked if annual inspection requirements for wet scrubbers apply to cyclonic scrubbers prior to wet electrostatic precipitators. According to the commenter, this is not a requirement in the current title V permit and would not be consistent with EPA's approach of codifying the monitoring requirements currently applicable to the North Carolina plant. *Response:* Our intent at proposal was to be consistent with the established inspection requirements in the title V permit of the North Carolina plant. The permit requires internal inspections of electrostatic precipitators, wet scrubbers, and baghouses that are used as primary control devices. Internal inspections of cyclonic scrubbers that are installed upstream of the electrostatic precipitators are not required by the permit, nor do we believe they are needed. Unlike electrostatic precipitators, cyclonic scrubbers do not have complex internal components subject to failure that would affect emissions control performance. Consequently, we are clarifying that annual internal inspections of cyclonic scrubbers installed upstream of electrostatic precipitators are not required. However, we continue to require monitoring for the cyclonic scrubbers, including the presence of water flow and visual inspections of the system ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks. *Comment:* One commenter requested changes to the process description in the preamble to the proposed rule and corresponding revisions and clarifications to Table 1 of the proposed rule which identifies the regulated process equipment. The commenter stated that the table should be titled “Emissions Sources” instead of “Emissions Points”; the “filter for sodium chromate slurry” should be changed to “residue dryer system”; the “reactor used to produce chromic acid” should be changed to the “melter used to produce chromic acid”; and the “sodium dichromate evaporation unit” should be removed from the table because there are no chromium emissions from this unit at either plant. *Response:* We agree that the table is a listing of emission “sources”, and we will clarify that the production of chromic acid occurs in a “melter.” We also agree that we inadvertently included the filter for sodium chromate slurry, which is not an emissions source, and should have included instead the residue dryer system, which is an emissions source. We identified the sodium dichromate evaporation unit as a process at the chromium compound manufacturing plants. However, this process operates under a vacuum to reduce the water content at temperatures far below the temperatures that would be needed to volatilize chromium compounds in the wet slurry into PM. This process is not an emissions source for PM and was therefore not identified in the title V permit as an emission source. Consequently, we are deleting the sodium dichromate evaporation unit from the table of emissions sources. *Comment:* One commenter noted that the General Provisions table in the NESHAP should be revised to eliminate duplication of entries for § 63.10(e)(1) and (e)(2). *Response:* We agree and have corrected the table to eliminate the duplication. E. Proposed NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources *Comment:* One commenter stated that one HAP emitted by flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication facilities is methylene chloride. According to the commenter, EPA indicated in the preamble that methylene chloride is used by stabstock foam plants as an ABA and an equipment cleaner, and that molded and rebond foam plants use methylene chloride as a mold release agent and an equipment cleaner. The commenter noted that for slabstock foam plants EPA proposed either to prohibit the use of methylene chloride or to establish certain requirements for its use. The commenter asserted that EPA must prohibit the use of methylene chloride at slabstock facilities based on the following statement from the proposal preamble: “[b]ased on recent contacts with the industry, we have verified that every known slabstock facility has converted their process to use a non-HAP technology (72 FR 16649).” The commenter stated that EPA's failure to require the use of non-HAP technology it acknowledges to be GACT is unlawful and arbitrary. Also arbitrary, according to the commenter, is the Agency's failure to explain its decision to allow facilities to continue to use methylene chloride with various control requirements, given its own conclusion that a ban on the use of methylene chloride is GACT. *Response:* The proposed regulation addressed eight different types of situations where methylene chloride could potentially be used at flexible polyurethane foam production and flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facilities. For seven of these potential use situations, the proposed rule prohibited the use of methylene chloride. The lone situation where the proposed rule did not prohibit the use of methylene chloride was as an ABA in the production of slabstock flexible polyurethane foam. By only selecting a portion of the language from the preamble related to the determination of GACT for methylene chloride usage as an ABA at slabstock facilities and presenting it out of context, the commenter has misrepresented EPA's rationale in the proposal preamble. The entire discussion, from which the commenter quoted selectively, is as follows: The NESHAP requirements, along with the revisions to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA)permissible exposure and short-term exposure limits for methylene chloride (63 FR 50711, September 22, 1998), caused slabstock foam facilities to investigate, evaluate, and install technologies to reduce or eliminate the use of methylene chloride as an ABA at their facilities. These technologies include alternative formulations to reduce the amount of methylene chloride ABA needed, alternative non-HAP ABAs (acetone, liquid carbon dioxide), controlled or variable pressure foaming, and forced cooling. Based on recent contacts with the industry, we have verified that every known slabstock facility has converted their process to utilize one of these technologies * * *. Consequently, we propose to conclude that emissions limitations based on the application of these technologies are generally available

(GACT)for new and existing sources. See 72 FR 16649, April 4, 2007. As explained in the proposal, we determined that some of the technologies listed could result in the complete elimination of the use of methylene chloride as an ABA. However, we also discussed alternative formulations that reduce, but do not eliminate, the amount of methylene chloride ABA needed in the list of generally available control measures. Alternative formulations can include, among other things, chemical additives and alternative polyols. These measures “reduce” the use of methylene chloride as an ABA without eliminating it. In fact, a specific relevant example of these technologies was provided by a slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production facility that commented on the proposal. This commenter reports that their facility has reduced methylene chloride emissions by 77 percent through the reformulation of foam grades and marketing to encourage customers to switch to foam grades that the commenter's company can produce without methylene chloride. This is a clear example of the “alternative formulations” referred to in the proposal preamble as one of the technologies we determined to be GACT. Therefore, we reject the commenter's assertion that we concluded that GACT was a ban on the use of methylene chloride as an ABA and did not make any revisions in the final rule as a result of this comment. *Comment:* One commenter opposed the proposal to prohibit all use of methylene chloride-based adhesives. The commenter stated that there may be certain applications where adhesives based on methylene chloride provide superior performance and can be used in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA)worker exposure limits. The commenter only mentions loop slitter operations. *Response:* In our proposal, we specifically requested comments on “whether and under what circumstances methylene-chloride based adhesives ( *e.g.* , in small specialty applications) *are being used or might be used* by the foam fabrication industry, and what quantities are or might be involved in such applications” (72 FR 16649) ( *emphasis added* ). The commenter's general assertion that there may be applications where methylene chloride-based adhesives provide superior performance is not responsive to our request for comments. As for loop slitters, we found at proposal that the industry has discontinued the use of methylene chloride-based adhesives, and we concluded at proposal that GACT was the prohibition of the use of such adhesives for loop slitter operations. At this time, we are not aware of any specific applications where methylene chloride adhesives provide performance that cannot be achieved by alternative adhesives and where they can be used in compliance with OSHA worker exposure limits. Consequently, the final rule retains the prohibition of the use of methylene chloride adhesives in flexible polyurethane foam fabrication operations. *Comment:* One commenter indicated that a less burdensome program should be provided for flexible polyurethane foam producers that utilize methylene chloride as an ABA. This commenter's company is a small business that employs less than 100 people. They operate one facility that produces and fabricates flexible polyurethane foam. The commenter pointed out that their facility produces thousands of pounds of flexible polyurethane foam per month, while typical facilities throughout the country produce millions of pounds per month. The commenter provided information on the numerous improvements that have been made at this facility to reduce methylene chloride usage and emissions. They have eliminated all uses of methylene chloride except as an ABA, and have made significant reductions (over 75 percent) in its usage as an ABA. The commenter indicated that this facility has a federally enforceable synthetic minor permit which caps methylene chloride emissions on a monthly and 12-month rolling basis. The permit also incorporates many of the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements of the foam production MACT rule. The commenter suggested that, for this facility, the proposed rule is unnecessarily complicated in view of the environmental benefits realized by the programs already in place. The commenter suggested several amendments to the rule to reduce the burden. In general, the commenter requested that the methylene chloride ABA emissions caps and the monitoring and reporting provisions in their permit be provided as an acceptable option for meeting the requirements of the area source rule for slabstock foam production. The commenter cited numerous areas where capital expenditures would be necessary to comply with the proposed rule including the purchase of control equipment (storage tank vapor balance line), computer software, IFD and density testing equipment, and meter calibration equipment. The commenter noted that the initial investment would also include costs for computer program development and operator training. The commenter estimated that the total initial capital costs would range from $25,000 to $35,000. The commenter also stated that the proposed rule would result in increased annual costs of between $28,000 and $45,000 for testing, training, calibrations, maintenance, tracking, recordkeeping and data entry, and reporting. *Response:* The proposed rule included an emissions limitation format for the use of methylene chloride as an ABA, along with associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions, that allows flexibility in how sources choose to comply (for example, individual emissions point requirements versus a source-wide overall limit, monthly compliance versus 12-month rolling average). We believe that this flexibility outweighs any perceived complexity of the format of the emissions limitation and the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, and we do not believe that the costs of these requirements are inappropriate for this category. Therefore, we did not make any changes to the proposed rule in response to these comments. *Comment:* This same commenter stated that the compliance date of the proposed rule for slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production sources (the date of publication of the final rule) is not reasonable since the final rule will result in the need for equipment, operating, monitoring, and administrative changes. *Response:* The commenter cited numerous areas where capital expenditures would be necessary to comply with the proposed rule including the purchase of control equipment (storage tank vapor balance line), computer software, IFD and density testing equipment, and meter calibration equipment. The commenter also indicated that computer program development will be necessary and operators will need to be trained. Given the changes that will be necessary to comply with the final rule, we agree that it is reasonable to extend the compliance date for existing sources. Therefore, the final rule has a compliance date for slabstock foam affected sources electing to continue to utilize methylene chloride as an ABA to 1 year from the date of publication of the final rule. *Comment:* One commenter did not understand how facilities that do not release a HAP, specifically methylene chloride, could be subject to the NESHAP for flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication. In support, the commenter recited the definition of an area source as “any stationary source of hazardous air pollutants that is not a major source * * *.” The commenter believed the proposed rule conflicts with the definition of an area source because the proposed NESHAP has specific requirements for facilities that do not release any HAP. The commenter asked how this is possible. *Response:* The first paragraph of the proposed rule, § 63.11414(a), states “You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an area source of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)emissions that meets the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) or

(2)of this section.” Facilities that are not sources of any hazardous air pollutants, including methylene chloride, are not subject to the rule. Therefore, the comment that “the proposed NESHAP has specific requirements for facilities that do not release any HAP” is incorrect. F. Proposed NESHAP for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources *Comment:* One commenter stated that EPA's proposed GACT determination for battery manufacturers does not satisfy section 112(d)(5). The commenter claimed that rather than evaluating the potential reduction measures that are commercially available and appropriate for application by battery manufacturers, EPA considered only one option: requiring all sources to comply with the 1982 NSPS for PM, with which 53 out of 58 sources are already in compliance anyway. The commenter stated that section 112(d)(5) requires the use of “methods, practices and techniques” which are commercially available and appropriate for application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts.” The commenter said that there are “methods, practices, and techniques” that are commercially available and appropriate for application by battery manufacturers. The commenter specifically cited a 1998 EPA report that specifies a 2:1 air to cloth ratio as the “[g]enerally safe design level” for lead oxide in ordinary baghouses. With respect to processes currently controlled with fabric filters, the commenter stated that there are more effective fabric filters, and with respect to processes currently controlled by impingement scrubbers, there are fabric filters or more effective scrubbers ( *e.g.* venturi scrubbers). According to the commenter, EPA has not required GACT standards that reflect the use of these technologies, nor even considered doing so. The commenter concluded that EPA's rule contravenes section 112(d)(5). The commenter also stated that EPA's rule is arbitrary and that EPA provided no rationale for failing to consider methods, practices and techniques that are commercially available and would reduce battery manufacturers’ emissions significantly. The commenter stated that EPA does not claim that more efficient control measures are not commercially available for any of the relevant processes, nor does the Agency claim that they are too costly. In particular, according to the commenter, EPA does not even say what the cost for more efficient technologies would be or why it thinks they might be too costly. The commenter stated that EPA failed to consider any approach other than using the 1982 NSPS without providing any explanation for its choice. The commenter stated that it appears EPA's only consideration was whether the 1982 NSPS might be too stringent to be GACT, and EPA did not entertain the possibility that more protective standards might be achievable through the use of generally available measures. According to the commenter, EPA's rule is not only arbitrary but unlawful in that it reflects a complete abrogation of the EPA's statutory duty to evaluate currently available control measures and set standards that reflect them. *Response:* Section 112(d)(5) authorizes the Administrator to “elect to promulgate standards or requirements applicable to sources in such [area source] categories or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices [GACT] by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.” As we discussed earlier, in determining GACT for area sources, we examine the demonstrated and generally available controls at area sources in the source category. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in the category and determine if those controls are generally available and transferable to area sources. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. In addition, in appropriate circumstances, we may consider technologies employed by sources in similar industrial categories. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. We also consider cost and economic impacts of generally available control technologies or management practices on a source category in determining GACT. See 72 FR 16638, April 4, 2007. For the lead acid battery area sources, at proposal, we considered the controls and technologies employed by the area sources in the category. We found that the smallest sources in this category were not subject to the lead acid battery NSPS. We also found that there are approximately 60 known area sources in this category and no known major sources. We concluded that the requirements of the NSPS represented generally available control technologies or management practices for this source category. Moreover, although not stated in the proposal, because of the large number of area sources in this category, we concluded that we did not need to look at sources in similar industrial categories for determining what is generally available to the lead acid battery manufacturing category. At proposal, we found that the NSPS addressed lead (not PM) emissions from six types of processes at lead acid battery manufacturing plants:

(1)Grid casting,

(2)paste mixing,

(3)three-process operations,

(4)lead oxide manufacturing,

(5)lead reclamation, and

(6)other lead emitting processes. The commenter stated that more effective “methods, practices, and techniques” including fabric filters with air to cloth ratios between 2:1 and 3.5:1 (and specifically 2:1 for lead oxide) are available, and cited this as evidence that significant advancements in technology have occurred since the NSPS was promulgated in 1982. The 1998 EPA report that the commenter cited indicates that the generally safe design level for lead oxide in ordinary baghouses is, in fact, the same 2:1 air to cloth ratio required in the NSPS standard for lead oxide manufacturing, which is incorporated into this rule. Thus, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the emission limitations in the NSPS were in this case based on the specific technology addressed by the commenter and that technology is considered state-of-the-art today. The commenter assumed that the category's current lead emissions reflect a 98 percent reduction from uncontrolled emissions, and suggested that substantial emissions reductions would be obtained through setting new standards that reflect a 99.9 percent reduction. We are unsure on what the commenter based this assertion. For fabric filters with a 6:1 air to cloth ratio in the NSPS, which is the control basis for the standards for paste mixing, three-process operations, and other lead emitting processes in this rule, we attributed 99 percent lead emissions reduction. We attributed a 90 percent lead removal efficiency for impingement scrubbers, the control basis for the standards for the grid casting and lead reclamation processes. Therefore, while there would be an incremental reduction in emissions if technologies that achieve 99.9 percent lead emission reduction were required by this area source NESHAP, the reductions would not be as substantial as predicted by the commenter. We did not discuss the costs of imposing additional control requirements on this category at proposal, but we do so here in response to this comment. We estimate that the total capital investment for a typical plant to upgrade to 99.9 percent controls could range from more than $600,000 to almost $1.7 million, depending on the technologies selected. We estimate annual costs of this additional control for a typical plant would be around $1.2 million per year due to increased operator labor costs, maintenance labor and material costs, electricity and other utility costs, taxes and insurance, and capital recovery costs. This cost represents almost 5 percent of the total shipments for an average lead acid battery establishment. We do not believe that these costs and potential economic impacts are appropriate for application by the area sources in this category. The costs incurred per ton of lead emissions reduced would be around $450,000 to $500,000 based on replacing existing control devices or installing additional devices to increase control efficiency up to 99.9 percent. In conclusion, we believe that the technologies upon which the proposed standards were based are generally available to this industry. Moreover, we believe that the costs of requiring every area source lead acid battery facility to install technologies that achieve additional incremental emission reductions, beyond those established in these NESHAP, would be prohibitive. Thus, we have not revised the emission standards in the rule in response to this comment. *Comment:* One commenter stated that in addition to emitting more than 26 tpy of lead, lead acid battery manufacturers emit more than 47 tpy of other HAP; among these are HAP that are not metals, do not behave like PM in the stack gas, and therefore cannot be captured or reduced through the use of PM control devices. According to the commenter, section 112(d) requires emission standards for each HAP listed in section 112(b). Assuming that the Agency does not have to set separate standards for each HAP when issuing standards under section 112(d)(5), the commenter stated that EPA still has an obligation to address all of the HAP that a category emits when setting GACT standards. The commenter claimed that EPA has an obligation to address the HAP emitted by battery manufacturing plants that are not captured by PM control devices, and the failure to do so was unlawful. The commenter also stated that the failure to consider the HAP that are not emitted as PM and to explain why they were not addressed is arbitrary and capricious. *Response:* Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least 30 HAP emitted from area sources that pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas (the “Urban HAP”) and identify the area source categories that will be listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). Section 112(c)(3), in relevant part, provides: The Administrator shall, * * * , and pursuant to subsection (k)(3)(B) of this section, list, based on actual or estimated aggregate emissions of a listed pollutant or pollutants, sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 hazardous air pollutants that present the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas are subject to regulation under this section. Thus, section 112(c)(3) requires 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. Section 112(d)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations establishing emissions standards for each area source of HAP listed for regulation pursuant to section 112(c). EPA identified the 30 Urban HAP that pose the greatest threat to public health in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. In that same document, EPA listed the source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP emissions. We have interpreted the above provisions of section 112 to require EPA to regulate only those Urban HAP emissions for which an area source category is listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). As stated elsewhere in this preamble, Congress chose to treat areas sources differently from major sources under section 112 and other sections of the CAA, such as title V. Under section 112, Congress determined that the Agency should identify 30 HAP emitted from area sources that posed the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. The statute then directs the Agency to list sufficient area source categories to account for 90 percent of the emissions of each Urban HAP and to subject those listed source categories to regulation. Section 112(d)(1) requires emissions standards for area sources of HAP “listed pursuant to subsection (c)”. Area sources listed pursuant to subsection (c)(3) are listed only because they emit one of the 30 listed Urban HAP and the Agency has identified the category as one that will ensure that we satisfy the requirement to subject area sources representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 Urban HAP to regulation. Moreover, section 112(c)(3) explicitly refers to section 112(k)(3)(B). Section 112(k)(3)(B) addresses the national strategy to control HAP from area sources in urban areas. The focus of the strategy is on the 30 HAP that pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. As noted above, in 1999, EPA issued the Integrated Air Toxics Strategy in response to section 112(k)(3)(B). In that strategy, we identified the 30 Urban HAP, which are the HAP that pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas, and we identified, consistent with section 112(c)(3), the area source categories that account for 90 percent of those Urban HAP. Pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category was listed due to emissions of two specific pollutants: lead and cadmium. We recognize that other HAP, including Urban HAP which did not form the basis of the section 112(c)(3) listing decision, may be emitted from lead acid battery manufacturing facilities. To the extent that the other HAP are Urban HAP, we identified other area source categories that emit those Urban HAP in higher amounts and have determined that subjecting other area source categories to regulation for these HAP will achieve the 90 percent requirement in the CAA. In conclusion, consistent with section 112, we are not obligated to address HAP other than Urban HAP for which this area source category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3), which, as noted above, are lead and cadmium. *Comment:* One commenter requested clarification of the dates for compliance compared to the key NESHAP General Provisions for existing sources. The commenter explained that in § 63.9(b) of the General Provisions and based on communications with EPA, initial notification by existing facilities is due 120 calendar days after final rule publication. According to the commenter, the proposed compliance date provision in § 63.11422 could be read to suggest notification is not due for a year. The commenter found similar confusion between § 63.9(h) and § 63.11422 pertaining to notices of compliance from existing sources. The commenter suggested the following clarification language: Note: Initial notification by existing facilities, required by § 63.9(b), is due within 120 calendar days after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . Notices of compliance by existing facilities, required by § 63.9(h), is due on the 60th day following the 1 year deadline for compliance with the new standard. *Response:* We agree that the timing for notifications should be clarified, and we have made the suggested clarifications in the final rule. G. Proposed NESHAP for Wood Preserving Area Sources *Comment:* Eight commenters questioned the need for the standards and stated there is no need to regulate wood preserving area sources. The commenters further stated that the wood preserving industry is an insignificant source of the four HAP to be regulated by this proposed standard. According to the commenters, the industry has not used methylene chloride in the wood treating process since 1992, and emissions of the three other HAP covered in this rule are negligible according to the commenters. Moreover, the commenters claimed that EPA was unable to identify “any other management practices or control technologies that would provide additional emissions reductions in a cost effective manner.” *Response:* The emission levels used for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy were based on the section 112(k) 1990 inventory. Following issuance of the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy in 1999, EPA revised the area source category listing in the Strategy to also include the wood preserving area source category (67 FR 70428, November 22, 2002). We also recognize that the wood preserving industry has changed over the past 15 years and Urban HAP emissions have been reduced. The regulations being finalized today will ensure that future emissions from wood preserving operations will be limited to the same level that is being generally achieved today and was determined to be GACT. Without such regulations, there is nothing that would limit future Urban HAP emissions from a new process or wood preservative. *Comment:* Eight commenters requested clarification regarding non-applicable preservative chemistries. The commenters asserted that as currently worded, the provision in § 63.11428(a) would seem to encompass any wood preserving operation, including those that treat household commodities with ammoniacal copper quat

(ACQ)or copper azole (CA)—waterborne, copper-based preservatives that do not contain chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride. The commenters understood that EPA did not intend to regulate wood preservatives that do not contain the Urban HAPs for which the wood preserving category was listed. Accordingly, the commenters requested that EPA revise § 63.11428(a) to clarify, as it does in § 63.11430 and in the preamble to the proposed rule, that the wood preserving area source standard applies only to facilities “using a treatment process with any wood preservatives containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride.” *Response:* The applicability of the wood preserving area source rule (as described in § 63.11428(a)) includes any wood preserving operation located at an area source. However, only those facilities that are using a wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride are subject to the management practice requirements in § 63.11430 and the other requirements in § 63.11432. Additional language was added to § 63.11430(c) and § 63.11432 to clarify that only those area source facilities using any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride have to prepare and operate according to a management practice plan to minimize air emissions, and comply with the initial notification and reporting requirements. If your area source wood preserving facility is only using preservatives such as ACQ or CA, then you are not subject to the requirements in §§ 63.11430 and 63.11432. *Comment:* Several commenters requested that EPA provide flexibility in the interpretation of the term “fully drain” as that term is used in § 63.11430(c)(6): “For the pressure treatment process, fully drain the retort prior to opening the retort door.” The commenters stated that as a practical matter, it is not possible to “fully drain” 100 percent of all residual preservative before a retort door is opened and that the quantity of material involved is small. The commenters requested confirmation that the trace amount of residual preservative which may remain in the cylinder when the retort door is opened does not violate the § 63.11430(c)(6) requirement to “fully drain” the retort before opening the door, and that the language in § 63.11430(c)(6) be amended to read “For the pressure treatment process, fully drain the retort to the extent practical, prior to opening the retort door.” *Response:* We agree with the commenters and have made the following change to § 63.11430(c)(6) in the final standards: “For the pressure treatment process, fully drain the retort to the extent practicable, prior to opening the retort door.” An example of what is practicable for fully draining the retort would be a retort operation where any residual preservative drips into the door pit sump. H. Proposed Exemption of Certain Area Source Categories from Title V Permitting Requirements *Comment:* One commenter believed that EPA's proposal to exempt four of the five area source categories addressed in its proposal (acrylic and modacrylic fibers production, flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication, lead acid battery manufacturing, and wood preserving) from title V permitting requirements is unlawful and arbitrary. In support of this assertion, the commenter cited CAA section 502(a), which provides that EPA may exempt area source categories from title V permitting requirements if compliance with such requirements is “impracticable, infeasible or unnecessarily burdensome.” See 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a). The commenter stated that EPA does not claim that such requirements are impracticable or infeasible for any of the four area source categories it proposes to exempt, but rather relies entirely on its claim that they would be “unnecessarily burdensome.” *Response:* Section 502(a) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that: * * * [t]he Administrator may, in the Administrator's discretion and consistent with the applicable provisions of this chapter, promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source categories (in whole or in part) from the requirements of this subsection if the Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any major source from such regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a). The statute plainly vests the Administrator with discretion to determine when it is appropriate to exempt non-major ( *i.e.* area) sources of air pollution from the requirements of title V. The commenter correctly notes that EPA based the proposed exemptions solely on a determination that title V is “unnecessarily burdensome,” and did not rely on whether the requirements of title V are “impracticable” or “infeasible”, which are alternative bases for exempting area sources from title V. To the extent the commenter is asserting that EPA must determine that all three criteria in CAA section 502 are met before an area source category can be exempted from title V, the commenter misreads the statute. The statute expressly provides that EPA may exempt an area source category from title V requirements if EPA determines that the requirements are “impracticable, infeasible *or* unnecessarily burdensome.” See CAA section 502 ( *emphasis added* ). If Congress had wanted to require that all three criteria be met before a category could be exempted from title V, it would have stated so by using the word “and,” in place of “or”. *Comment:* One commenter stated that in order to demonstrate that compliance with title V would be “unnecessarily burdensome,” EPA must show, among other things, that the “burden” of compliance is *unnecessary.* According to the commenter, by promulgating title V, Congress indicated that it viewed the burden imposed by its requirements as necessary as a general rule. The commenter maintained that the title V requirements provide many benefits that Congress viewed as necessary. Thus, in the commenter's view, EPA must show why for any given category, special circumstances make compliance unnecessary. The commenter believed that EPA has not made that showing for any of the categories it proposes to exempt. *Response:* EPA does not agree with the commenter's characterization of the demonstration required for determining that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for an area source category. As stated above, the CAA provides the Administrator discretion to exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that compliance with title V requirements is “impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome” on an area source category. See CAA section 502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502 and developed a four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005 (“Exemption Rule”). In addition to interpreting the term “unnecessarily burdensome” and developing the four-factor balancing test in the Exemption Rule, EPA applied the test to certain area source categories. The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome on a particular area source category include:

(4)whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326). In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained that we considered on “a case-by-case basis the extent to which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be ‘unnecessarily burdensome’ on the category, consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.” See 70 FR 75323. Thus, we concluded that not all of the four factors must weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category. Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination and EPA determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption from title V for a particular source category. The commenter asserts that “EPA must show * * * that the “burden” of compliance is unnecessary.” This is not, however, one of the four factors that we developed in the Exemption Rule in interpreting the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502, but rather a new test that the commenter maintains EPA “must” meet in determining what is “unnecessarily burdensome” under CAA section 502. EPA did not re-open its interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502 in the April 6, 2007 proposed rule for the categories at issue in this rule. Rather, we applied the four-factor balancing test articulated in the Exemption Rule to the source categories for which we proposed title V exemptions. Had we sought to re-open our interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502 and modify it from what was articulated in the Exemption Rule, we would have stated so in the April 6, 2007 proposed rule and solicited comments on a revised interpretation, which we did not do. Accordingly, we reject the commenter's attempt to create a new test for determining what constitutes “unnecessarily burdensome” under CAA section 502, as that issue falls outside the purview of this rulemaking. 11 11 If the commenter objected to our interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in the Exemption Rule, it should have commented on, and challenged, that rule. Any challenge to the Exemption Rule is now time barred by CAA section 307(b). Although we received comments on the title V Exemption Rule during the rulemaking process, no one sought judicial review of that rule. Moreover, even were the comment framed as a request to re-open our interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502, which it is not, we would deny such request because we have a court-ordered deadline to complete this rulemaking by June 15, 2007, and we are not in a position to expand the scope of the rulemaking at this juncture. In any event, we believe that the commenter's position that “EPA must show * * * that the “burden” of compliance is *unnecessary* ” is unreasonable and contrary to Congressional intent concerning the applicability of title V to area sources. Congress intended to treat area sources differently under title V as it expressly authorized the EPA Administrator to exempt such sources from the requirements of title V at his discretion. There are several instances throughout the CAA where Congress chose to treat major sources differently than non-major sources, as it did in section 502. 12 In addition, it is worth noting that although the commenter espouses a new interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502 and attempts to create a new test for determining whether the requirements of title V are “unnecessarily burdensome” for an area source category, the commenter does not explain why EPA's interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” is arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. We maintain that our interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in section 502, as set forth in the Exemption Rule, is reasonable. 12 See, *e.g.* , section 112(d)(5) (authorizing generally available control technologies or management practices in lieu of maximum achievable control technology standards for area sources); section 112(f)(5) (exempting area sources regulated under section 112(d)(5) from the 8-year residual risk review requirement); Compare, section 110(a)(2)(c) (requiring minor source permitting program without a detailed statutory structure) with section 165 (providing detailed permitting requirements for major sources locating in prevention of significant deterioration areas). Finally, in this rule, we appropriately applied the four-factor balancing test set forth in the Exemption Rule to the particular area source categories at issue in this rule. In response to comments, we provide above a more detailed discussion of our consideration of the four factors for the source categories at issue. Based on our consideration of the four factors, we are taking final action to finalize the exemptions from title V for the acrylic and modacrylic fibers production, flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication, lead acid battery manufacturing, and wood preserving categories. 13 13 In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether exempting the area source category would adversely affect public health, welfare or the environment. See 72 FR 15254-15255, March 25, 2005. As shown above, after conducting the four-factor balancing test and determining that title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome on the area source categories at issue here, we examined whether the exemption from title V would adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment, and found that it would not. *Comment:* One commenter stated that exempting a source category from title V permitting requirements deprives both the public generally and individual members of the public who would obtain and use permitting information from the benefit of citizen oversight and enforcement that Congress plainly viewed as necessary. According to the commenter, the text and legislative history of the CAA provide that Congress intended ordinary citizens to be able to get emissions and compliance information about air toxics sources and to be able to use that information in enforcement actions and in public policy decisions on a State and local level. The commenter stated that Congress did not think that enforcement by States or other government entities was enough; if it had, Congress would not have enacted the citizen suit provisions, and the legislative history of the CAA would not show that Congress viewed citizens' access to information and ability to enforce CAA requirements as highly important both as an individual right and as a crucial means to ensuring compliance. According to the commenter, if a source does not have a title V permit, it is difficult or impossible—depending on the laws, regulations and practices of the State in which the source operates—for a member of the public to obtain relevant information about its emissions and compliance status. The commenter stated that likewise, it is difficult or impossible for citizens to bring enforcement actions. The commenter continued that EPA does not claim—far less demonstrate with substantial evidence, as would be required—that citizens would have the same ability to obtain compliance and emissions information about sources in the categories it proposes to exempt *without* title V permits. The commenter also said that likewise, EPA does not claim—far less demonstrate with substantial evidence—that citizens would have the same enforcement ability. Thus, according to the commenter, the exemptions EPA proposes plainly eliminate benefits that Congress thought necessary. The commenter claimed that to justify its exemptions, EPA would have to show that the informational and enforcement benefits that Congress intended title V to confer—benefits which the commenter argues are eliminated by the exemptions—are for some reason unnecessary with respect to the categories it proposes to exempt. The commenter concluded that EPA does not *acknowledge* these benefits or explain why they are unnecessary, and that for this reason alone, EPA's proposed exemptions are unlawful and arbitrary. *Response:* Once again, the commenter attempts to create a new test for determining whether the requirements of title V are “unnecessarily burdensome” on an area source category. Specifically, the commenter argues that EPA does not claim or demonstrate with *substantial evidence* that citizens would have the same access to information and the same ability to enforce under these NESHAP, absent title V. The commenter's position represents a significant revision of the fourth factor that EPA developed in the Exemption Rule in interpreting the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502. For all of the reasons explained above, the commenter's attempt to create a new test for EPA to meet in determining whether title V is “unnecessarily burdensome” on an area source category cannot be sustained. This rulemaking did not re-open EPA's interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502. Because the commenter's statements do not demonstrate a flaw in EPA's application of the four-factor balancing test to the specific facts of the source categories at issue here, which is the sole title V issue in this rulemaking, the comments provide no basis for the Agency to reconsider its proposal to exempt the area source categories from title V. Today, we finalize the exemptions proposed in the April 6, 2007 rule. Moreover, as explained in the proposal and above, we considered implementation and enforcement issues in the fourth factor of the four-factor balancing test. Specifically, the fourth factor of EPA's unnecessarily burdensome analysis provides that EPA will consider whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. See 70 FR 75326. In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted, but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. Nowhere in the Exemption Rule did the Agency state that we had to demonstrate that citizen enforcement would be identical absent title V before an area source category could be exempted from title V. In applying the fourth factor here, EPA determined that there are adequate enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the CAA. We do not have enforcement data available because we are only today finalizing the NESHAP at issue here. As stated in the proposal, however, States with delegated programs have enforcement and compliance assistance and implementation programs in place to enforce the provisions of these NESHAP. See 72 FR 16656. In fact, a State must have adequate programs to enforce the HAP regulations and provide assurances that it will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate the program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. The commenter does not challenge the conclusion that there are adequate State and Federal programs in place to enforce the NESHAP. Instead, the commenter provides an unsubstantiated assertion that information about compliance by the area sources with these NESHAP will not be as accessible to the public as information provided to a State pursuant to title V. In fact, the commenter does not provide any information that States will treat information submitted under these NESHAP differently than information submitted pursuant to a title V permit. Even accepting the commenter's assertions that it is more difficult for citizens to enforce the NESHAP absent a title V permit, in evaluating the fourth factor in EPA's balancing test, EPA concluded that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to enforce the NESHAP. The commenter has provided no information to the contrary or explained how the absence of title V actually impairs the ability of citizens to enforce the provisions of these NESHAP. Furthermore, the fourth factor is one factor that we evaluated. As explained above, we considered that factor together with the other factors and determined that it was appropriate to finalize the proposed exemptions for the area source categories at issue in this rule. *Comment:* One commenter explained that title V provides important monitoring benefits and stated that EPA admits that “[o]ne way that title V may improve compliance is by requiring monitoring (including recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring) to *assure* compliance with emission limitations and control technology requirements imposed in the standard” (72 FR 16654). According to the commenter, EPA assumes that title V monitoring would not add any monitoring requirements beyond those required by the regulations for each category. The commenter said that with respect to acrylic and modacrylic fibers production, EPA states “[b]ecause both the continuous and noncontinuous monitoring methods required by the proposed NESHAP would provide periodic monitoring, title V would not add any monitoring to the proposed NESHAP.” Id. The commenter stated that EPA makes a similar claim with respect to lead acid battery manufacturing (72 FR 16655), and that such claims miss the point. As EPA admits, according to the commenter, title V does not merely require periodic monitoring; it requires monitoring to “assure compliance.” The commenter continued by stating that if additional monitoring is necessary to assure compliance, it must be required to satisfy title V, regardless of whether the underlying NESHAP provides for periodic monitoring. The commenter concludes that the “burden” imposed on a category by title V is not unnecessary unless EPA shows that, in all instances, the periodic monitoring requirements established in the underlying NESHAP for that category “assure” compliance. According to the commenter, EPA does not even claim—far less demonstrate with substantial evidence—that the monitoring requirements in the NESHAP for any of the categories it proposes to exempt “assure” compliance. The commenter stated that for this reason as well, its claim that title V requirements are “unnecessarily burdensome” is arbitrary and capricious, and its exemption is unlawful and arbitrary and capricious. *Response:* The commenter asserts that “EPA admits [that] title V does not merely require periodic monitoring; it requires monitoring to “assure compliance.” The commenter does not accurately characterize the Agency's statements in the proposal. We stated: One way that title V may improve compliance is by requiring monitoring (including recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring) to assure compliance with the emissions limitations and control technology requirements imposed in the standard. The authority for adding new monitoring in the permit is in the *“periodic monitoring” provisions of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B), which allow new monitoring to be added to the permit when the underlying standard does not already require “periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring* (which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring).” See 72 FR 16654 ( *emphasis added* ). We nowhere state or imply that periodic monitoring is not sufficient to assure compliance. Moreover, the commenter's position that the Agency must make a specific finding that the monitoring in the proposed NESHAP assures compliance with the NESHAP is inconsistent with EPA's Final Rule Interpreting the Scope of Certain Monitoring Requirements for State and Federal Operating Permits Programs (71 FR 75422, December 15, 2006) (“Interpretive Rule”). That rule interprets title V of the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) and the Clean Air Act requirements which they implement. Under the Interpretive Rule, if an applicable requirement, such as a NESHAP, contains periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring ( *i.e.* , periodic monitoring), permitting authorities are not authorized to assess the sufficiency of or impose new monitoring requirements on a case-by-case basis. Federal standards promulgated pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are presumed to obtain monitoring sufficient to assure compliance. Thus, consistent with this interpretation and as demonstrated in the proposed rule and above, title V would not add any monitoring requirements to the NESHAP because the NESHAP contains periodic monitoring. The commenter also attempts to create a new test for consideration in determining what is “unnecessarily burdensome” under CAA section 502. Specifically, the commenter argues that EPA must demonstrate with substantial evidence that, in all instances, the periodic monitoring requirements assure compliance. As explained above, this rulemaking did not re-open EPA's interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502. For all the reasons explained above, we reject the commenter's attempt to create a new test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome on an area source category. Moreover, EPA considered monitoring in the first factor of the four-factor balancing test that it developed in the Exemption Rule. EPA appropriately applied that factor to the area source categories at issue in this rule. As noted above, under the first factor, EPA considers whether title V would result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements that are proposed for the area source categories. See 70 FR 75323. It is in the context of this first factor that EPA evaluates the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed NESHAP to determine the extent to which those requirements are consistent with the requirements of title V. See 70 FR 75323. As noted above, and in the proposed rule, we considered whether title V monitoring requirements would lead to significant improvements in the monitoring requirements in the proposed NESHAP and determined that they would not. Specifically, EPA included in the NESHAP periodic monitoring it determined to be necessary to assure compliance. See 72 FR 16654-16655. In addition, for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category, the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category, the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production area source category, and the Flexible Polyurethane Fabrication area source category, EPA found that title V would not add additional monitoring, and that determination is consistent with the title V Interpretive rule. See 72 FR 16654-16655. The commenter does not provide any evidence to support a claim that title V would add monitoring, consistent with our interpretation of title V in the Interpretive Rule, for any of these area source categories. For the Wood Preserving area source category, we imposed recordkeeping to serve as monitoring that was designed to document compliance with the management practices imposed on the industry. See 72 FR 16655. We concluded that title V would not add additional monitoring for this category because continuous monitoring is not necessary to ensure a reduction in HAP emissions for this category. We also concluded that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the rule are sufficient to assure compliance and that additional monitoring is not practical or necessary. The commenter did not take issue in its comment with the adequacy of the recordkeeping that serves as monitoring or the reporting requirements for the Wood Preserving area source category. For the reasons described above, the first factor supports an exemption, and even if it did not, the four-factor balancing test requires EPA to examine the factors, in combination, and determine whether the factors, viewed together, weigh in favor of exemption. See 70 FR 75326. As explained above, we determined that the factors, weighed together, supported exemption of the area source categories from title V. *Comment:* One commenter argued that title V provides important reporting certification benefits and that, specifically, plants must report deviations from emission standards and must certify at least annually whether they are in compliance with “any applicable requirements.” See 42 U.S.C. 7661b(b)(2). The commenter stated that EPA fails to point to any requirement in the NESHAP for any of the categories it proposes to exempt that requires plants to report each deviation from requirements, as title V does. The commenter disagrees with EPA that reporting requirements for certain operating requirements, such as the daily average water flow to a wet scrubber, are sufficient and states that none of the NESHAP contain certification requirements. The commenter also stated that the compliance certification requirement obliges plant operators to certify—subject to criminal penalties—whether their sources were in or out of compliance with emission standards. According to the commenter, Congress determined that this requirement was necessary *in addition* to reporting requirements, and that is why it enacted the compliance certification requirement. The commenter stated that it is not up to EPA to declare that it disagrees with Congress and find that compliance certification requirements are not necessary. The commenter acknowledged that it might be possible for EPA to show that compliance certification requirements are not necessary for some specific area source category based on that specific category's characteristics. The commenter said that EPA has not done that here, however, and instead offers the generic claim that it thinks quarterly reports are enough. Thus, the commenter believes that EPA has essentially taken the position that compliance certification is never necessary. The commenter also stated that EPA contravenes the CAA by excusing sources from a compliance obligation without meeting the requirement of showing that requirement to be unnecessary. Further, according to the commenter, EPA acts arbitrarily by finding the compliance certification is unnecessary without providing a rational basis for that claim. The commenter concluded that the recording requirements that exist under the individual NESHAP are no replacement for the recording requirements under title V, which require prompt reporting of all “deviations” from any applicable requirements, not just reporting of exceedances of EPA-selected operating requirements. According to the commenter, because EPA has not shown that reporting of selected operating requirements renders reporting of all deviations from any applicable requirements unnecessary, the EPA's exemptions are unlawful and arbitrary. *Response:* In this comment, the commenter again argues that EPA must specifically demonstrate that all title V requirements, deviation reporting and annual compliance certifications in this instance, are unnecessary in isolation before EPA can lawfully exempt an area source category from title V. We do not agree. As explained above, we interpreted the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502 and developed the four-factor balancing test in the Exemption Rule, and that balancing test does not require a determination that every title V requirement is unnecessary. Instead, in the first factor we consider “whether title V would result in significant improvements to the compliance requirement, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.” As explained in the proposal preamble and noted above, we have determined that for these source categories title V would not result in significant improvements in compliance requirements. The commenter argued that these NESHAP do not contain adequate deviation reporting requirements because the deviation reporting is limited to reporting on exceedances or variances of the operating requirements set forth in the standards. We are not clear what aspects of the deviation reporting contained in the NESHAP the commenter considers insufficient or what additional deviation reporting the commenter believes would be included if title V applied. The proposed NESHAP contain deviation reporting requirements for each of the source categories that we are exempting from title V. In response to this comment, the Agency has re-evaluated the deviation requirements for these NESHAP and determined that any additional, unspecified, deviation reporting that title V might add would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance requirements finalized in this rulemaking. The commenter also takes issue with EPA's conclusion that annual compliance certifications are not necessary for certain categories because of quarterly reporting requirements. The commenter implies that enforcement of the NESHAP is undermined without an annual compliance certification and states that EPA admitted that there are no certification requirements in the NESHAP. First, even absent the requirement to submit annual compliance certifications under the NESHAP, sources must nevertheless comply with all emission standards and requirements in the NESHAP. In addition, the Agency did not conclude that annual compliance certification is never necessary, but only that the annual compliance certification would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance requirements in the NESHAP because some of the NESHAP require quarterly reports. Furthermore, contrary to what the commenter states, and as discussed above in section IV of this preamble, there are certification requirements contained in the NESHAP ( *e.g.* , initial certification of compliance status). Moreover, we determined in our consideration of the fourth factor that there are adequate enforcement and implementation programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP and the commenter has provided no evidence that the lack of annual compliance certifications will undermine enforcement and implementation of the NESHAP. *Comment:* One commenter believed EPA argued that its own belief that title V is a “significant burden” on area sources further justifies its exemption (72 FR 16655-16656). According to the commenter, regardless of whether EPA regards the burden as “significant,” the Agency may not exempt a category from compliance with title V requirements unless compliance is “unnecessarily burdensome.” The commenter stated that in any event, EPA's claims about the alleged significance of the burden of compliance is entirely conclusory and could be applied equally to any major or area source category. The commenter also stated that the Agency does not show that the compliance burden is especially great for any of the sources it proposes to exempt, and thus does not demonstrate that the alleged burden necessitates treating them differently from other categories by exempting them from compliance with title V requirements. *Response:* The commenter appears to take issue with the formulation of the second factor of the four-factor balancing test. Specifically, the commenter states that EPA must determine that title V compliance is “unnecessarily burdensome” and not a “significant burden” as expressed in the second factor of the four factor balancing test. We note that the commenter in other parts of its comments on the title V exemptions argues that EPA must demonstrate that every title V requirement is “unnecessary” for a particular source category before an exemption can be granted but makes no mention of the “burden” of those requirements on area sources, but here the commenter argues that “significant burden” is not appropriate for the second factor. Notwithstanding the commenter's inconsistency, as explained above, the four-factor balancing test was established in the Exemption Rule and we did not re-open EPA's interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in this rule. Contrary to the commenter's assertions, we properly analyzed the second factor of the four-factor balancing test. See 70 FR 75320. Under that factor, EPA considers whether title V permitting would impose a significant burden on the area source categories and whether the burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies. See 70 FR 75324. The commenter appears to assert that the second factor *must* be satisfied for EPA to exempt an area source category from title V, but, as explained above, the four factors are considered in combination. We have concluded that the second factor, in combination with the other factors, supports an exemption for the area source categories at issue. *Comment:* According to one commenter, EPA argued that compliance with title V would not yield any gains in compliance with underlying requirements in the relevant NESHAP (72 FR 16656). The commenter stated that EPA's conclusory claim could be made equally with respect to any major or area source category. According to the commenter, the Agency provides no specific reasons to believe—with respect to any of the categories it proposes to exempt—that the additional informational, monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement requirements that exist in title V but not in these NESHAP would not provide additional compliance benefits. The commenter also stated that the only basis for EPA's claim is, apparently, its beliefs that those additional requirements never confer additional compliance benefits. According to the commenter, by advancing such argument, EPA merely seeks to elevate its own policy judgment over Congress' decisions reflected in the CAA's text and legislative history. *Response:* The commenter mischaracterizes the first and third factors of the four-factor balancing test and takes out of context certain statements in the proposed rule concerning those factors. First, the commenter incorrectly characterizes our statements in the proposed rule in applying the third factor. Under the third factor, EPA evaluates “whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources.” Contrary to what the commenter alleges, EPA did not state in the proposed rule that compliance with title V would not yield any gains in compliance with the underlying requirements in the relevant NESHAP, nor does factor three require such a determination. Instead, consistent with the third factor, we considered whether the costs of title V are justified in light of any potential gains in compliance. In considering the third factor, we stated that, “[b]ased on our consideration of factor 1 (described above) and factor 4 (described below), *we did not identify potential gains in compliance from title V permitting.* Therefore, we conclude that the costs of title V permitting for these area source categories are not justified.” (72 FR 16656) ( *emphasis added* ). Second, the commenter mischaracterizes the first factor by asserting that EPA must demonstrate that title V will provide no additional compliance benefits. But the first factor calls for a consideration of “whether title V would result in *significant improvements to the compliance requirements,* including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source category.” Thus, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the inquiry under the first factor is not whether title V will provide any compliance benefit, but rather whether it will provide significant improvements in compliance requirements. EPA applied the four-factor balancing test in determining whether title V was unnecessarily burdensome on the area source categories we are exempting from title V in this rule. This rulemaking did not re-open EPA's interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” in CAA section 502. Because the commenter's statements do not demonstrate a flaw in EPA's application of the four-factor balancing test to the specific facts of the source categories at issue here, which is the sole title V issue in this rulemaking, the comments provide no basis for the Agency to reconsider its proposal to exempt the area source categories from title V. Furthermore, EPA nowhere states, nor does it believe, that title V never confers additional compliance benefits as the commenter asserts. *Comment:* According to one commenter, EPA argued that alternative State implementation and enforcement programs assure compliance with the underlying NESHAP without relying on title V permits (72 FR 16656). The commenter stated that again, however, EPA's claim is entirely conclusory and generic. The commenter also stated that the Agency does not identify any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing that with respect to these specific NESHAPs—unlike all the other major and area source NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions—title V compliance is unnecessary. Instead, according to the commenter, EPA merely pointed to existing State requirements and the potential for actions by States and EPA that are generally applicable to all categories (along with some small business and voluntary programs). The commenter said that absent a showing by EPA that distinguishes the sources it proposes to exempt from other sources, however, the Agency's argument boils down to the claim that it generally views title V requirements as unnecessary. The commenter stated that may be EPA's view, but it was not Congress’s view when Congress enacted title V and it does not suffice to show that title V compliance is unnecessarily burdensome. *Response:* The commenter again takes issue with the Agency's test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome, as developed in the Exemption Rule. Our interpretation of the term “unnecessarily burdensome” is not the subject of this rulemaking. To the extent the commenter asserts that our application of the fourth factor is flawed, we disagree. As explained in the proposal preamble and above, we considered the fourth factor and determined that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the CAA, consistent with the fourth factor. As stated above, we do not have data available on the enforcement of these NESHAPs as in the Exemption Rule because, unlike in that rule, we are exempting the categories at the same time we are promulgating these NESHAPs. In the proposed rule, we did, however, explain that States with delegated programs have enforcement and compliance assistance programs in place to enforce the provisions of these NESHAPs (72 FR 16656). In addition, States must have adequate programs to enforce the HAP regulations and provide assurances that it will enforce all NESHAPs before EPA will delegate a program to the States. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. The commenter argues that the exemptions must fail because “[t]he agency does not identify any aspect of any of the underlying NESHAP showing that with respect to these specific NESHAP— *unlike all the other major and area source NESHAP it has issued without title V exemptions* —title V compliance is unnecessary” ( *emphasis added* ). The standard that the commenter proposes is not consistent with the standard the Agency established in the Exemption Rule and applied in the proposed rule in determining if title V is unnecessarily burdensome for the source categories at issue. Furthermore, the standard the commenter suggests is an impossible standard to meet. *Comment:* One commenter stated that, as EPA concedes, the legislative history the CAA shows that Congress did not intend EPA to exempt source categories from compliance with title V unless doing so would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment. See 72 FR 16654; 16656. Nonetheless, according to the commenter, EPA does not make any showing that its exemptions would not have adverse impacts on health, welfare and the environment. The commenter stated that instead, EPA offered only the conclusory assertion that “the level of control would remain the same” whether title V permits are required are not (72 FR 16656). The commenter continued by stating that EPA relied entirely on the conclusory arguments advanced elsewhere in its proposal that compliance with title V would not yield additional compliance with the underlying NESHAP. The commenter stated that those arguments are wrong for the reasons given above, and therefore EPA's claims about public health, welfare and the environment are wrong too. The commenter also stated that Congress enacted title V for a reason: to assure compliance with all applicable requirements and to empower citizens to get information and enforce the CAA. The commenter said that those benefits—of which EPA's proposed rule *deprives* the public—would improve compliance with the underlying standards and thus have benefits for public health, welfare and the environment. According to the commenter, EPA has not demonstrated that these benefits are unnecessary with respect to any specific source category, but again simply rests on its own apparent belief that they are never necessary. The commenter concluded that for the reasons given above, that attempt to substitute EPA's judgment for Congress’ is unlawful and arbitrary. *Response:* Congress gave the Administrator the authority to exempt area sources from compliance with title V if, in his discretion, the Administrator “finds that compliance with [title v] is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome.” See CAA section 502(a). EPA has interpreted one of the three justifications for exempting area sources, “unnecessarily burdensome”, as requiring consideration of the four factors discussed above. EPA applied these four factors to the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production area source category, the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing area source category, the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication area source categories, and the Wood Preserving area source category and concluded that requiring title V for these area source categories would be unnecessarily burdensome. In addition to determining that title V would be unnecessarily burdensome on the area source categories for which we proposed exemptions, as in the Exemption Rule, EPA also considered, consistent with our interpretation of the legislative history, whether exempting the area source categories would adversely affect public health, welfare or the environment. As explained in the proposal preamble and above, we concluded that exempting the area source categories at issue in this rule would not adversely affect public health, welfare or the environment because the level of control would be the same even if title V applied. The commenter has not provided any information that exemption of these area source categories from title V will adversely affect public health, welfare or the environment. I. Compliance with Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks *Comment:* One commenter disagreed with EPA's conclusion that this Executive Order does not apply to this action because it is not economically significant and does not present a disproportionate risk to children. According to the commenter, nothing in the language of the Executive Order limits EPA's obligation to consider risks to instances when it thinks the underlying regulatory action is economically significant. The commenter also claimed that the toxic emissions from the source categories included in the proposal have a disproportionate risk on children, who are especially at risk to all toxins and inhaled pollution. The commenter alleged that EPA has ample reason to believe that failing to require the degree of reduction required by the CAA and its exemption of source categories from title V requirements will have a disproportionate effect on children. *Response:* We disagree with the commenter. Section 2-202 of Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) defines the actions subject to its terms. As we stated at proposal, this Executive Order applies to any rule that:

(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children. If a regulatory action meets both criteria, the Executive Order directs EPA to evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis called for by section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. These final rules are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are not economically significant and, because the rules are based solely on technology performance, an analysis under section 5-501 of the Executive Order would not have had the potential to influence this regulation. J. Compliance With Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations *Comment:* One commenter alleged that minority and low income populations are located disproportionately near the source categories covered by the proposal. According to the commenter, these minority and low income populations will be adversely affected by any standard that is less protective than required by the CAA and also by any exemption from title V permitting requirements. The commenter claimed that EPA failed to consider these effects of its proposal. *Response:* As we stated at proposal, we have determined that these final rules will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because they increase the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. The commenter provided no information to support the commenter's conclusion. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action” because it may raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866, and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information requirements in these rules have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the final rules are based on the existing permit requirements as well as the information collection requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The information collection requirements for acrylic and modacrylic fibers production are the same as the requirements that are in the current State operating permit for the one existing source. The only new information collection requirements that apply to this area source consist of initial notifications, records of process and maintenance wastewater treated in a wastewater treatment systems, and an SSM plan. Any new acrylic and modacrylic fibers production area source is subject to all information collection requirements in the part 63 General Provisions. The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 9 labor hours per year at a cost of $780 for the one existing acrylic and modacrylic fibers area source. No capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs are associated with the final requirements. No costs or burden hours are estimated for new acrylic and modacrylic fibers production area sources because no new area sources are estimated during the next 3 years. As a result of public comments, we learned there are no existing carbon black production facilities that are area sources. Consequently, there are no costs or burden hours associated with the monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for existing area sources. No costs or burden hours are estimated for new carbon black production area sources because no new sources are estimated during the next 3 years. The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for existing chromium compounds manufacturing area sources are the same as the requirements that are in the current title V operating permit for the two existing facilities. The only new information collection requirements that apply to these area sources consist of initial notifications, SSM plans, and control device inspections at one plant. Any new chromium compounds manufacturing area source is subject to all information collection requirements in the part 63 General Provisions. The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 194 labor hours per year at a cost of $16,409 for the two existing chromium compounds manufacturing area sources. No capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs are associated with the requirements. No costs or burden hours are estimated for new chromium compounds manufacturing area sources because no new area sources are estimated during the next 3 years. The final NESHAP for flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication operations area sources require a one-time notification by slab stock foam facilities certifying that they do not use methylene chloride and records documenting that they do not use methylene chloride. One plant that uses methylene chloride is subject to additional reporting requirements. The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 925 labor hours per year at a cost of $78,337 for the 500 or more existing flexible foam fabrication and production area sources. No capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs are associated with the requirements. No costs or burden hours are estimated for new flexible foam production or fabrication area sources because no new sources are estimated during the next 3 years. The testing and monitoring requirements for emissions sources equipped with a scrubbing system at new and existing lead acid battery manufacturing area sources are the same as the requirements that are in the NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart KK). Monitoring requirements for emissions sources equipped with fabric filter are also included in the final rule. New information collection requirements that apply to these area sources consist of notifications, records, and reports required by the part 63 General Provisions. The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 2,302 labor hours per year at a cost of $172,477 for the approximately 60 existing lead acid battery manufacturing area sources, with capital/startup costs of $4,840 and no operation and maintenance costs. No costs or burden hours are estimated for new lead acid battery manufacturing area sources because no new sources are estimated during the next 3 years. The final NESHAP for wood preserving area sources does not include testing or monitoring requirements because they are subject to management practices. The only new information collection requirements that apply to these existing area sources consist of initial notifications, records demonstrating compliance with the management practice requirements, and deviation reporting requirements. The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 1,055 labor hours per year at a cost of $89,324 for approximately 400 existing wood preserving area sources. No capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs are associated with the requirements. No costs or burden hours are estimated for new wood preserving area sources because no new sources are estimated during the next 3 years. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the **Federal Register** to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in this final rule. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the area source NESHAP on small entities, small entity is defined as:

(1)A small business that meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 1,000 employees for acrylic and modacrylic fibers production and chromium compounds manufacturing and less than 500 employees for carbon black production, flexible polyurethane foam production and fabrication, lead-acid battery manufacturing, and wood preserving);

(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of the proposed rules on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There will not be adverse impacts on existing area sources in any of the seven source categories because the final rules do not create any new requirements or burdens for existing sources other than minimal notification requirements. Although the final NESHAP contain emissions control requirements for new area sources in all seven source categories, we are not specifically aware of any new sources being constructed now or planned in the next 3 years, and consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new sources. Although this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. These final rules are designed to harmonize with existing State or local requirements. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that the final rules do 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 final rules are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the final rules do not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The final rules contain no requirements that apply to such governments, impose no obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on them. Therefore, the final rules are not subject to section 203 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” These final rules do not have federalism implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. These final rules impose requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources and not State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to these final rules. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” These final rules do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. They will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. These final rules impose requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources and not tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these final rules. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. These final rules are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are not economically significant and because they are based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use These final rules are not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that these final rules are not likely to have any adverse energy effects because energy requirements would remain at existing levels. No additional pollution controls or other equipment that would consume energy are required by these final rules. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards

(VCS)in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards ( *e.g.* , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS. The final rules involve technical standards. The EPA cites the following standards: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9 and 22 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” (incorporated by reference—see 40 CFR 63.14) is cited in one of these final rules for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of the exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B. This ASTM method is a VCS. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5D, 9 or 22. The search and review results are in the docket for these final rules. The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 12 other VCS. The EPA determined that these 12 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emissions standards in these final rules were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this purpose. The reasons for the determinations for the 12 methods are discussed in a memorandum included in the docket for these final rules. For the methods required or referenced by these final rules, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures under § 63.7(f) and § 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that these final rules will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because they increase the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. These final rules establish national standards for each area source category. K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing these final rules and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the final rules in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These final rules will be effective on July 16, 2007. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporations by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 15, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 63—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart A—[Amended] 2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as follows: § 63.14 Incorporations by reference.

(i)* * *

(1)ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus],” IBR approved for §§ 63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3), 63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2), 63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), and Table 5 of subpart DDDDD of this part. 3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart LLLLLL to read as follows: Subpart LLLLLL—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources Sec. Applicability and Compliance Dates 63.11393 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.11394 What are my compliance dates? Standards and Compliance Requirements 63.11395 What are the standards and compliance requirements for existing sources? 63.11396 What are the standards and compliance requirements for new sources? Other Requirements and Information 63.11397 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? 63.11398 What definitions apply to this subpart? 63.11399 Who implements and enforces this subpart? Table 1 to Subpart LLLLLL of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart LLLLLL Applicability and Compliance Dates § 63.11393 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a)You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an acrylic or modacrylic fibers production plant that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)emissions.

(b)This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. The affected source is each acrylic or modacrylic fibers plant.

(1)An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.

(2)An affected source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.

(c)This subpart does not apply to research and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

(d)You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of this subpart. § 63.11394 What are my compliance dates?

(a)If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no later than January 16, 2008.

(b)If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16, 2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.

(c)If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon startup of your affected source. Standards and Compliance Requirements § 63.11395 What are the standards and compliance requirements for existing sources?

(a)You must operate and maintain capture or enclosure systems that collect the gases and fumes containing acrylonitrile

(AN)released from polymerization process equipment and monomer recovery process equipment and convey the collected gas stream through a closed vent system to a control device.

(b)Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, you must not discharge to the atmosphere through any combination of stacks or other vents captured gases containing AN in excess of the emissions limits in paragraphs (b)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(1)0.2 pounds of AN per hour (lb/hr) from the control device for polymerization process equipment.

(2)0.05 lb/hr of AN from the control device for monomer recovery process equipment.

(3)If you do not comply with the emissions limits in paragraphs (b)(1) and

(2)of this section, you must comply with the new source standards for process vents in § 63.11396(a).

(c)If you use a wet scrubber control device, you must comply with the control device parameter operating limits in paragraphs (c)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(1)You must maintain the daily average water flow rate to a wet scrubber used to control polymerization process equipment at a minimum of 50 liters per minute (l/min). If the water flow to the wet scrubber ceases, the polymerization reactor(s) must be shut down.

(2)You must maintain the daily average water flow rate to a wet scrubber used to control monomer recovery process equipment at a minimum of 30 l/min.

(d)You must comply with the requirements of the New Source Performance Standard for Volatile Organic Liquids (40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb) for vessels that store acrylonitrile. The provisions in 40 CFR 60.114b do not apply to this subpart.

(e)You must operate continuous parameter monitoring systems

(CPMS)to measure and record the water flow rate to a wet scrubber control device for the polymerization process equipment and the monomer recovery process equipment. The CPMS must record the water flow rate at least every 15 minutes and determine and record the daily average water flow rate.

(f)You must determine compliance with the daily average control device parameter operating limits for water flow rate in paragraph

(c)of this section on a monthly basis and submit a summary report to EPA or the delegated authority on a quarterly basis. Should the daily average water flow rate to a wet scrubber control device for the polymerization process equipment fall below 50 l/min or the daily average water flow rate to a wet scrubber control device for the monomer recovery process equipment fall below 30 l/min, you must notify EPA or the delegated authority in writing within 10 days of the identification of the exceedance.

(g)You must keep records of each monthly compliance determination for the water flow rate operating parameter limits in a permanent form suitable for inspection and retain the records for at least 2 years following the date of each compliance determination.

(h)You must conduct a performance test for each control device for polymerization process equipment and monomer recovery process equipment subject to an emissions limit in paragraph

(b)of this section within 180 days of your compliance date and report the results in your notification of compliance status. You must conduct each test according to the requirements in § 63.7 of subpart A and § 63.1104 of subpart YY. You are not required to conduct a performance test if a prior performance test was conducted using the methods specified in § 63.1104 of subpart YY and either no process changes have been made since the test, or you can demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes.

(i)If you do not use a wet scrubber control device for the polymerization process equipment or the monomer recovery process equipment, you must submit a monitoring plan to EPA or the delegated authority for approval. Each plan must contain the information in paragraphs (i)(1) through

(5)of this section.

(1)A description of the device;

(2)Test results collected in accordance with § 63.1104 of subpart YY verifying the performance of the device for reducing AN to the levels required by this subpart;

(3)Operation and maintenance plan for the control device (including a preventative maintenance schedule consistent with the manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance) and continuous monitoring system.

(4)A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits; and

(5)Operating parameter limits based on monitoring data collected during the performance test.

(j)If you do not operate a monomer recovery process that removes AN prior to spinning, you must comply with the requirements in paragraph (j)(1), (2), or

(3)of this section for each fiber spinning line that uses a spin dope produced from either a suspension polymerization process or solution polymerization process.

(1)You must reduce the AN concentration of the spin dope to less than 100 parts per million by weight (ppmw); or

(2)You must design and operate a fiber spinning line enclosure according to the requirements in § 63.1103(b)(4) of subpart YY and reduce AN emissions by 85 weight-percent or more by venting emissions from the enclosure through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements in § 63.982(a)(2) of subpart SS; or

(3)You must reduce AN emissions from the spinning line to less than or equal to 0.5 pounds of AN per ton (lb/ton) of acrylic and modacrylic fiber produced.

(k)You may change the operating limits for a wet scrubber if you meet the requirements in paragraphs (k)(1) through

(3)of this section.

(1)Submit a written notification to the Administrator to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating limit.

(2)Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emissions limit for a control device in paragraph

(b)of this section.

(3)Establish revised operating limits according to the procedures in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) and

(ii)of this section.

(i)Using the CPMS required in paragraph

(e)of this section, measure and record the water flow rate to the wet scrubber in intervals of no less than 15 minutes during each AN test run.

(ii)Determine and record the average water flow rate for each test run. Your operating limit is the lowest average flow rate during any test run that complies with the applicable emissions limit.

(l)You must treat process and maintenance wastewater containing AN in a wastewater treatment system. You must keep records that list each process and maintenance wastewater stream that contains AN and a process flow diagram of the wastewater treatment system that identifies each wastewater stream. § 63.11396 What are the standards and compliance requirements for new sources?

(a)You must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) or

(2)of this section for each process vent where the AN concentration of the vent stream is equal to or greater than 50 parts per million by volume

(ppmv)and the average flow rate is equal to or greater than 0.005 cubic meters per minute, as determined by the applicability and assessment procedures in § 63.1104 of subpart YY.

(1)You must reduce emissions of AN by 98 weight-percent or limit the concentration of AN in the emissions to no more than 20 ppmv, whichever is less stringent, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements for process vents in § 63.982(a)(2) of subpart SS; or

(2)You must reduce emissions of AN by using a flare that meets the requirements of § 63.987 of subpart SS.

(b)You must comply with the requirements in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or

(3)of this section for each fiber spinning line that uses a spin dope produced from either a suspension polymerization process or solution polymerization process.

(1)You must reduce the AN concentration of the spin dope to less than 100 ppmw; or

(3)You must reduce AN emissions from the spinning line to less than or equal to 0.5 pounds of AN per ton (lb/ton) of acrylic and modacrylic fiber produced.

(c)You must comply with the requirements for storage vessels holding acrylonitrile as shown in Table 2 to § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY.

(d)You must comply with the requirements for equipment that contains or contacts 10 percent by weight or more of AN and operates 300 hours per year as shown in Table 2 to § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY.

(e)You must comply with the requirements for process wastewater and maintenance wastewater from an acrylic and modacrylic fibers production process as shown in Table 2 to § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY. Process wastewater and maintenance wastewater that contains AN and is not subject to the requirements in Table 2 to § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY must be treated in a wastewater treatment system.

(f)You must comply with all testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in subpart SS (for process vents); subpart SS or WW (for AN tanks); subpart TT or UU (for equipment leaks); and subpart G (for process wastewater and maintenance wastewater). Only the provisions in §§ 63.132 through 63.148 and §§ 63.151 through 63.153 of subpart G apply to this subpart.

(g)If you use a control device other than a wet scrubber, flare, incinerator, boiler, process heater, absorber, condenser, or carbon adsorber, you must prepare and submit a monitoring plan to the Administrator for approval. Each plan must contain the information in paragraphs (g)(1) through

(5)of this section.

(1)A description of the device;

(2)Test results collected in accordance with paragraph

(f)of this section verifying the performance of the device for reducing AN to the levels required by this subpart;

(4)A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits; and

(5)Operating parameter limits based on monitoring data collected during the performance test. Other Requirements and Information § 63.11397 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

(a)You must meet the requirements of the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as shown in Table 1 to this subpart.

(b)If you own or operate an existing affected source, your notification of compliance status required by § 63.9(h) must include the following information:

(1)This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, for the standards in § 63.11395(a): “This facility complies with the management practices required in § 63.11395(a) for operation of capture systems for polymerization process equipment and monomer recovery process equipment.”

(2)This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, for the emissions limits in § 63.11395(b): “This facility complies with the emissions limits in § 63.11395(b)(1) and

(2)for control devices serving the polymerization process equipment and monomer recovery process equipment based on previous performance tests in accordance with § 63.11395(h)” or “This facility complies with the alternative standards for process vents in § 63.11395(b)(3) based on previous performance tests and assessments in accordance with § 63.11396(f)”. If you conduct a performance test or assessment to demonstrate compliance, you must include the results of the performance test and/or assessment.

(3)This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, for the standards for storage tanks in § 63.11396(d): “This facility complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb for each tank that stores acrylonitrile.”

(4)This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, for the requirement in Table 1 to subpart LLLLLL for preparation of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan: “This facility has prepared a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).”

(c)If you own or operate a new affected source, your notification of compliance status required by § 63.9(h) must include:

(1)The results of the initial performance test or compliance demonstration for each process vent (including closed vent system and control device, flare, or recovery device), fiber spinning line, AN storage tank, equipment, and wastewater stream subject to this subpart.

(2)This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, for the applicable emissions limit in § 63.11396(a) for process vents: “This facility complies with the emissions limits in § 63.11396(a) for each process vent subject to control.”

(3)This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, for the applicable emissions limit in § 63.11396(b) for each fiber spinning line: “This facility complies with the emissions limit and/or management practice requirements in § 63.11396(b)(1), (2), or

(3)for each fiber spinning line.”

(4)This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, for the storage tank requirements in § 63.11396(c): “This facility complies with the requirements for storage vessels holding acrylonitrile as shown in Table 2 to § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY.”

(5)This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, for the equipment leak requirements in § 63.11396(d): “This facility complies with the requirements for all equipment that contains or contacts 10 percent by weight or more of AN and operates 300 hours per year or more as shown in Table 2 to § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY.”

(6)This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, for the process wastewater and maintenance wastewater requirements in § 63.11396(e): “This facility complies with the requirements in Table 2 to § 63.1103(b)(3)(i) of subpart YY for each process wastewater stream and each maintenance wastewater stream.”

(d)If you own or operate a new affected source, you must report any deviation from the requirements of this subpart in the semiannual report required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3). § 63.11398 What definitions apply to this subpart? *Acrylic fiber* means a manufactured synthetic fiber in which the fiber-forming substance is any long-chain synthetic polymer composed of at least 85 percent by weight of acrylonitrile units. *Acrylic and modacrylic fibers production* means the production of either of the following synthetic fibers composed of acrylonitrile units: acrylic fiber or modacrylic fiber. *Acrylonitrile solution polymerization* means a process where acrylonitrile and comonomers are dissolved in a solvent to form a polymer solution (typically polyacrylonitrile). The polyacrylonitrile is soluble in the solvent. In contrast to suspension polymerization, the resulting reactor polymer solution (spin dope) is filtered and pumped directly to the fiber spinning process. *Acrylonitrile suspension polymerization* means a polymerization process where small drops of acrylonitrile and comonomers are suspended in water in the presence of a catalyst where they polymerize under agitation. Solid beads of polymer are formed in this suspension reaction which are subsequently filtered, washed, refiltered, and dried. The beads must be subsequently redissolved in a solvent to create a spin dope prior to introduction to the fiber spinning process. *Deviation* means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:

(1)Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including but not limited to any emissions limitation or management practice;

(2)Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or

(3)Fails to meet any emissions limitation or management practice in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. *Equipment* means each of the following that is subject to this subpart: pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling collection system, open-ended valve or line, valve connector, instrumentation system in organic HAP service which contains or contacts greater than 10 percent by weight of acrylonitrile and operates more than 300 hours per year. *Fiber spinning line* means the group of equipment and process vents associated with acrylic or modacrylic fiber spinning operations. The fiber spinning line includes (as applicable to the type of spinning process used) the blending and dissolving tanks, spinning solution filters, wet spinning units, spin bath tanks, and the equipment used downstream of the spin bath to wash, dry, or draw the spun fiber. *Maintenance wastewater* means wastewater generated by the draining of process fluid from components in the process unit, whose primary product is a product produced by a source category subject to this subpart, into an individual drain system prior to or during maintenance activities. Maintenance wastewater can be generated during planned and unplanned shutdowns and during periods not associated with a shutdown. Examples of activities that can generate maintenance wastewaters include descaling of heat exchanger tubing bundles, cleaning of distillation column traps, draining of low legs and high point bleeds, draining of pumps into an individual drain system, and draining of portions of the process unit, whose primary product is a product produced by a source category subject to this subpart, for repair. *Modacrylic fiber* means a manufactured synthetic fiber in which the fiber-forming substance is any long-chain synthetic polymer composed of at least 35 percent by weight of acrylonitrile units but less than 85 percent by weight of acrylonitrile units. *Monomer recovery process equipment* means the collection of process units and associated process equipment used to reclaim the monomer for subsequent reuse, including but not limited to polymer holding tanks, polymer buffer tanks, monomer vacuum pump flush drum, and drum filter vacuum pump flush drum. *Polymerization process equipment* means the collection of process units and associated process equipment used in the acrylonitrile polymerization process prior to the fiber spinning line, including but not limited to acrylonitrile storage tanks, recovered monomer tanks, monomer measuring tanks, monomer preparation tanks, monomer feed tanks, slurry receiver tanks, polymerization reactors, and drum filters. *Process vent* means the point of discharge to the atmosphere (or point of entry into a control device, if any) of a gas stream from the acrylic and modacrylic fibers production process. *Process wastewater* means wastewater, which during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste product. *Responsible official* means responsible official as defined at 40 CFR 70.2. *Spin dope* means the liquid mixture of polymer and solvent that is fed to the spinneret to form the acrylic and modacrylic fibers. § 63.11399 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a)This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency pursuant to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency within your State.

(b)In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(4)of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.

(1)Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under § 63.6(g).

(2)Approval of a major change to a test method under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A “major change to test method” is defined in § 63.90.

(3)Approval of a major change to monitoring under § 63.8(f). A “major change to monitoring” is defined in § 63.90.

(4)Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/ reporting under § 63.10(f). A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is defined in § 63.90. As required in § 63.11397(a), you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) as shown in the following table. Table 1.—To Subpart LLLLLL of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart LLLLLL Citation Subject Applies to subpart LLLLLL? Explanation 63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12) (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5),

(e)Applicability Yes 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), (b)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4),

(d)Reserved No 63.2 Definitions Yes 63.3 Units and Abbreviations Yes 63.4 Prohibited Activities and Circumvention Yes 63.5 Preconstruction Review and Notification Requirements No 63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-(e)(3)(ix),

(f)(g), (i),

(j)Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements Yes Subpart LLLLLL requires new and existing sources to comply with requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions in § 63.6(e)(3). 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv) Reserved No 63.6(h)(1)-(h)(4), (h)(5)(i)-(h)(5)(iii), (h)(6)-(h)(9) No Subpart LLLLLL does not include opacity or visible emissions standards or require a continuous opacity monitoring system. 63.7(a), (e), (f), (g),

(h)Performance Testing Requirements Yes/No Subpart LLLLLL requires performance tests for new and existing sources; a test for an existing source is not required if a prior test meets the conditions in § 63.11395(h). 63.7(b),

(c)Yes/No Requirements for notification of performance test and for quality assurance program apply to new sources but not existing sources. 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1)-(c)(3), (f)(1)-(5) Monitoring Requirements Yes 63.8(a)(3) Reserved No 63.8(a)(4) Yes Requirements apply to new sources if flares are the selected control option. 63.8(c)(4)-(c)(8), (d), (e), (f)(6),

(g)Yes Requirements apply to new sources but not to existing sources. 63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(5), (c), (d), (i),

(j)Notification Requirements Yes 63.9(e) Yes/No Notification of performance test is required for new area sources. 63.9(b)(2) Yes Initial notification of applicability is required for new and existing area sources. 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4) Reserved No 63.9(b)(4), (h)(5) No 63.9(f),

(g)No Subpart LLLLLL does not require a continuous opacity monitoring system or continuous emissions monitoring system. 63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3), (h)(6) Yes Notification of compliance status is required for new and existing area sources. 63.10(a) Recordkeeping Requirements Yes 63.10(b)(1) Yes/No Record retention requirement applies to new area sources but not existing area sources. Subpart LLLLLL establishes 2-year retention period for existing area sources. 63.10(b)(2) Yes Recordkeeping requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions apply to new and existing area sources. 63.10(b)(3) Yes Recordkeeping requirements for applicability determinations apply to new area sources. 63.10(c)(1), (c)(5)-(c)(14) Yes/No Recordkeeping requirements for continuous parameter monitoring systems apply to new sources but not existing sources. 63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9) Reserved No 63.10(d)(1), (d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2),

(f)Reporting Requirements Yes 63.10(d)(2) Yes Report of performance test results applies to each area source required to conduct a performance test. 63.10(d)(3) No Subpart LLLLLL does not include opacity or visible emissions limits. 63.10(d)(5) Yes Requirements for startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports apply to new and existing area sources. (e)(1)-(e)(2), (e)(4) No Subpart LLLLLL does not require a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous opacity monitoring system. 63.10(e)(3) Yes/No Semiannual reporting requirements for excess emissions and parameter monitoring exceedances apply to new area sources but not existing area sources. 63.11 Control Device Requirements Yes Requirements apply to new sources if flares are the selected control option. 63.12 State Authorities and Delegations Yes 63.13 Addresses Yes 63.14 Incorporations by Reference Yes 63.15 Availability of Information and Confidentiality Yes 63.16 Performance Track Provisions. Yes 4. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart MMMMMM to read as follows: Subpart MMMMMM—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Carbon Black Production Area Sources Sec. Applicability and Compliance Dates 63.11400 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.11401 What are my compliance dates? Standards and Compliance Requirements 63.11402 What are the standards and compliance requirements for new and existing sources? 63.11403 [Reserved] Other Requirements and Information 63.11404 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? 63.11405 What definitions apply to this subpart? 63.11406 Who implements and enforces this subpart? Applicability and Compliance Dates § 63.11400 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a)You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a carbon black production facility that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)emissions.

(b)This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. The affected source is each carbon black production process unit. The affected source includes all waste management units, maintenance wastewater, and equipment components that contain or contact HAP that are associated with the carbon black production process unit.

(1)An affected source is an existing source if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.

(2)An affected source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.

(c)This subpart does not apply to research and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

(d)If you own or operate an area source subject to this subpart, you must obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71. § 63.11401 What are my compliance dates?

(a)If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by July 16, 2007.

(b)If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16, 2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.

(c)If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart upon startup of your affected source. Standards and Compliance Requirements § 63.11402 What are the standards and compliance requirements for new and existing sources? You must meet all the requirements in § 63.1103(f) of subpart YY. § 63.11403 [Reserved] Other Requirements and Information § 63.11404 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, applicable to this subpart are §§ 63.1 through 63.5 and §§ 63.11 through 63.16. § 63.11405 What definitions apply to this subpart? The terms used in this subpart are defined in §§ 63.1101 and 63.1103(f)(2). § 63.11406 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(4)of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.

(1)Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under § 63.992(b)(1).

(2)Approval of a major change to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A “major change to test method” is defined in § 63.90.

(3)Approval of a major change to monitoring under § 63.8(f). A “major change to monitoring” is defined in § 63.90.

(4)Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under § 63.10(f). A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is defined in § 63.90. 5. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart NNNNNN to read as follows: Subpart NNNNNN—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds Sec. Applicability and Compliance Dates 63.11407 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.11408 What are my compliance dates? Standards and Compliance Requirements 63.11409 What are the standards? 63.11410 What are the compliance requirements? Other Requirements and Information 63.11411 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? 63.11412 What definitions apply to this subpart? 63.11413 Who implements and enforces this subpart? Table 1 to Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63—HAP Emissions Units Table 2 to Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart NNNNNN Applicability and Compliance Dates § 63.11407 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a)You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a chromium compounds manufacturing facility that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)emissions.

(b)This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. The affected source is each chromium compounds manufacturing facility.

(1)An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.

(2)An affected source is new if you commence construction or reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.

(c)This subpart does not apply to research and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.

(d)If you own or operate an area source subject to this subpart, you must obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71. § 63.11408 What are my compliance dates?

(a)If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart not later than January 16, 2008.

(b)If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16, 2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.

(a)You must operate a capture system that collects the gases and fumes released during the operation of each emissions source listed in Table 1 of this subpart and conveys the collected gas stream to a particulate matter

(PM)control device.

(b)You must not discharge to the atmosphere through any combination of stacks or other vents process gases from an emissions source listed in Table 1 of this subpart that contain PM in excess of the allowable process rate determined according to Equation 1 of this section (for an emissions source with a process rate of less than 30 tons per hour) or Equation 2 of this section (for an emissions source with a process rate of 30 tons per hour or greater). If more than one process vents to a common stack, the applicable emissions limit for the stack is the sum of allowable emissions calculated for each process using Equation 1 or 2 of this section, as applicable. ER16JY07.000 Where: E = Emissions limit in pounds per hour (lb/hr); and P = Process rate of emissions source in tons per hour (ton/hr). ER16JY07.001 § 63.11410 What are the compliance requirements?

(a)*Existing sources.* If you own or operate an existing area source, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs

(b)through

(e)of this section.

(b)*Initial control device inspection.* You must conduct an initial inspection of each PM control device according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(4)of this section. You must conduct each inspection no later than 60 days after your applicable compliance date for each installed control device which has been operated within 60 days of the compliance date. For an installed control device which has not been operated within 60 days of the compliance date, you must conduct an initial inspection prior to startup of the control device.

(1)For each baghouse, you must visually inspect the system ductwork and baghouse unit for leaks. You must also inspect the inside of each baghouse for structural integrity and fabric filter condition. You must record the results of the inspection and any maintenance action in the logbook required in paragraph

(d)of this section. An initial inspection of the internal components of a baghouse is not required if an inspection has been performed within the past 12 months.

(2)For each dry electrostatic precipitator, you must verify the proper functioning of the electronic controls for corona power and rapper operation, that the corona wires are energized, and that adequate air pressure is present on the rapper manifold. You must also visually inspect the system ductwork and electrostatic precipitator housing unit and hopper for leaks and inspect the interior of the electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of corona wires, collection plates, hopper, and air diffuser plates. An initial inspection of the internal components of a dry electrostatic precipitator is not required if an inspection has been performed within the past 24 months.

(3)For each wet electrostatic precipitator, you must verify the proper functioning of the electronic controls for corona power, that the corona wires are energized, and that water flow is present. You must also visually inspect the system ductwork and electrostatic precipitator housing unit and hopper for leaks and inspect the interior of the electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of corona wires, collection plates, plate wash spray heads, hopper, and air diffuser plates. An initial inspection of the internal components of a wet electrostatic precipitator is not required if an inspection has been performed within the past 24 months.

(4)For each wet scrubber, you must verify the presence of water flow to the scrubber. You must also visually inspect the system ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks and inspect the interior of the scrubber for structural integrity and the condition of the demister and spray nozzle.

(i)An initial inspection of the internal components of a wet scrubber is not required if an inspection has been performed within the past 12 months.

(ii)The requirement in paragraph (b)(4) of this section for initial inspection of the internal components of a wet scrubber does not apply to a cyclonic scrubber installed upstream of a wet or dry electrostatic precipitator.

(c)*Periodic inspections/maintenance.* Following the initial inspections, you must perform periodic inspections and maintenance of each PM control device according to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(4)of this section.

(1)You must inspect and maintain each baghouse according to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and

(ii)of this section.

(i)You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system ductwork for leaks.

(ii)You must conduct inspections of the interior of the baghouse for structural integrity and to determine the condition of the fabric filter every 12 months. If an initial inspection is not required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the first inspection must not be more than 12 months from the last inspection.

(2)You must inspect and maintain each dry electrostatic precipitator according to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through

(iii)of this section.

(i)You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the proper functioning of the electronic controls for corona power and rapper operation, that the corona wires are energized, and that adequate air pressure is present on the rapper manifold.

(ii)You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system ductwork, housing unit, and hopper for leaks.

(3)You must inspect and maintain each wet electrostatic precipitator according to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through

(iii)of this section.

(i)You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the proper functioning of the electronic controls for corona power, that the corona wires are energized, and that water flow is present.

(ii)You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system ductwork, electrostatic precipitator housing unit, and hopper for leaks.

(iii)You must conduct inspections of the interior of the electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of corona wires, collection plates, plate rappers, hopper, and air diffuser plates every 24 months. If an initial inspection is not required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the first inspection must not be more than 24 months from the last inspection.

(4)You must inspect and maintain each wet scrubber according to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through

(iii)of this section.

(i)You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the presence of water flow to the scrubber.

(ii)You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks.

(iii)You must conduct inspections of the interior of the scrubber to determine the structural integrity and condition of the demister and spray nozzle every 12 months. Internal inspections of cyclonic scrubbers installed upstream of wet or dry electrostatic precipitators are not required.

(d)*Recordkeeping requirements.* You must record the results of each inspection and maintenance action in a logbook (written or electronic format). You must keep the logbook onsite and make the logbook available to the permitting authority upon request. You must keep records of the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through

(4)of this section for 5 years following the date of each recorded action.

(1)The date and time of each recorded action for a fabric filter, the results of each inspection, and the results of any maintenance performed on the bag filters.

(2)The date and time of each recorded action for a wet or dry electrostatic precipitator (including ductwork), the results of each inspection, and the results of any maintenance performed on the electrostatic precipitator.

(3)The date and time of each recorded action for a wet scrubber (including ductwork), the results of each inspection, and the results of any maintenance performed on the wet scrubber.

(4)Records of all required monitoring data and supporting information including all calibration and maintenance records, original strip-chart recordings for continuous monitoring information, and copies of all reports required by this subpart. You must maintain records of required monitoring data in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review. All records must be kept onsite and made available to EPA or the delegated authority for inspection upon request. You must maintain records of all required monitoring data and supporting information for at least 5 years from the date of the monitoring sample, measurement, report, or application.

(e)*Reports.*

(1)You must report each deviation (an action or condition not in accordance with the requirements of this subpart, including upset conditions but excluding excess emissions) to the permitting agency on the next business day after becoming aware of the deviation. You must submit a written report within 2 business days which identifies the probable cause of the deviation and any corrective actions or preventative actions taken. All reports of deviations must be certified by a responsible official.

(2)You must submit semiannual reports of monitoring and recordkeeping activities to your permitting authority.

(3)You must submit the results of any maintenance performed on each PM control device within 30 days of a written request by the permitting authority.

(f)*New sources.* If you own or operate a new affected source, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs

(g)and

(h)of this section.

(g)*Bag leak detection systems.* You must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system on all baghouses used to comply with the PM emissions limit in § 63.11409 according to paragraph (g)(1) of this section; prepare and operate by a site-specific monitoring plan according to paragraph (g)(2) of this section; take corrective action according to paragraph (g)(3) of this section; and record information according to paragraph (g)(4) of this section.

(1)Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through

(viii)of this section.

(i)The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot or less.

(ii)The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of relative PM loadings. The owner or operator shall continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).

(iii)The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.

(iv)In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system, you must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, the alarm set points, and the alarm delay time.

(v)Following initial adjustment, you shall not adjust the averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval from the Administrator or delegated authority except as provided in paragraph (g)(1)(vi) of this section.

(vi)Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal effects, including temperature and humidity, according to the procedures identified in the site-specific monitoring plan required by paragraph (g)(2) of this section.

(vii)You must install the bag leak detection sensor downstream of the baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber.

(viii)Where multiple detectors are required, the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

(2)You must develop and submit to the Administrator or delegated authority for approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag leak detection system. You must operate and maintain the bag leak detection system according to an approved site-specific monitoring plan at all times. Each monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through

(vi)of this section.

(i)Installation of the bag leak detection system;

(ii)Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be established;

(iii)Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality assurance procedures;

(iv)How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list;

(v)How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and stored; and

(vi)Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this section. In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an alarm if the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately explains why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3 hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested time will ensure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as practicable.

(3)For each bag leak detection system, you must initiate procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour of the alarm. Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2)(vi) of this section, you must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 3 hours of the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to the following:

(i)Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in particulate emissions;

(ii)Sealing off defective bags or filter media;

(iii)Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise repairing the control device;

(iv)Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment;

(v)Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system; or

(vi)Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.

(4)You must maintain records of the information specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) through

(iii)of this section for each bag leak detection system.

(i)Records of the bag leak detection system output;

(ii)Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection system settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings; and

(iii)The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the actions taken, the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, and whether the alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm.

(h)*Other control devices.* If you use a control device other than a baghouse, you must prepare and submit a monitoring plan to EPA or the delegated authority for approval. You must operate and maintain the control device according to an approved site-specific monitoring plan at all times. Each plan must contain the information in paragraphs (h)(1) through

(5)of this section.

(1)A description of the device;

(2)Test results collected in accordance with paragraph

(i)of this section verifying the performance of the device for reducing PM to the levels required by this subpart;

(4)A list of operating parameters that will be monitored to maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits; and

(5)Operating parameter limits based on monitoring data collected during the performance test.

(i)*Performance tests.* If you own or operate a new affected source, you must conduct a performance test for each emissions source subject to an emissions limit in § 63.11409(b) within 180 days of your compliance date and report the results in your notification of compliance status. If you own or operate an existing affected source, you are not required to conduct a performance test if a prior performance test was conducted within the past 5 years of the effective date using the same methods specified in paragraph

(j)of this section and either no process changes have been made since the test, or if you can demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes.

(j)*Test methods.* You must conduct each performance test according to the requirements in § 63.7 and paragraphs (j)(1) through

(3)of this section.

(1)Determine the concentration of PM according to the following test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A:

(i)Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points in each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.

(ii)Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.

(iii)Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. You may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14) as an alternative to EPA Method 3B.

(iv)Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.

(v)Method 5 or 5D to determine the concentration of particulate matter (front half filterable catch only). Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test.

(2)During the test, you must operate each emissions source within ±10 percent of the normal process rate specified in your notification of compliance status. You must monitor and record the process rate during the test.

(3)Compute the mass emissions

(E)in pounds per hour (lb/hr) for each test run using Equation 1 of this section and the process rate measured during the test. The PM emissions in lb/hr must be less than the allowable PM emissions rate for the emissions source. ER16JY07.002 Where: E = Mass emissions of PM, pounds per hour (lb/hr); C = Concentration of PM, grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf); Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dry standard cubic foot per hour (dscf/hr); and K = Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per pound (gr/lb).

(k)*Startups, shutdown, and malfunctions.* The requirements in paragraphs (k)(1) and

(2)of this section apply to the owner or operator of a new or existing affected source.

(1)Except as provided in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, you must report emissions in excess of a PM emissions limit established by this subpart lasting for more than 4 hours that result from a malfunction, a breakdown of process or control equipment, or any other abnormal condition by 9 a.m. of the next business day of becoming aware of the occurrence. You must provide the name and location of the facility, the nature and cause of the malfunction or breakdown, the time when the malfunction or breakdown is first observed, the expected duration, and the estimated rate of emissions. You must also notify EPA or the delegated authority immediately when corrected measures have been accomplished and, if requested, submit a written report within 15 days after the request.

(2)As an alternative to the requirements in paragraph (k)(1) of this section, you must comply with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements in § 63.6(e)(3). Other Requirements and Information § 63.11411 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

(a)You must comply with the requirements of the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A as specified in Table 2 to this subpart.

(b)Your notification of compliance status required by § 63.9(h) must include the following information for a new or existing affected source:

(1)This certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, for the standards in § 63.11409(a): “This facility complies with the management practice requirements in § 63.11409(a) for installation and operation of capture systems for each emissions source subject to an emissions limit in § 63.11409(b).”

(2)This certification of compliance by the owner or operator of an existing source (if applicable), signed by a responsible official, for the emissions limits in § 63.11409(b): “This facility complies with the emissions limits in § 63.11409(b) based on a previous performance test in accordance with § 63.11410(i).”

(3)The process rate for each emissions source subject to an emissions limit in § 63.11409(b) that represents normal and representative production operations.

(4)The procedures used to measure and record the process rate for each emissions source subject to an emissions limit in § 63.11409(b).

(5)This certification of compliance by the owner or operator of an existing affected source, signed by a responsible official, for the control device inspection and maintenance requirements in § 63.11410(b) through (d): “This facility has conducted an initial inspection of each control device according to the requirements in § 63.11410(b), will conduct periodic inspections and maintenance of control devices in accordance with § 63.11410(c), and will maintain records of each inspection and maintenance action in the logbook required by § 63.11410(d).”

(6)This certification of compliance by the owner or operator of a new affected source, signed by a responsible official, for the bag leak detection system monitoring plan requirement in § 63.11410(g)(2): “This facility has an approved bag leak detection system monitoring plan in accordance with § 63.11410(g)(2).”

(7)Performance test results for each emissions unit at a new affected source (or each emissions source at an existing affected source if a test is required) in accordance with § 63.11410(j). The performance test results for a new affected source must identify the daily average parameter operating limit for each PM control device.

(8)If applicable, this certification of compliance by the owner or operator of a new or existing source, signed by a responsible official, for the requirement in paragraph (k)(2) of this section to comply with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3): “This facility has prepared a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan in accordance with 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)”. § 63.11412 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in 40 CFR 63.2, and in this section as follows: *Bag leak detection system* means a system that is capable of continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust loadings) in the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative particulate matter loadings. *Chromic acid* means chromium trioxide (CrO 3 ). It is produced by the electrolytic reaction or acidification of sodium dichromate. *Chromium compounds manufacturing* means any process that uses chromite ore as the basic feedstock to manufacture chromium compounds, primarily sodium dichromate, chromic acid, and chromic oxide. *Chromium compounds manufacturing facility* means the collection of processes and equipment at a plant engaged in chromium compounds manufacturing. *Chromite ore* means an oxide of chromium and iron (FeCr 2 O 4 ) that is the primary feedstock for chromium compounds manufacturing. *Chromic oxide* means Cr 2 O 3 . In the production of chromic oxide, ammonium sulfate and sodium dichromate that have been concentrated by evaporation are mixed and fed to a rotary roasting kiln to produce chromic oxide, sodium sulfate and nitrogen gas. *Roasting* means a heating (oxidizing) process where ground chromite ore is mixed with alkaline material (such as soda ash, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium hydroxide) and fed to a rotary kiln where it is heated to about 2,000 ºF, converting the majority of the chromium in the ore from trivalent to hexavalent chromium. *Sodium chromate* means Na 2 CrO 4 . It is produced by roasting chromite ore in a rotary kiln. *Sodium dichromate* means sodium bichromate or sodium bichromate dihydrate and is known technically as sodium dichromate dihydrate (Na 2 Cr 2 O 7 • 2H 2 O). It is produced by the electrolytic reaction or acidification of sodium chromate. § 63.11413 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a)This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency pursuant to 40 CFR subpart E, then that Agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency.

(b)In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(4)of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.

(1)Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under § 63.6(g).

(2)Approval of a major change to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A “major change to test method” is defined in § 63.90.

(3)Approval of a major change to monitoring under § 63.8(f). A “major change to monitoring” is defined in § 63.90.

(4)Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under § 63.10(f). A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is defined in § 63.90. As required in § 63.11409, you must install and operate capture systems and comply with the applicable emissions limit for each emissions source shown in the following table. Table 1 To Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63.—HAP Emissions Sources Process Emissions sources 1. Sodium chromate production a. Ball mill used to grind chromite ore. b. Dryer used to dry chromite ore. c. Rotary kiln used to roast chromite ore to produce sodium chromate. d. Secondary rotary kiln used to recycle and refine residues containing chromium compounds. e. Residue dryer system. f. Quench tanks. 2. Sodium dichromate production a. Stack on the electrolytic cell system used to produce sodium dichromate. b. Sodium dichromate crystallization unit. c. Sodium dichromate drying unit. 3. Chromic acid production a. Electrolytic cell system used to produce chromic acid. b. Melter used to produce chromic acid. c. Chromic acid crystallization unit. d. Chromic acid dryer. 4. Chromic oxide production a. Primary rotary roasting kiln used to produce chromic oxide. b. Chromic oxide filter. c. Chromic oxide dryer. d. Chromic oxide grinding unit. e. Chromic oxide storage vessel. f. Secondary rotary roasting kiln. g. Quench tanks. 5. Chromium hydrate production a. Furnace used to produce chromium hydrate. b. Chromium hydrate grinding unit. As required in § 63.11411(a), you must comply with the requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) as shown in the following table. Table 2 To Subpart NNNNNN of Part 63.—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart NNNNNN Citation Subject Applies Explanation 63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12), (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5),

(e)Applicability Yes. 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), (b)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4),

(d)Reserved No. 63.2 Definitions Yes. 63.3 Units and Abbreviations Yes. 63.4 Prohibited Activities and Circumvention Yes. 63.5 Preconstruction Review and Notification Requirements No. 63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-(e)(3)(ix), (f), (g), (i),

(j)Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements Yes The startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements in § 63.6(e)(3) apply at new and existing area sources that choose to comply with § 63.11410(k)(2) instead of the requirements in § 63.11410(k)(1). 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv) Reserved No. 63.6(h)(1)-(h)(4), (h)(5)(i)-(h)(5)(iii), (h)(6)-(h)(9) No Subpart NNNNNN does not include opacity or visible emissions standards or require a continuous opacity monitoring system. 63.7(a), (e), (f), (g),

(h)Performance Testing Requirements Yes Subpart NNNNNN requires a performance test for a new source; a test for an existing source is not required under the conditions specified in § 63.11410(i). 63.7(b),

(c)Yes/No Requirements for notification of performance test and for quality assurance program apply to new area sources but not existing area sources. 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c)(1)-(c)(3), (f)(1)-(5) Monitoring Requirements Yes. 63.8(a)(3) Reserved No. 63.8(a)(4) No Subpart NNNNNN does not require flares. 63.8(c)(4)-(c)(8), (d), (e), (f)(6),

(g)No Subpart NNNNNN establishes requirements for continuous parameter monitoring systems. 63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(5), (c), (d), (i),

(j)Notification Requirements Yes. 63.9(e) Yes/No Notification of performance test is required only for new area sources. 63.9(b)(2) Yes. 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4) Reserved No. 63.9(b)(4), (h)(5) No. 63.9(f),

(g)No Subpart NNNNNN does not include opacity or visible emissions standards or require a continuous opacity monitoring system or continuous emissions monitoring system. 63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3), (h)(6) Yes. 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(xii), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3) Recordkeeping Requirements Yes. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(v) Yes. Recordkeeping requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions apply to new and existing area sources that choose to comply with § 63.11410(k)(2). 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(ix), (c)(1), (c)(5)-(c)(14) Yes/No Requirements apply to continuous parameter monitoring systems at new area sources but not existing area sources. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)(A)-(B), (b)(2)(x), (b)(2)(xiii) No. 63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9) Reserved No. 63.10(d)(1), (d)(4),

(f)Reporting Requirements Yes. 63.10(d)(2) Yes Report of performance test results applies to new area sources; the results of a previous test may be submitted for an existing area source under the conditions specified in § 63.11410(i). 63.10(d)(3) No Subpart NNNNNN does not include opacity or visible emissions limits. 63.10(d)(5) Yes Requirements for startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports apply to new and existing area sources that choose to comply with § 63.11410(k)(2). 63.10(e)(1)-(e)(2), (e)(4) No Subpart NNNNNN does not require a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous opacity monitoring system. 63.10(e)(3) Yes/No Semiannual reporting requirements apply to new area sources but not existing area sources. 63.11 Control Device Requirements No Subpart NNNNNN does not require flares. 63.12 State Authorities and Delegations Yes. 63.13 Addresses Yes. 63.14 Incorporations by Reference Yes. 63.15 Availability of Information and Confidentiality Yes. 63.16 Performance Track Provisions Yes. 6. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart OOOOOO to read as follows: Subpart OOOOOO—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources Sec. Applicability and Compliance Dates 63.11414 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.11415 What are my compliance dates? Standards and Compliance Requirements 63.11416 What are the standards for new and existing sources? 63.11417 What are the compliance requirements for new and existing sources? Other Requirements and Information 63.11418 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? 63.11419 What definitions apply to this subpart? 63.11420 Who implements and enforces this subpart? Table 1 to Subpart OOOOOO of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart OOOOOO Applicability and Compliance Dates § 63.11414 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a)You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an area source of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)emissions that meets the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) or

(2)of this section.

(1)You own or operate a plant that produces flexible polyurethane foam or rebond foam as defined in § 63.1292 of subpart III.

(2)You own or operate a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facility, as defined in § 63.11419.

(b)The provisions of this subpart apply to each new and existing affected source that meets the criteria listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(4)of this section.

(1)A slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production affected source is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to produce slabstock flexible polyurethane foam.

(2)A molded flexible polyurethane foam production affected source is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to produce molded foam.

(3)A rebond foam production affected source is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to produce rebond foam.

(4)A flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source is the collection of all equipment and activities at a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facility where adhesives are used to bond foam to foam or other substrates. Equipment and activities at flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facilities which do not use adhesives to bond foam to foam or other substrates are not flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected sources.

(c)An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.

(d)An affected source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.

(e)This subpart does not apply to research and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

(f)You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of this subpart. § 63.11415 What are my compliance dates?

(a)If you own or operate an existing slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production affected source, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart by July 16, 2008.

(b)If you own or operate an existing molded flexible polyurethane foam affected source, an existing rebond foam production affected sources, or an existing flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart by July 16, 2007.

(c)If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16, 2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.

(d)If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon startup of your affected source. Standards and Compliance Requirements § 63.11416 What are the standards for new and existing sources?

(a)If you own or operate a slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production affected source, you must meet the requirements in paragraph

(b)of this section. If you own or operate a molded foam affected source, you must meet the requirements in paragraph

(c)of this section. If you own or operate a rebond foam affected source, you must meet the requirements in paragraph

(d)of this section. If you own or operate a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source, you must meet the requirements in paragraph

(e)of this section.

(b)If you own or operate a new or existing slabstock polyurethane foam production affected source, you must comply with the requirements in either paragraph (b)(1) or

(2)of this section.

(1)Comply with § 63.1293(a) or

(b)of subpart III, except that you must use Equation 1 of this section to determine the HAP auxiliary blowing agent

(ABA)formulation limit for each foam grade instead of Equation 3 of § 63.1297 of subpart III. You must use zero as the formulation limitation for any grade of foam where the result of the formulation equation (using Equation 1 of this section) is negative ( *i.e.* , less than zero): ER16JY07.003 where: ABA limit = HAP ABA formulation limitation, parts methylene chloride ABA allowed per hundred parts polyol (pph). IFD = Indentation force deflection, pounds. DEN = Density, pounds per cubic foot.

(2)Use no material containing methylene chloride for any purpose in any slabstock flexible foam production process.

(c)If you own or operate a new or existing molded foam affected source, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(1)You must not use a material containing methylene chloride as an equipment cleaner to flush the mixhead or use a material containing methylene chloride elsewhere as an equipment cleaner in a molded flexible polyurethane foam process.

(2)You must not use a mold release agent containing methylene chloride in a molded flexible polyurethane foam process.

(d)If you own or operate a new or existing rebond foam affected source, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(1)You must not use a material containing methylene chloride as an equipment cleaner in a rebond foam process.

(2)You must not use a mold release agent containing methylene chloride in a rebond foam process.

(e)If you own or operate a new or existing flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source, you must not use any adhesive containing methylene chloride in a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication process.

(f)You may demonstrate compliance with the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) and

(c)through

(e)of this section using adhesive usage records, Material Safety Data Sheets, and engineering calculations. § 63.11417 What are the compliance requirements for new and existing sources?

(a)If you own or operate a slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production affected source, you must comply with the requirements in paragraph

(b)of this section. If you own or operate a molded foam affected source, rebond foam affected source, or a loop slitter at a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs

(c)and

(d)of this section.

(b)Each owner or operator of a new or existing slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production affected source who chooses to comply with § 63.11416(b)(1) must comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Each owner or operator of a new or existing slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production affected source who chooses to comply with § 63.11416(b)(2) must comply with paragraphs (b)(2) and

(3)of this section.

(1)You must comply with paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through

(v)of this section.

(i)The monitoring requirements in § 63.1303 of subpart III.

(ii)The testing requirements in § 63.1304 or § 63.1305 of subpart III.

(iii)The reporting requirements in § 63.1306 of subpart III, with the exception of the reporting requirements in § 63.1306(d)(1), (2), (4), and

(5)of subpart III.

(iv)The recordkeeping requirements in § 63.1307 of subpart III, with the exception of the recordkeeping requirements in § 63.1307(a)(1), (b)(1)(i), and (b)(2).

(v)The compliance demonstration requirements in § 63.1308(a), (c), and

(d)of subpart III.

(2)You must submit a notification of compliance status report no later than 180 days after your compliance date. The report must contain the information detailed in § 63.9(h)(2)(i) paragraphs

(A)and (G), and must contain this certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, for the standards in § 63.11416(b)(2): “This facility uses no material containing methylene chloride for any purpose on any slabstock flexible foam process.”

(3)You must maintain records of the information used to demonstrate compliance, as required in § 63.11416(f). You must maintain the records for 5 years, with the last 2 years of data retained on site. The remaining 3 years of data may be maintained off site.

(c)You must have a compliance certification on file by the compliance date. This certification must contain the statements in paragraph (c)(1), (2), or

(3)of this section, as applicable, and must be signed by a responsible official.

(1)For a molded foam affected source:

(i)“This facility does not use any equipment cleaner to flush the mixhead which contains methylene chloride, or any other equipment cleaner containing methylene chloride in a molded flexible polyurethane foam process in accordance with § 63.11416(c)(1).”

(ii)“This facility does not use any mold release agent containing methylene chloride in a molded flexible polyurethane foam process in accordance with § 63.11416(c)(2).”

(2)For a rebond foam affected source:

(i)“This facility does not use any equipment cleaner which contains methylene chloride in a rebond flexible polyurethane foam process in accordance with § 63.11416(d)(1).”

(ii)“This facility does not use any mold release agent containing methylene chloride in a rebond flexible polyurethane foam process in accordance with § 63.11416(d)(2).”

(3)For a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected source containing a loop slitter: “This facility does not use any adhesive containing methylene chloride on a loop slitter process in accordance with § 63.11416(e).”

(d)For molded foam affected sources, rebond foam affected sources, and flexible polyurethane foam fabrication affected sources containing a loop slitter, you must maintain records of the information used to demonstrate compliance, as required in § 63.11416(f). You must maintain the records for 5 years, with the last 2 years of data retained on site. The remaining 3 years of data may be maintained off site. Other Requirements and Information § 63.11418 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, applicable to sources subject to § 63.11416(b)(1) are specified in Table 1 of this subpart. § 63.11419 What definitions apply to this subpart? The terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA; § 63.1292 of subpart III; § 63.8830 of subpart MMMMM; § 63.2 of subpart A; and in this section as follows: *Flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facility* means a facility where pieces of flexible polyurethane foam are cut, bonded, and/or laminated together or to other substrates. § 63.11420 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(4)of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.

(1)Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under § 63.6(g).

(2)Approval of a major change to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A “major change to test method” is defined in § 63.90.

(3)Approval of a major change to monitoring under § 63.8(f). A “major change to monitoring” is defined in § 63.90.

(4)Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under § 63.10(f). A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is defined in § 63.90. As required in § 63.11418, you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) as shown in the following table. Table 1 To Subpart OOOOOO of Part 63.—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart OOOOOO Subpart A reference Applies to Subpart OOOOOO? Comment § 63.1 Yes § 63.2 Yes Definitions are modified and supplemented by § 63.11419. § 63.3 Yes § 63.4 Yes § 63.5 Yes § 63.6(a)-(d) Yes § 63.6(e)(1)-(2) Yes § 63.6(e)(3) No Owners and operators of subpart OOOOOO affected sources are not required to develop and implement a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. § 63.6 (f)-(g) Yes § 63.6(h) No Subpart OOOOOO does not require opacity and visible emissions standards. § 63.6 (i)-(j) Yes § 63.7 No Performance tests not required by subpart OOOOOO. § 63.8 No Continuous monitoring, as defined in subpart A, is not required by subpart OOOOOO. § 63.9(a)-(d) Yes § 63.9(e)-(g) No § 63.9(h) No Subpart OOOOOO specifies Notification of Compliance Status requirements. § 63.9 (i)-(j) Yes § 63.10(a)-(b) Yes Except that the records specified in § 63.10(b)(2) are not required. § 63.10(c) No § 63.10(d)(1) Yes § 63.10(d)(2)-(3) No § 63.10(d)(4) Yes § 63.10(d)(5) No § 63.10(e) No § 63.10(f) Yes § 63.11 No § 63.12 Yes § 63.13 Yes § 63.14 Yes § 63.15 Yes § 63.16 Yes 7. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart PPPPPP to read as follows: Subpart PPPPPP—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources Sec. Applicability and Compliance Dates 63.11421 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.11422 What are my compliance dates? Standards and Compliance Requirements 63.11423 What are the standards and compliance requirements for new and existing sources? 63.11424 [Reserved] Other Requirements and Information 63.11425 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? 63.11426 What definitions apply to this subpart? 63.11427 Who implements and enforces this subpart? Table 1 to Subpart PPPPPPP of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPPPP Applicability and Compliance Dates § 63.11421 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a)You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a lead acid battery manufacturing plant that is an area source of hazardous air pollutants

(HAP)emissions.

(b)This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source. The affected source is each lead acid battery manufacturing plant. The affected source includes all grid casting facilities, paste mixing facilities, three-process operation facilities, lead oxide manufacturing facilities, lead reclamation facilities, and any other lead-emitting operation that is associated with the lead acid battery manufacturing plant.

(1)An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.

(2)An affected source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.

(c)This subpart does not apply to research and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

(a)If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart by no later than July 16, 2008.

(b)If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16, 2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.

(c)If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you must achieve compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon startup of your affected source. Standards and Compliance Requirements § 63.11423 What are the standards and compliance requirements for new and existing sources?

(a)You must meet all the standards for lead in 40 CFR 60.372.

(b)You must meet the monitoring requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and

(2)of this section.

(1)For any emissions point controlled by a scrubbing system, you must meet the requirements in 40 CFR 60.373.

(2)For any emissions point controlled by a fabric filter, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section and either paragraph (b)(2)(ii) or

(iii)of this section. Fabric filters equipped with a high efficiency particulate air

(HEPA)filter or other secondary filter are allowed to monitor less frequently, as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.

(i)You must perform semiannual inspections and maintenance to ensure proper performance of each fabric filter. This includes inspection of structural and filter integrity. You must record the results of these inspections.

(ii)You must install, maintain, and operate a pressure drop monitoring device to measure the differential pressure drop across the fabric filter during all times when the process is operating. The pressure drop shall be recorded at least once per day. If a pressure drop is observed outside of the normal operational ranges, you must record the incident and take immediate corrective actions. You must also record the corrective actions taken. You must submit a monitoring system performance report in accordance with § 63.10(e)(3).

(iii)You must conduct a visible emissions observation at least once per day to verify that no visible emissions are occurring at the discharge point to the atmosphere from any emissions source subject to the requirements of paragraph

(a)of this section. If visible emissions are detected, you must record the incident and conduct an opacity measurement in accordance with 40 CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must record the results of each opacity measurement. If the measurement exceeds the applicable opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7) or (8), you must submit this information in an excess emissions report required under § 63.10(e)(3).

(iv)Fabric filters equipped with a HEPA filter or other secondary filter are allowed to monitor less frequently, as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A) or

(B)of this section.

(A)If you are using a pressure drop monitoring device to measure the differential pressure drop across the fabric filter in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, you must record the pressure drop at least once per week. If a pressure drop is observed outside of the normal operational ranges, you must record the incident and take immediate corrective actions. You must also record the corrective actions taken. You must submit a monitoring system performance report in accordance with § 63.10(e)(3).

(B)If you are conducting visible emissions observations in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, you must conduct such observations at least once per week and record the results in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section. If visible emissions are detected, you must record the incident and conduct an opacity measurement in accordance with 40 CFR 60.374(b)(3). You must record the results of each opacity measurement. If the measurement exceeds the applicable opacity standard in 40 CFR 60.372(a)(7) or (8), you must submit this information in an excess emissions report required under § 63.10(e)(3).

(c)You must meet the testing requirements in 40 CFR 60.374.

(1)Existing sources are not required to conduct a performance test if a prior performance test was conducted using the same methods specified in 40 CFR 60.374 and either no process changes have been made since the test, or you can demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes.

(2)Sources without a prior performance test, as described in paragraph

(b)of this section, must conduct a performance test using the methods specified in 40 CFR 60.374 by 180 days after the compliance date. § 63.11424 [Reserved] Other Requirements and Information § 63.11425 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

(a)The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, that are applicable to this subpart are specified in Table 1 to this subpart.

(b)For existing sources, the initial notification required by § 63.9(b) must be submitted not later than November 13, 2007.

(c)For existing sources, the notification of compliance required by § 63.9(h) must be submitted not later than September 15, 2008. § 63.11426 What definitions apply to this subpart? The terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA; 40 CFR 60.371; 40 CFR 60.2 for terms used in the applicable provisions of part 60, subpart A, as specified in § 63.11425(a); and § 63.2 for terms used in the applicable provisions of part 63, subpart A, as specified in § 63.11425(b). § 63.11427 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(4)of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.

(1)Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under § 63.6(g).

(2)Approval of a major change to test methods under 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A “major change to test method” is defined in § 63.90.

(3)Approval of a major change to monitoring under 40 CFR 63.8(f). A “major change to monitoring” is defined in § 63.90.

(4)Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 40 CFR 63.10(f). A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is defined in § 63.90. As required in § 63.11425, you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) as shown in the following table. Table 1 To Subpart PPPPPP of Part 63.—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPPPP Citation Subject Applies to Subpart PPPPPP? Explanation 63.1 Applicability Yes 63.2 Definitions Yes 63.3 Units and Abbreviations 63.4 Prohibited Activities and Circumvention Yes 63.5 Preconstruction Review and Notification Requirements No 63.6(a)-(d), (e)(1), (f)-(j) Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements Yes 63.6(e)(3) No Subpart PPPPPP does not require a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. 63.7 Performance Testing Requirements Yes 63.8 Monitoring Requirements Yes 63.9 Yes 63.10(a)-(c), (d)(1)-(4), (e),

(f)Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Yes 63.10(d)(5) No Subpart PPPPPP does not require a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. 63.11 Control Device Requirements No Subpart PPPPPP does not require flares. 63.12 State Authorities and Delegations Yes. 63.13 Addresses Yes 63.14 Incorporations by Reference Yes 63.15 Availability of Information and Confidentiality Yes 63.16 Performance Track Provisions Yes 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(9), (b)(2), (c)(3), (d), 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv), 63.8(a)(3), 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4), 63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9) Reserved No 8. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart QQQQQQ to read as follows: Subpart QQQQQQ—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wood Preserving Area Sources Sec. Applicability and Compliance Dates 63.11428 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.11429 What are my compliance dates? Standards 63.11430 What are the standards? 63.11431 [Reserved] Other Requirements and Information 63.11432 What General Provisions apply to this subpart? 63.11433 What definitions apply to this subpart? 63.11434 Who implements and enforces this subpart? Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQQ of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions of Subpart QQQQQQ Applicability and Compliance Dates § 63.11428 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a)You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a wood preserving operation that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP)emissions.

(b)The affected source is each new or existing wood preserving operation.

(1)An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or before April 4, 2007.

(2)An affected source is new if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source after April 4, 2007.

(c)You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of this subpart. § 63.11429 What are my compliance dates?

(a)If you have an existing affected source, you must achieve compliance with applicable provisions in this subpart by July 16, 2007.

(b)If you startup a new affected source on or before July 16, 2007, you must achieve compliance with applicable provisions in this subpart not later than July 16, 2007.

(c)If you startup a new affected source after July 16, 2007, you must achieve compliance with applicable provisions in this subpart upon initial startup. Standards § 63.11430 What are the standards?

(a)If you use a pressure treatment process with any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride at a new or existing area source, the preservative must be applied to the wood product inside a retort or similarly enclosed vessel.

(b)If you use a thermal treatment process with any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride at a new or existing area source, the preservative must be applied using process treatment tanks equipped with an air scavenging system to control emissions.

(c)If you use any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride at a new or existing area source, you must prepare and operate according to a management practice plan to minimize air emissions from the preservative treatment of wood at a new or existing area source. You may use your standard operating procedures to meet the requirements for a management practice plan if it includes the minimum activities required for a management practice plan. The management practice plan must include, but is not limited to, the following activities:

(1)Minimize preservative usage;

(2)Maintain records on the type of treatment process and types and amounts of wood preservatives used at the facility;

(3)For the pressure treatment process, maintain charge records identifying pressure reading(s) inside the retorts (or similarly enclosed vessel);

(4)For the thermal treatment process, maintain records that the air scavenging system is in place and operated properly during the treatment process;

(5)Store treated wood product on drip pads or in a primary containment area to convey preservative drippage to a collection system until drippage has ceased;

(6)For the pressure treatment process, fully drain the retort to the extent practicable, prior to opening the retort door;

(7)Promptly collect any spills; and

(8)Perform relevant corrective actions or preventative measures in the event of a malfunction before resuming operations. § 63.11431 [Reserved] Other Requirements and Information § 63.11432 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

(a)If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that uses any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride, you must comply with the requirements of the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, according to Table 1 to this subpart.

(b)If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that uses any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride, you must submit an initial notification of applicability required by § 63.9(a)(2) no later than 90 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11429. The initial notification may be combined with the notification of compliance status required in paragraph

(c)of this section. The notification of applicability must include the following information:

(1)The name and address of the owner or operator;

(2)The address ( *i.e.* , physical location) of the affected source; and

(3)An identification of the relevant standard, or other requirement, that is the basis of the notification and the source's compliance date.

(c)If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that uses any wood preservative containing chromium, arsenic, dioxins, or methylene chloride, you must submit a notification of compliance status required by § 63.9(h) no later than 90 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.11429. Your notification of compliance status must include this certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, for the standards in § 63.11430: “This facility complies with the management practices to minimize air emissions from the preservative treatment of wood in accordance with § 63.11430.”

(d)You must report any deviation from the requirements of this subpart within 30 days of the deviation. § 63.11433 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, § 63.2, and in this section as follows: *Air scavenging system* means an air collection and control system that collects and removes vapors from a thermal treatment process vessel and vents the emissions to a vapor recovery tank that collects condensate from the vapors. *Chromated copper arsenate*

(CCA)means a chemical wood preservative consisting of mixtures of water-soluble chemicals containing metal oxides of chromium, copper, and arsenic. CCA is used in pressure treated wood to protect wood from rotting due to insects and microbial agents. *Deviation* means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:

(1)Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including but not limited to any emissions limitation or management practice;

(3)Fails to meet any emissions limitation or management practice in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. *Pressure treatment process* means a wood treatment process involving an enclosed vessel, usually a retort, and the application of pneumatic or hydrostatic pressure to expedite the movement of preservative liquid into the wood. *Responsible official* means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. *Retort* means an airtight pressure vessel, typically a long horizontal cylinder, used for the pressure impregnation of wood products with a liquid wood preservative. *Thermal treatment process* means a non-pressurized wood treatment process where the wood is exposed to a heated preservative. *Wood preserving* means the pressure or thermal impregnation of chemicals into wood to provide effective long-term resistance to attack by fungi, bacteria, insects, and marine borers. § 63.11434 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(b)In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(4)of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.

(1)Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under § 63.6(g).

(2)Approval of a major change to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A “major change to test method” is defined in § 63.90

(3)Approval of a major change to monitoring under § 63.8(f). A “major change to monitoring” is defined in § 63.90.

(4)Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under § 63.10(f). A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” is defined in § 63.90. As required in § 63.11432, you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) as shown in the following table. Table 1 To Subpart QQQQQQ of Part 63.—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart QQQQQQ Citation Subject Applies to subpart QQQQQQ? Explanation 63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12)(b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5),

(e)Applicability Yes 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), (b)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4),

(j)Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements Yes 63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)-(e)(3)(ix), (f), (g), (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(4), (h)(5)(i)-(h)(5)(iii), (h)(v)(v), (h)(6)-(h)(9) No Subpart QQQQQQ does not require startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan or contain emission or opacity limits 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv) Reserved No 63.7 Performance Testing Requirements No Subpart QQQQQQ does not require performance tests. 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f),

(g)Monitoring Requirements No Subpart QQQQQQ does not require monitoring of emissions. 63.8(a)(3) Reserved No 63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4), (b)(5), (c), (d), (h)(1), (h)(6), (i),

(j)Notification Requirements Yes 63.9(b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(v), (h)(2)(i)-(h)(2)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5) Yes 63.9(e), (f),

(g)No 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4) Reserved No 63.10(a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(5)-(c)(8), (c)(10)-(c)(14), (d), (e),

(f)Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements No Subpart QQQQQQ establishes requirements for a report of deviations within 30 days. 63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9) Reserved No 63.11 Control Device Requirements No Subpart QQQQQQ does not require flares. 63.12 State Authorities and Delegations Yes 63.13 Addresses Yes 63.14 Incorporations by Reference Yes 63.15 Availability of Information and Confidentiality Yes 63.16 Performance Track Provisions Yes [FR Doc. E7-12018 Filed 7-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 135 Monday, July 16, 2007 Rules and Regulations Part III Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 52 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference; Final Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [VA201-5201; FRL-8336-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; notice of administrative change. SUMMARY: EPA is updating the materials submitted by Virginia that are incorporated by reference

(IBR)into the State implementation plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ)and approved by EPA. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center located at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the Regional Office. DATES: *Effective Date:* This action is effective July 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and the National Archives and Records Administration. If you wish to obtain materials from a docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, please call the Office of Air and Radiation

(OAR)Docket/Telephone number:

(202)566-1742; or the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold A. Frankford,

(215)814-2108 or by e-mail at *frankford.harold@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SIP is a living document which the State revises as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations to make them part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the **Federal Register** (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997 **Federal Register** document. On April 21, 2000 (65 FR 21315), EPA published a **Federal Register** beginning the new IBR procedure for Virginia. On September 8, 2004 (69 FR 54216) and November 3, 2005 (70 FR 66769), EPA published updates to the IBR material for Virginia. In this document, EPA is doing the following: 1. Announcing the update to the IBR material as of June 1, 2007. 2. Making corrections to the following entries listed in the paragraph 52.2420(c) chart, as described below: a. Entries for 9 VAC 5, Chapter 20—duplicate entries are removed for entries 5-20-203, 5-20-204, 5-20-205 and 5-20-206. b. Entry for 9 VAC 5, Chapter 20, Section 5-20-203—The entry in the “Title/subject” column is revised. c. Entries for 9 VAC 5, Chapter 40, Part I—Explanatory text about a particular SIP revision approved on March 15, 2004 (69 FR 12074) is removed from the “Explanation [former SIP citation]” column. d. Entry for 9 VAC 5, Chapter 40, Part II, Article 42—The date format in the “State effective date” column is revised. e. Entries for 9 VAC 5, Chapter 50, Part I—Explanatory text about a particular SIP revision approved on March 15, 2004 (69 FR 12074) is removed from the “Explanation [former SIP citation]” column. f. Entry for 9 VAC 5, Chapter 80, Article 9—The Article title is revised. g. Entry for 9 VAC 5, Chapter 80, Article 9, Sections 5-80-2000 and 5-80-2010—The dates in the “State effective date” column are revised. 3. Making corrections to the following entries listed paragraph 52.2420(e) chart as described below: a. The entries are reordered so that those entitled “Documents Incorporated by Reference” are grouped together; b. Some of the entries entitled “Documents Incorporated by Reference” are revised so that the date format in the “EPA approval date” column is consistent throughout the table. EPA has determined that today's rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act

(APA)which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation, and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and contrary to the public interest since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect chart entries. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Virginia SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” reorganization update action for Virginia. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: June 25, 2007. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart VV—Virginia 2. Section 52.2420 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and

(e)to read as follows: § 52.2420 Identification of plan.

(b)*Incorporation by reference* .

(1)Material listed as incorporated by reference in paragraphs

(c)and

(d)was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in the material will be published in the **Federal Register** . Entries in paragraphs

(c)and

(d)of this section with EPA approval dates on or after June 1, 2007 will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

(2)EPA Region III certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated State rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the State implementation plan as of June 1, 2007.

(3)Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the EPA Region III Office at 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103; the EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room Number 3334, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* .

(c)*EPA-Approved regulations* . EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes State citation (9 VAC 5) Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] Chapter 10 General Definitions [Part I] 5-10-10 General 8/1/02 3/15/04, 69 FR 12074 Revised paragraphs A, B, C. 5-10-20 Terms Defined—Definitions of Administrator, Federally Enforceable, Implementation Plan, Potential to Emit, State Enforceable, Volatile Organic Compound 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11334 § 52.2465(c) (113)(i)(B)( *1* ). 5-10-20 Terms Defined— Added Terms —Department, Virginia Register Act Revised Terms —Administrative Process Act, Director (replaces *Executive Director* ), Virginia Air Pollution Control Law 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 5-10-20 Terms Defined [all other SIP-approved terms not listed above] 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-01-02. 5-10-20 Terms Defined— 1/1/98 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 Terms Added —Public hearing; Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution, Regulation of the Board, These regulations. Terms Revised —Good Engineering Practice, Person, Volatile organic compound. Terms Deleted (moved to 9 VAC 5-170-20) —Administrative Process Act, Air quality maintenance area, Confidential information, Consent agreement, Consent order, Emergency special order, Order, Special order, Variance. 5-10-20 Terms Defined 8/1/02 3/15/04, 69 FR 12074 Terms Added: EPA, Initial emissions test, Initial performance test (as corrected 11/05/03 and effective 01/01/04 in the Commonwealth), Maintenance area. Terms Revised: Affected facility, Delayed compliance order, Excessive concentration, Federally enforceable, Malfunction, Public hearing, Reference method, Reid vapor pressure, Stationary source, True vapor pressure, Vapor pressure, Volatile organic compounds. Terms Removed: Air Quality Maintenance Area. 5-10-20 Terms Defined 5/04/05 8/18/06, 71 FR 47742 definition of “volatile organic compound”. 5-10-30 Abbreviations 7/1/97 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 Appendix A. Chapter 20 General Provisions Part I Administrative 5-20-10A.-C. Applicability 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-02-01. 5-20-70 Circumvention 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-02-07. 5-20-80 Relationship of state regulations to federal regulations 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-02-08. 5-20-121 Air Quality Program Policies and Procedures 7/1/97 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 Appendix S. Part II Air Quality Programs 5-20-160 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-02-31. 5-20-170 Control Programs 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-02-32. 5-20-180 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-02-34. 5-20-200 Air Quality Control Regions

(AQCR)7/1/97 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 Appendix B. 5-20-202 Metropolitan Statistical Areas 7/1/97 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 Appendix G. 5-20-203 Maintenance Areas 01/01/98, 04/01/98 8/18/06, 71 FR 47744 5-20-204 Nonattainment Areas 01/01/98, 04/01/98, 01/01/99, 08/25/04, 01/12/05 8/18/06, 71 FR 47744 5/4/05 1/8/07, 72 FR 653 Paragraph 5-20-204A.3 is added. 5-20-205 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas 01/01/98, 04/01/98, 01/01/99, 08/25/04 8/18/06, 71 FR 47744 5-20-206 Volatile Organic Compound and Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Control Areas 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 Addition of new Fredericksburg Area and expansion of Richmond and Hampton Roads Emission Control Areas. 5-20-220 Shutdown of a stationary source 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-20-230 Certification of Documents 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 VR120, Part II General Provisions VR120-02-02 Establishment of Regulations and Orders 2/1/85 2/25/93, 58 FR 11373 EPA has informed VA that except for the *Appeals* rule, these provisions no longer need to be part of the SIP. VA has withdrawn 2/93 and 2/98 revisions to the *Appeals* rule from SIP review. Last substantive SIP change became State-effective on 8/6/79 [§ 52.2465(c)(55)]. VR120-02-04 Hearings and Proceedings 2/1/85 2/25/93, 58 FR 11373 VR120-02-05A. Variances—General 2/1/85 2/25/93, 58 FR 11373 VR 2.05(b) Variances—Fuel Emergency 8/14/75 10/8/80, 45 FR 66792 VR120-02-09 Appeals 2/1/85 2/25/93, 58 FR 11373 VR120-02-12 Procedural information and guidance 2/1/85 2/25/93, 58 FR 11373 Appendix E Public Participation Guidelines 2/1/85 2/25/93, 58 FR 11373 Appendix F Delegation of Authority 2/1/85 2/25/93, 58 FR 11373 Chapter 30 Ambient Air Quality Standards [Part III] 5-30-10 General 9/8/04 3/3/06, 71 FR 10842 5-30-30 Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide) 9/8/04 3/3/06, 71 FR 10842 5-30-40 Carbon Monoxide 9/8/04 3/3/06, 71 FR 10842 5-30-50 Ozone (1-hour) 9/8/04 3/3/06, 71 FR 10842 5-30-55 Ozone (8-hour) 9/8/04 3/3/06, 71 FR 10842 Added Section. 5-30-60 Particulate Matter (PM 10 ) 9/8/04 3/3/06, 71 FR 10842 5-30-65 Particulate Matter 9/8/04 3/3/06, 71 FR 10842 Added Section. 5-30-70 Nitrogen Dioxide 9/8/04 3/3/06, 71 FR 10842 5-30-80 Lead 9/8/04 3/3/06, 71 FR 10842 Chapter 40 Existing Stationary Sources [Part IV] Part I Special Provisions 5-40-10 Applicability 8/1/02 3/15/04, 69 FR 12074 5-40-20 (except paragraph A.4.) Compliance 8/1/02 3/15/04, 69 FR 12074 5-40-21 Compliance Schedules 7/1/97 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 Appendix N. 5-40-22 Interpretation of Emissions Standards Based on Process Weight-Rate Tables 7/1/97 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 Appendix Q. 5-40-30 Emission Testing 8/1/02 3/15/04, 69 FR 12074 5-40-40 Monitoring 8/1/02 3/15/04, 69 FR 12074 5-40-41 Emission Monitoring Procedures for Existing Sources 7/1/97 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 Appendix J. 5-40-50 Notification, Records and Reporting 8/1/02 3/15/04, 69 FR 12074 Part II Emission Standards Article 1 Visible Emissions and Fugitive Dust/Emissions (Rule 4-1) 5-40-60 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0101. 5-40-70 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0102. 5-40-80 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0103. 5-40-90 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 2/1/03 4/29/05, 70 FR 22263 5-40-100 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0105. 5-40-110 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0106. 5-40-120 Waivers 2/1/03 4/29/05, 70 FR 22263 Article 4 Emission Standards for General Process Operations (Rule 4-4) 5-40-240 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 3/24/04 4/27/05, 70 FR 21625 5-40-250 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0402. 5-40-260 Standard for Particulate Matter (AQCR 1-6) 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0403. 5-40-270 Standard for Particulate Matter (AQCR 7) 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0404. 5-40-280 Standard for Sulfur Dioxide 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0405. 5-40-300 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 5-40-310A.-E Standard for Nitrogen Oxides 3/24/04 4/27/05, 70 FR 21625 5-40-311 Reasonably available control technology guidelines for stationary sources of nitrogen dioxide 7/1/97 4/28/99, 64 FR 22792 52.2420(c)(132) Exceptions: 311C.3.a, C.3.c, D. 5-40-320 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0409. 5-40-330 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0410. 5-40-360 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0413. 5-40-370 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0414. 5-40-380 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0415. 5-40-390 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0416. 5-40-400 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0417. 5-40-410 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0418. 5-40-420 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0419. Article 5 Emission Standards for Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products Manufacturing Operations (Rule 4-5) 5-40-430 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0501. 5-40-440 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0502. 4-40-450 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0503. 5-40-460 Control Technology Guidelines 2/1/02 3/3/06, 71 FR 10838 5-40-470 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0505. 5-40-480 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0506. 5-40-510 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0509. 5-40-520 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0510. 5-40-530 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0511. 5-40-540 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0512. 5-40-550 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0513. 5-40-560 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0514. 5-40-570 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0515. Article 6 Emission Standards for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Operations (Rule 4-6) 5-40-580 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0601. 5-40-590 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0602. 5-40-600 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0603. 5-40-610 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0604. 5-40-620 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0605. 5-40-630 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0606. 5-40-660 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0609. 5-40-670 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0610. 5-40-680 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0611. 5-40-690 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0612. 5-40-700 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0613. 5-40-710 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0614. 5-40-720 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0615. Article 7 Emission Standards for Incinerators (Rule 4-7) 5-40-730 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0701. 5-40-740 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0702. 5-40-750 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0703. 5-40-760 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0704. 5-40-770 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0705. 5-40-800 Prohibition of Flue-Fed Incinerators 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0708. 5-40-810 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0709. 5-40-820 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0710. 5-40-830 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0711. 5-40-840 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0712. 5-40-850 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0713. 5-40-860 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0714. 5-40-870 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0715. Article 8 Emission Standards for Fuel Burning Equipment (Rule 4-8) 5-40-880 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/1/99 5/31/01, 66 FR 29495 5-40-890 Definitions 4/1/99 5/31/01, 66 FR 29495 5-40-900 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/1/99 5/31/01, 66 FR 29495 5-40-910 Emission Allocation System 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0804. 5-40-920 Determination of Collection Equipment Efficiency Factor 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0805. 5-40-930 Standard for Sulfur Dioxide 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0806. 5-40-940 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/1/99 5/31/01, 66 FR 29495 5-40-950 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0808. 5-40-980 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0811. 5-40-990 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0812. 5-40-1000 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0813. 5-40-1010 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0814. 5-40-1020 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0815. 5-40-1030 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0816. 5-40-1040 Permits 4/1/99 5/31/01, 66 FR 29495 Article 9 Emission Standards for Coke Ovens (Rule 4-9) 5-40-1050 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0901. 5-40-1060 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0902. 5-40-1070 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0903. 5-40-1080 Standard for Sulfur Dioxide 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0904. 5-40-1090 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0905. 5-40-1100 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0906. 5-40-1130 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0909. 5-40-1140 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0910. 5-40-1150 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0911. 5-40-1160 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0912. 5-40-1170 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0913. 5-40-1180 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0914. 5-40-1190 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-0915. Article 10 Emission Standards for Asphalt Concrete Plants (Rule 4-10) 5-40-1200 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1001. 5-40-1210 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1002. 5-40-1220 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1003. 5-40-1230 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1004. 5-40-1240 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1005. 5-40-1270 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1008. 5-40-1280 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1009. 5-40-1290 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1010. 5-40-1300 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1011. 5-40-1310 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1012. 5-40-1320 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1013. 5-40-1330 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1014. Article 11 Emission Standards for Petroleum Refinery Operations (Rule 4-11) 5-40-1340 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1101. 5-40-1350 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1102. 5-40-1360 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1103. 5-40-1370 Standard for Sulfur Dioxide 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1104. 5-40-1390 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1106. 5-40-1400 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1107. 5-40-1410 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1108. 5-40-1420 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1109. 5-40-1450 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1112. 5-40-1460 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1113. 5-40-1470 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1114. 5-40-1480 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1115. 5-40-1490 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1116. 5-40-1500 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1117. 5-40-1510 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1118. Article 12 Emission Standards for Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Operations (Rule 4-12) 5-40-1520 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1201. 5-40-1530 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1202. 5-40-1540 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1203. 5-40-1550 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1204. 5-40-1560 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1205. 5-40-1590 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1208. 5-40-1600 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1209. 5-40-1610 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1210. 5-40-1620 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1211. 5-40-1630 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1212. 5-40-1640 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1213. 5-40-1650 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1214. Article 13 Emission Standards for Kraft Pulp Mills (Rule 4-13) 5-40-1660 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1301. 5-40-1670 Definitions of cross recovery furnace, kraft pulp mill, lime kiln, recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1302. Remaining definitions are federally enforceable as part of the Section 111(d) plan for kraft pulp mills ( *see,* § 62.11610). 5-40-1680 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1303. 5-40-1700 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1305. 5-40-1710 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1306 5-40-1720. Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1307. 5-40-1750A Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1310A. Note: Sections 5-40-1750B. through D. are federally enforceable as part of the Section 111(d) plan for kraft pulp mills ( *see* , § 62.11610). 5-40-1760 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1311. 5-40-1770A Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1312A. Note: Sections 5-40-1770B. and C. are federally enforceable as part of the Section 111(d) plan for kraft pulp mills ( *see,* § 62.11610). 5-40-1780A Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1313A. Note: Sections 5-40-1780B. through D. are federally enforceable as part of the Section 111(d) plan for kraft pulp mills ( *see,* § 62.11610). 5-40-1790 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1314. 5-40-1800 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1315. 5-40-1810 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1316. Article 14 Emission Standards for Sand and Gravel Processing Operations and Stone Quarrying and Processing Operations (Rule 4-14) 5-40-1820 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1401. 5-40-1830 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1402. 5-40-1840 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1403. 5-40-1850 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1404. 5-40-1860 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1405. 5-40-1890 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1408. 5-40-1900 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1409. 5-40-1910 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1410. 5-40-1920 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1411. 5-40-1930 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1412. 5-40-1940 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1413. 5-40-1950 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1414. Article 15 Emission Standards for Coal Preparation Plants (Rule 5-15) 5-40-1960 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1501. 5-40-1970 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1502. 5-40-1980 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1503. 5-40-1990 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1504. 5-40-2000 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1505. 5-40-2030 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1508. 5-40-2040 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1509. 5-40-2050 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1510. 5-40-2060 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1511. 5-40-2070 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1512. 5-40-2080 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1513. 5-40-2090 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1514. Article 16 Emission Standards for Portland Cement Plants (Rule 4-16) 5-40-2100 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1601. 5-40-2110 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1602. 5-40-2120 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1603. 5-40-2130 Standard for Sulfur Dioxide 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1604. 5-40-2140 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1605. 5-40-2150 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1606. 5-40-2180 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1609. 5-40-2190 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1610. 5-40-2200 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1611. 5-40-2210 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1612. 5-40-2220 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1613. 5-40-2230 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1614. 5-40-2240 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1615. Article 17 Emission Standards for Woodworking Operations (Rule 4-17) 5-40-2250 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1701. 5-40-2260 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1702. 5-40-2270 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1703. 5-40-2280 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1704. 5-40-2290 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1705. 5-40-2320 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1708. 5-40-2330 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1709. 5-40-2340 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1710. 5-40-2350 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1711. 5-40-2360 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1712. 5-40-2370 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1713. 5-40-2380 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1714. Article 18 Emission Standards for Primary and Secondary Metal Operations (Rule 4-18) 5-40-2390 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1801. 5-40-2400 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1802. 5-40-2410 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1803. 5-40-2420 Standard for Sulfur Oxides 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1804. 5-40-2430 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1805. 5-40-2440 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1806. 5-40-2470 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1809. 5-40-2480 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1810. 5-40-2490 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1811. 5-40-2500 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1812. 5-40-2510 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1813. 5-40-2520 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1814. 5-40-2530 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1815. Article 19 Emission Standards for Lightweight Aggregate Process Operations (Rule 4-19) 5-40-2540 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1901. 5-40-2550 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1902. 5-40-2560 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1903. 5-40-2570 Standard for Sulfur Oxides 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1904. 5-40-2580 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1905. 5-40-2590 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1906. 5-40-2620 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1909. 5-40-2630 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1910. 5-40-2640 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1911. 5-40-2650 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1912. 5-40-2660 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1913. 5-40-2670 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1914. 5-40-2680 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-1915. Article 20 Emission Standards for Feed Manufacturing Operations (Rule 4-20) 5-40-2690 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2001. 5-40-2700 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2002. 5-40-2710 Standard for Particulate Matter 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2003. 5-40-2720 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2004. 5-40-2730 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2005. 5-40-2760 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2008. 5-40-2770 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2009. 5-40-2780 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2010. 5-40-2790 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2011. 5-40-2800 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2012. 5-40-2810 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2013. 5-40-2820 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2014. Article 21 Emission Standards for Sulfuric Acid Production Plants (Rule 4-21) 5-40-2830 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2101. 5-40-2840 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2102. 5-40-2850 Standard for Sulfur Dioxide 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2103. 5-40-2870 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2105. 5-40-2880 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2106. 5-40-2910 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2109. 5-40-2920 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2110. 5-40-2930 Monitoring 2/1/02 3/3/06, 71 FR 10838 5-40-2940 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2112. 5-40-2950 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2113. 5-40-2960 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2114. 5-40-2970 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2115. Article 22 Emission Standards for Sulfur Recovery Operations (Rule 4-22) 5-40-2980 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2201. 5-40-2990 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2202. 5-40-3000 Standard for Sulfur Dioxide 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2203. 5-40-3010 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2204. 5-40-3020 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2205. 5-40-3050 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2208. 5-40-3060 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2209. 5-40-3070 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2210. 5-40-3080 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2211. 5-40-3090 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2212. 5-40-3100 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2213. 5-40-3110 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2214. Article 23 Emission Standards for Nitric Acid Production Units (Rule 4-23) 5-40-3120 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2301. 5-40-3130 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2302. 5-40-3140 Standard for Nitrogen Oxides 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2303. 5-40-3150 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2304. 5-40-3160 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2305. 5-40-3190 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2308. 5-40-3200 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2309. 5-40-3210 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2310. 5-40-3220 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2311. 5-40-3230 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2312. 5-40-3240 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2313. 5-40-3250 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2314. Article 24 Emission Standards for Solvent Metal Cleaning Operations Using Non-Halogenated Solvents (Rule 4-24) 5-40-3260 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 3/24/04 5/17/05, 70 FR 28215 5-40-3270 Definitions 4/1/97 11/3/99, 64 FR 59635 5-40-3280 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/1/97 11/3/99, 64 FR 59635 5-40-3290 Control Technology Guidelines 4/1/97 11/3/99, 64 FR 59635 5-40-3300 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/1/97 11/3/99, 64 FR 59635 5-40-3310 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/1/97 11/3/99, 64 FR 59635 5-40-3340 Compliance 4/1/97 11/3/99, 64 FR 59635 5-40-3350 Test Methods and Procedures 4/1/97 11/3/99, 64 FR 59635 5-40-3360 Monitoring 4/1/97 11/3/99, 64 FR 59635 5-40-3370 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/1/97 11/3/99, 64 FR 59635 5-40-3380 Registration 4/1/97 11/3/99, 64 FR 59635 5-40-3390 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/1/97 11/3/99, 64 FR 59635 5-40-3400 Permits 4/1/97 11/3/99, 64 FR 59635 Article 25 Emission Standards for Volatile Organic Compound Storage and Transfer Operations (Rule 4-25) 5-40-3410 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2501. 5-40-3420 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2502. 5-40-3430 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2503. 5-40-3440 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2504. 5-40-3450 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2505. 5-40-3460 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2506. 5-40-3490 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2509. 5-40-3500 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2510. 5-40-3510 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2511. 5-40-3520 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2512. 5-40-3530 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2513. 5-40-3540 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2514. 5-40-3550 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2515. Article 26 Emission Standards for Large Coating Application Systems (Rule 4-26) 5-40-3560 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2601. 5-40-3570 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2602. 5-40-3580 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2603. 5-40-3590 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2604. 5-40-3600 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2605. 5-40-3610 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2606. 5-40-3640 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2609. 5-40-3650 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2610. 5-40-3660 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2611. 5-40-3670 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2612. 5-40-3680 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2613. 5-40-3690 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2614. 5-40-3700 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2615. Article 27 Emission Standards for Magnet Wire Coating Application Systems (Rule 4-27) 5-40-3710 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2701. 5-40-3720 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2702. 5-40-3730 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2703. 5-40-3740 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2704. 5-40-3750 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2705. 5-40-3760 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2706. 5-40-3790 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2709. 5-40-3800 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2710. 5-40-3810 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2711. 5-40-3820 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2712. 5-40-3830 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2713. 5-40-3840 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2714. 5-40-3850 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2715. Article 28 Emission Standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Coating Application Systems (Rule 4-28) 5-40-3860 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2801. 5-40-3870 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2802. 5-40-3880 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2803. 5-40-3890 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2804. 5-40-3900 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2805. 5-40-3910 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2806. 5-40-3940 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2809. 5-40-3950 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2810. 5-40-3960 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2811. 5-40-3970 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2812. 5-40-3980 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2813. 5-40-3990 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2814. 5-40-4000 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2815. Article 29 Emission Standards for Can Coating Application Systems (Rule 4-29) 5-40-4010 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2901. 5-40-4020 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2902. 5-40-4030 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2903. 5-40-4040 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2904. 5-40-4050 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2905. 5-40-4060 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2906. 5-40-4090 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2909. 5-40-4100 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2910. 5-40-4110 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2911. 5-40-4120 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2912. 5-40-4130 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2913. 5-40-4140 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2914. 5-40-4150 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-2915. Article 30 Emission Standards for Metal Coil Coating Application Systems (Rule 4-30) 5-40-4160 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3001. 5-40-4170 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3002. 5-40-4180 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3003. 5-40-4190 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3004. 5-40-4200 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3005. 5-40-4210 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3006. 5-40-4240 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3009. 5-40-4250 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3010. 5-40-4260 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3011. 5-40-4270 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3012. 5-40-4280 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3013. 5-40-4290 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3014. 5-40-4300 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3015. Article 31 Emission Standards for Paper and Fabric Coating Application Systems (Rule 4-31) 5-40-4310 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3101. 5-40-4320 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3102. 5-40-4330 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3103. 5-40-4340 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3104. 5-40-4350 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3105. 5-40-4360 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3106. 5-40-4390 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3109. 5-40-4400 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3110. 5-40-4410 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3111. 5-40-4420 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3112. 5-40-4430 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3113. 5-40-4440 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3114. 5-40-4450 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3115. Article 32 Emission Standards for Vinyl Coating Application Systems (Rule 4-32) 5-40-4460 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3201. 5-40-4470 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3202. 5-40-4480 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3203. 5-40-4490 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3204. 5-40-4500 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3205. 5-40-4510 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3206. 5-40-4540 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3209. 5-40-4550 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3210. 5-40-4560 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3211. 5-40-4570 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3212. 5-40-4580 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3213. 5-40-4590 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3214. 5-40-4600 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3215. Article 33 Emission Standards for Metal Furniture Coating Application Systems (Rule 4-33) 5-40-4610 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3301. 5-40-4620 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3302. 5-40-4630 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3303. 5-40-4640 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3304. 5-40-4650 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3305. 5-40-4660 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3306. 5-40-4690 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3309. 5-40-4700 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3310. 5-40-4710 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3311. 5-40-4720 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3312. 5-40-4730 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3313. 5-40-4740 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3314. 5-40-4750 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3315. Article 34 Emission Standards for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating Application Systems (Rule 4-34) 5-40-4760 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3401. 5-40-4770 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3402. 5-40-4780 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3403. 5-40-4790 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3404. 5-40-4800 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3405. 5-40-4810 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3406. 5-40-4840 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3409. 5-40-4850 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3410. 5-40-4860 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3411. 5-40-4870 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3412. 5-40-4880 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3413. 5-40-4890 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3414. 5-40-4900 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3415. Article 35 Emission Standards for Flatwood Paneling Coating Application Systems (Rule 4-35) 5-40-4910 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3501. 5-40-4920 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3502. 5-40-4930 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3503. 5-40-4940 Control Technology Guidelines 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3504. 5-40-4950 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3505. 5-40-4960 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3506. 5-40-4990 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3509. 5-40-5000 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3510. 5-40-5010 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3511. 5-40-5020 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3512. 5-40-5030 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3513. 5-40-5040 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3514. 5-40-5050 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3515. Article 36 Flexographic, Packaging Rotogravure, and Publication Rotogravure Printing Lines (Rule 4-36) 5-40-5060 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 04/01/96, 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 5-40-5070 Definitions 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11334 § 52.2465(c)(113)(i)(B)( *4* ). 5-40-5080 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11334 5-40-5090 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11334 5-40-5100 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11334 5-40-5130 Compliance 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11334 5-40-5140 Test Methods and Procedures 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11334 5-40-5150 Monitoring 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11334 5-40-5160 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11334 5-40-5170 Registration 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11334 5-40-5180 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11334 5-40-5190 Permits 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11334 Article 37 Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer Operations (Rule 4-37) 5-40-5200 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 04/01/96, 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 5-40-5210 Definitions 2/1/02 3/3/06, 71 FR 10838 5-40-5220 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 3/24/04 4/27/05, 70 FR 21625 5-40-5230 Control Technology Guidelines 2/1/02 3/3/06, 71 FR 10838 5-40-5240 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3705. 5-40-5250 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3706. 5-40-5280 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3709. 5-40-5290 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3710. 5-40-5300 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3711. 5-40-5310 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3712. 5-40-5320 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3713. 5-40-5330 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3714. 5-40-5340 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3715. Article 39 Emission Standards for Asphalt Paving Operations (Rule 4-39) 5-40-5490 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3901. 5-40-5500 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3902. 5-40-5510 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3903. 5-40-5520 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3904. 5-40-5530 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3905. 5-40-5560 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3908. 5-40-5570 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3909. 5-40-5580 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3910. 5-40-5590 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-3911. Article 40 Emission Standards for Open Burning (Rule 4-40) 5-40-5600 Applicability 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11332 Provisions of Article 40 are applicable only in the Northern Va and Richmond Emissions Control Areas as defined in 9 VAC 5-20-206. 5-40-5610 Definitions of “refuse”, “household refuse”, “clean burning waste”, “landfill”, “local landfill”, “sanitary landfill”, “special incineration devise” 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11332 5-40-5610 All definitions not listed above 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-4002. 5-40-5620 Open Burning Prohibitions 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11332 5-40-5630 Permissible Open Burning 4/1/96 3/12/97, 62 FR 11332 5-40-5631 Forest Management and Agricultural Practices 7/1/97 3/12/97, 62 FR 11332 Former Appendix D, effective 4/1/96. Article 41 Emission Standards for Mobile Sources (Rule 4-41) 5-40-5650 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-4101. 5-40-5660 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-4102. 5-40-5670 Motor Vehicles 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-4103. 5-40-5680 Other Mobile Sources 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-4104. 5-40-5690 Export/Import of Motor Vehicles 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-04-4105. Article 42 Emissions Standards for Portable Fuel Container Spillage in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Control Area (Rule 4-42) 5-40-5700 Applicability 3/24/04 6/8/04, 69 FR 31893 5-40-5710 Definitions 3/24/04 6/8/04, 69 FR 31893 5-40-5720 Standard for volatile organic compounds 3/24/04 6/8/04, 69 FR 31893 5-40-5730 Administrative requirements 3/24/04 6/8/04, 69 FR 31893 5-40-5740 Compliance 3/24/04 6/8/04, 69 FR 31893 5-40-5750 Compliance Schedules 3/24/04 6/8/04, 69 FR 31893 5-40-5760 Test methods and procedures 3/24/04 6/8/04, 69 FR 31893 5-40-5770 Notification, records and reporting 3/24/04 6/8/04, 69 FR 31893 Article 43 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Rule 4-43) 5-40-5800 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 5-40-5810 Definitions 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 5-40-5820 Standards for Air Emissions 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 5-40-5822 Operational standards for collection and control systems 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 5-40-5824 Specifications for active collection systems 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 5-40-5850 Compliance 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 5-40-5855 Compliance schedule 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 5-40-5860 Test methods and procedures 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 5-40-5870 Monitoring 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 5-40-5880 Reporting 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 5-40-5890 Recordkeeping 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 5-40-5900 Registration 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 5-40-5910 Facility and control equipment maintenance or malfunction 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 5-40-5920 Permits 1/29/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77900 Article 47 Emission Standards for Solvent Metal Cleaning Operations in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Control Area (Rule 4-47) 5-40-6820 Applicability 3/24/04 6/9/04, 69 FR 32277 5-40-6830 Definitions 3/24/04 6/9/04, 69 FR 32277 5-40-6840 Standards for volatile organic compounds 3/24/04 6/9/04, 69 FR 32277 5-40-6850 Standard for visible emissions 3/24/04 6/9/04, 69 FR 32277 5-40-6860 Standard for fugitive dust/emissions 3/24/04 6/9/04, 69 FR 32277 5-40-6890 Compliance 3/24/04 6/9/04, 69 FR 32277 5-40-6900 Compliance schedules 3/24/04 6/9/04, 69 FR 32277 5-40-6910 Test methods and procedures 3/24/04 6/9/04, 69 FR 32277 5-40-6920 Monitoring 3/24/04 6/9/04, 69 FR 32277 5-40-6930 Notification, records and reporting 3/24/04 6/9/04, 69 FR 32277 5-40-6940 Registration 3/24/04 6/9/04, 69 FR 32277 5-40-6950 Facility and control equipment maintenance or malfunction 3/24/04 6/9/04, 69 FR 32277 5-40-6960 Permits 3/24/04 6/9/04, 69 FR 32277 Article 48 Emission Standards for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Operations in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Control Area (Rule 4-48) 5-40-6970 Applicability and designation of affected facility 3/24/04 6/24/04, 69 FR 35253 5-40-6980 Definitions 3/24/04 6/24/04, 69 FR 35253 5-40-6990 Standards for volatile organic compounds 3/24/04 6/24/04, 69 FR 35253 5-40-7000 Standard for visible emissions 3/24/04 6/24/04, 69 FR 35253 5-40-7010 Standard for fugitive dust/emissions 3/24/04 6/24/04, 69 FR 35253 5-40-7040 Compliance 3/24/04 6/24/04, 69 FR 35253 5-40-7050 Compliance schedule 3/24/04 6/24/04, 69 FR 35253 5-40-7060 Test methods and procedures 3/24/04 6/24/04, 69 FR 35253 5-40-7070 Monitoring 3/24/04 6/24/04, 69 FR 35253 5-40-7080 Notification, records and reporting 3/24/04 6/24/04, 69 FR 35253 5-40-7090 Registration 3/24/04 6/24/04, 69 FR 35253 5-40-7100 Facility and control equipment maintenance or malfunction 3/24/04 6/24/04, 69 FR 35253 5-40-7110 Permits 3/24/04 6/24/04, 69 FR 35253 Article 49 Architectural And Industrial Maintenance Coatings (Rule 4-49) 5-40-7120 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 3/24/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24970 5-40-7130 Definitions 3/24/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24970 5-40-7140 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 3/24/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24970 5-40-7150 Container Labeling Requirements 3/24/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24970 5-40-7160 Standard for Visible Emissions 3/24/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24970 5-40-7170 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 3/24/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24970 5-40-7200 Compliance 3/24/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24970 5-40-7210 Compliance Schedules 3/24/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24970 5-40-7220 Test Methods and Procedures 3/24/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24970 5-40-7230 Notification, Records and Reporting 3/24/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24970 Article 50 Consumer Products (Rule 4-50) 5-40-7240 Applicability 3/9/05 1/30/07, 72 FR 4207 5-40-7250 Exemptions 3/9/05 1/30/07, 72 FR 4207 5-40-7260 Definitions 3/9/05 1/30/07, 72 FR 4207 5-40-7270 Standard for volatile organic compounds 3/9/05 1/30/07, 72 FR 4207 5-40-7280 Alternative control plan

(ACP)for consumer products 3/9/05 1/30/07, 72 FR 4207 5-40-7290 Innovative Products 3/9/05 1/30/07, 72 FR 4207 5-40-7300 Administrative requirements 3/9/05 1/30/07, 72 FR 4207 5-40-7320 Compliance 3/9/05 1/30/07, 72 FR 4207 5-40-7330 Compliance schedules 3/9/05 1/30/07, 72 FR 4207 5-40-7340 Test methods and procedures 3/9/05 1/30/07, 72 FR 4207 5-40-7350 Monitoring 3/9/05 1/30/07, 72 FR 4207 5-40-7360 Notification, records and reporting 3/9/05 1/30/07, 72 FR 4207 Article 53 Emission Standards for Lithographic Printing Processes (Rule 4-53) [Formerly Article 45] 5-40-7800 Applicability and designation of affected facility 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 Revised to include and exempt certain emission control areas. 5-40-7810 Definitions of “alcohol,” “Cleaning solution,” “fountain solution,” “lithographic printing,” “printing process” 4/1/96, 10/4/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 5-40-7820 Standard for Volatile Organic Compounds 04/01/96, 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 5-40-7840 Standard for Visible Emissions 04/01/96, 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 5-40-7850 Standard for Fugitive Dust Emissions 04/01/96, 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 5-40-7880 Compliance 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 Revisions to compliance dates. 5-40-7890 Test Methods and Procedures 04/01/96, 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 5-40-7900 Monitoring 04/01/96, 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 5-40-7910 Notification, Records and Reporting 04/01/96, 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 5-40-7920 Registration 04/01/96, 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 5-40-7930 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance and Malfunction 04/01/96, 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 5-40-7940 Permits 04/01/96, 10/04/06 3/2/07, 72 FR 9441 Chapter 50 New and Modified Stationary Sources [Part V] Part I Special Provisions 5-50-10 Applicability 8/1/02 3/15/04, 69 FR 12074 5-50-20 Compliance 8/1/02 3/15/04, 69 FR 12074 5-50-30 Performance Testing 8/1/02 3/15/04, 69 FR 12074 5-50-40 Monitoring 8/1/02 3/15/04, 69 FR 12074 5-50-50 Notification, Records and Reporting 8/1/02 3/15/04, 69 FR 12074 Part II Emission Standards Article 1 Standards of Performance for Visible Emissions and Fugitive Dust/Emissions (Rule 5-1) 5-50-60 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0101. 5-50-70 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0102. 5-50-80 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0103. 5-50-90 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 2/1/03 4/29/05, 70 FR 22263 5-50-100 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0105. 5-50-110 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0106. 5-50-120 Waivers 2/1/03 4/29/05, 70 FR 22263 Article 4 Standards of Performance for Stationary Sources (Rule 5-4) 5-50-240 Applicability and Designation of Affected Facility 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0401. 5-50-250 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0402. 5-50-260 Standard for Stationary Sources 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0403. 5-50-270 Standard for Major Stationary Sources (Nonattainment Areas) 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0404. 5-50-280 Standard for Major Stationary Sources (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas) 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0405. 5-50-290 Standard for Visible Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0406. 5-50-300 Standard for Fugitive Dust/Emissions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0407. 5-50-330 Compliance 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0410. 5-50-340 Test Methods and Procedures 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0411. 5-50-350 Monitoring 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0412. 5-50-360 Notification, Records and Reporting 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0413. 5-50-370 Registration 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0414. 5-50-380 Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0415. 5-50-390 Permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-05-0416. Chapter 70 Air Pollution Episode Prevention [Part VII] 5-70-10 Applicability 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-07-01. 5-70-20 Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-07-02. 5-70-30 General 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-07-03. 5-70-40 Episode Determination 4/1/99 10/19/00, 65 FR 62626 References to “TSP” have been removed. 5-70-50 Standby Emission Reduction Plans 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-07-05. 5-70-60 Control Requirements 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-07-06. 5-70-70 Local Air Pollution Control Agency Participation 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-07-07. Chapter 80 Permits for Stationary Sources [Part VIII] 5-80-10 New and Modified Stationary Sources 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 120-08-01. 10A Applicability 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01A. 10B Definitions 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01B. 10C (Exc.C.1.b). General 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01C. (Exc.C.1.b). 10D Applications 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01D. 10E Information required 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01E. 10F Action on permit application 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01F. 10G Public participation 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01G.; Exceptions: 10.G.1 and .10G.4.b. VR120-08-01C.4.b., c Public Participation—public hearing requirements for major modifications 7/31/81; recodified 2/1/85 5/4/82, 47 FR 19134; recodified 2/25/93, 58 FR 11373 See § 52.2423(o). 10H.2. and 10H.3 Standards for granting permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01H.2. and 01H.3. 10I.1. and 10I.3 Application review and analysis 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01I.1. and 01I.3. 10J Compliance determination and verification by performance testing 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01J 10K Permit invalidation, revocation and enforcement 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01K. 10L Existence of permit no defense 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01L. 10M Compliance with local zoning requirements 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01M. 10N Reactivation and permanent shutdown 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01N. 10O Transfer of permits 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01O. 10P Circumvention 4/17/95 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 01P. 5-80-11 Stationary source permit exemption levels 7/1/97 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 Appendix R. Article 5 State Operating Permits 5-80-800 Applicability 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-810 Definitions 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-820 General 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-830 Applications 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-840 Application information required 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-850 Standards and conditions for granting permits 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-860 Action on permit application 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-870 Application review and analysis 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-880 Compliance determination and verification by testing 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-890 Monitoring requirements 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-900 Reporting requirements 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-910 Existence of permits no defense 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-920 Circumvention 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-930 Compliance with local zoning requirements 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-940 Transfer of permits 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-950 Termination of permits 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-960 Changes to permits 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-970 Administrative permit amendments 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-980 Minor permit amendments 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-990 Significant permit amendments 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-1000 Reopening for cause 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-1010 Enforcement 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-1020 Public participation 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-1030 General permits 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 5-80-1040 Review and evaluation of article 4/1/98 6/27/03, 68 FR 38191 Article 8 Permits-Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas 5-80-1700 Applicability 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1710 Definitions 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1720 General 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1730 Ambient Air Increments 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1740 Ambient Air Ceilings 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1750 Applications 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1760 Compliance with Local Zoning Requirements 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1770 Compliance Determination and Verification by Performance Testing 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1780 Stack Heights 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1790 Review of Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications—Source Applicability and Exemptions 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1800 Control Technology Review 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1810 Source Impact Analysis 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1820 Air Quality Models 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1830 Air Quality Analysis 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1840 Source Information 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1850 Additional Impact Analyses 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1860 Sources Impacting Federal Class I Areas—Additional Requirements 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1870 Public Participation 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1880 Source Obligation 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1890 Environmental Impact Statements 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1900 Disputed Permits 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1910 Interstate Pollution Abatement 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1920 Innovative Control Technology 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1930 Reactivation and Permanent Shutdown 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1940 Transfer of Permits 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1950 Permit Invalidation, Revocation, and Enforcement 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1960 Circumvention 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 5-80-1970 Review and Confirmation of this Chapter by Board 1/1/97 3/23/98, 63 FR 13795 Article 9 Permits-Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone Transport Region 5-80-2000 Applicability 12//1/04 7/13/06, 71 FR 39570. 5-80-2010 Definitions 12/1/04 7/13/06, 71 FR 39570. 5-80-2020 General 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03C (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2030 Applications 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03D (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2040 Information required 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03E (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2050 Standards/conditions for granting permits 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03F (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2060 Action on permit application 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03G (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2070 Public Participation 1/1/93 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03H (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2080 Compliance determination and verification by performance testing 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03I (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2090 Application review and analysis 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03J (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2100 Circumvention 1/1/93, 4/199 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03K (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2110 Interstate pollution abatement 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03L (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2120 Offsets 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03M (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2130 De minimis increases and stationary source modification alternatives for ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or severe in 9 VAC 5-20-204 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03N (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2140 Exception 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03O (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2150 Compliance with local zoning requirements 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03P (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2160 Reactivation and Permit Shutdown 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03Q (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2170 Transfer of Permits 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03R (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2180 Revocation of permit 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03S (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). 5-80-2190 Existence of permit no defense 1/1/93, 4/1/99 4/21/00, 65 FR 21315 .03T (9/21/99, 64 FR 51047). Chapter 91 Regulations for the Control of Motor Vehicle Emissions in the Northern Virginia Area Part I Definitions 5-91-10 General 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-20 Terms Defined 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Exception —“Northern Virginia program area” does not include Fauquier County, Effective 1/1/98. Part II General Provisions 5-91-30 Applicability and authority of the department 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-40 Establishment of Regulations and Orders 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-50 Documents Incorporated by Reference 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-60 Hearings and Proceedings 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-70 Appeal of Case Decisions 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-80 Variances 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-90 Right of entry 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-100 Conditions on approvals 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-110 Procedural information and guidance 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-120 Export and import of motor vehicles 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-130 Relationship of state regulations to federal regulations 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-140 Delegation of authority 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-150 Availability of information 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Part III Emission Standards for Motor Vehicle Air Pollution 5-91-160 Exhaust emission standards for two-speed idle testing in enhanced emissions inspection programs 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-170 Exhaust emission standards for ASM testing in enhanced emissions inspection programs 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-180 Exhaust emission standards for on-road testing through remote sensing 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-190 Emissions control systems standards 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-200 Evaporative emissions standards 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-210 Visible emissions standards 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Part IV Permitting and Operation of Emissions Inspection Stations 5-91-220 General provisions 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-230 Applications 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-240 Standards and conditions for permits 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-250 Action on permit application 1/27/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-260 Emissions inspection station permits, categories 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-270 Permit renewals 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-280 Permit revocation, surrender of materials 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-290 Emission inspection station operations 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-300 Emissions inspection station records 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-310 Sign and permit posting 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-320 Equipment and facility requirements 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-330 Analyzer system operation 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-340 Motor vehicle inspection report; certificate of emission inspection 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-350 Data media 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-360 Inspector number and access code usage 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-370 Fleet emissions inspection stations; mobile fleet emissions inspection stations 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Part V Emissions Inspector Testing and Licensing 5-91-380 Emissions inspector licences and renewals 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-390 Qualification requirements for emissions inspector licenses 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-400 Conduct of emissions inspectors 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Part VI Inspection Procedures 5-91-410 General 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-420 Inspection procedure; rejection, pass, fail, waiver 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-430 ASM test procedure 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-440 Two-speed idle test procedure 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 4-91-450 Fuel system evaporative pressure test and gas cap pressure test procedure 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 4-91-460 Fuel system evaporative purge test procedure 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-470 Short test standards for warranty eligibility 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-480 Emissions related repairs 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-490 Engine and fuel changes 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Part VII Vehicle Emissions Repair Facility Certification 5-91-500 Applicability and Authority 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-510 Certification Qualifications 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-520 Expiration, reinstatement, renewal, and requalification 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-530 Emissions repair facility operations 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-540 Sign Posting 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Part VIII Emissions Repair Technician Certification and Responsibilities 5-91-550 Applicability and authority 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-560 Certification qualifications for emissions repair technicians 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-570 Expiration, reinstatement, renewal and requalification 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-580 Certified emissions repair technician responsibilities 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Part IX Enforcement Procedures 5-91-590 Enforcement of regulations, permits, licenses, certifications and orders 4/2/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-600 General enforcement process 4/2/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-610 Consent orders and penalties for violations 4/2/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-620 Major violations 4/2/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-630 Minor violations 4/2/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Part X Analyzer System Certification and Specifications for Enhanced Emissions Inspections Programs 5-91-640 Applicability 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-650 Design goals 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-660 Warranty; service contract 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-670 Owner provided services 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-680 Certification of analyzer systems 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-690 Span gases; gases for calibration purposes 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-700 Calibration of exhaust gas analyzers 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-710 Upgrade of analyzer system 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Part XI Manufacturer Recall 5-91-720 Vehicle manufacturer recall 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-730 Exemptions; temporary extensions 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Part XII On-Road Testing 5-91-740 General Requirements 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-750 Operating Procedures; violation of standards 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-760 Schedule of civil charges 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Part XIII Federal Facilities 5-91-770 General requirements 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-780 Proof of compliance 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Part XIV ASM Exhaust Emission Standards 5-91-790 ASM start-up standards 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 5-91-800 ASM final standards 1/24/97 9/1/99, 64 FR 47670 Chapter 140 Regulation for Emissions Trading Part I NO X Budget Trading Program Article 1 NO X Budget Trading Program General Provisions 5-140-10 Purpose. 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-20 Definitions 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-30 Measurements, abbreviations, and acronyms 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-31 Federal Regulations Incorporated by reference 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-40 Applicability 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-50 Retired unit exemption 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-60 Standard requirements 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-70 Computation of time 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 Article 2 NO X Authorized Account Representative for NO X Budget Sources 5-140-100 Authorization and responsibilities of the NO X authorized account representative 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-110 Alternate NO X authorized account representative 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-120 Changing the NO X authorized account representative and alternate NO X authorized account representative; changes in the owners and operators 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-130 Account certificate of representation 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-140 Objections concerning the NO X authorized account representative 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 Article 3 Permits 5-140-200 General NO X Budget permit requirements 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-210 Submission of NO X Budget permit applications 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-220 Information requirements for NO X Budget permit applications 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-230 NO X Budget permit contents 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-240 Effective date of initial NO X Budget permit 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-250 NO X Budget permit revisions 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 Article 4 Compliance Certification 5-140-300 Compliance certification report 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-310 Permitting authority's and administrator's action on compliance certifications 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 Article 5 NO X Allowance Allocations 5-140-400 State trading program budget 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-410 Timing requirements for NO X allowance allocations 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-420 NO X allowance allocations. 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-430 Compliance Supplement Pool 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 Article 6 NO X Allowance Tracking System 5-140-500 NO X Allowance Tracking System accounts 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-510 Establishment of accounts 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-520 NO X Allowance Tracking System responsibilities of NO X authorized account representative 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-530 Recordation of NO X allowance allocations 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-540 Compliance 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-550 Banking 3/24/04 8/25/04, 69 FR 52174 5-140-560 Account error 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-570 Closing of general accounts 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 Article 7 NO X Allowance Transfers 5-140-600 Scope and submission of NO X allowance transfers 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-610 EPA recordation 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-620 Notification 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 Article 8 Monitoring and Reporting 5-140-700 General Requirements 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-710 Initial certification and recertification procedures 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-720 Out of control periods 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-730 Notifications 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-740 Recordkeeping and reporting 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-750 Petitions 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-760 Additional requirements to provide heat input data for allocation purposes 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 Article 9 Individual Unit Opt-ins 5-140-800 Applicability 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-810 General 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-820 NO X authorized account representative 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-830 Applying for NO X Budget opt-in permit 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-840 Opt-in process 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-850 NO X Budget opt-in permit contents 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-860 Withdrawal from NO X Budget Trading Program 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-870 Change in regulatory status 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-880 NO X allowance allocations to opt-in units 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 Article 10 State Trading Program Budget and Compliance Pool 5-140-900 State trading program budget 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-910 Compliance supplement pool budget 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-920 Total electric generating unit allocations 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 5-140-930 Total non-electric generating unit allocations 7/17/02 7/8/03, 68 FR 40520 Chapter 160 Regulation for General Conformity Part I General Definitions 5-160-10 General 1/1/98 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 5-160-20 Terms Defined 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585 5-160-20 Terms Defined 1/1/97, 1/1/98 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 Terms revised —Emergency, Terms deleted —Administrative Process Act, Confidential information, Consent agreement, Consent order, Emergency special order, Formal hearing, Order, Party, Public hearing, Special order, Variance, Virginia Register Act. Part II General Provisions 5-160-30 Applicability 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585 5-160-40 Authority of board and department 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585 5-160-80 Relationship of state regulations to federal regulations 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585 Part III Criteria and Procedures for Making Conformity Determinations 5-160-110 General 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585. § 52.2465(c)(118) 5-160-120 Conformity analysis 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585 5-160-130 Reporting requirements 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585 5-160-140 Public participation 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585 5-160-150 Frequency of conformity determinations 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585 5-160-160 Criteria for determining conformity 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585 5-160-170 Procedures for conformity determinations 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585 5-160-180 Mitigation of air quality impacts 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585 5-160-190 Savings provision 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585 5-160-200 Review and confirmation of this chapter by board 1/1/97 10/21/97, 62 FR 54585 Chapter 170 Regulation for General Administration Part I Definitions 5-170-10 Use of Terms 1/1/98 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 Split out from 9 VAC 5-10-10. 5-170-20 Terms Defined 1/1/98 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 Split out from 9 VAC 5-10-20 and 5-160-20, Terms Added —Public hearing, Regulation of the Board, Terms Revised from 4/17/95 version —Consent agreement, Consent order, Emergency special order, Order, Owner, Person, Pollutant, Special Order, Source. Part II General Provisions 5-170-30 Applicability 1/1/98 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 Split out from 9 VAC 5-20-10. 5-170-60 Availability of Information 1/1/98 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 Replaces 9 VAC 5-20-150 and 5-160-100. Part V Enforcement 5-170-120A.-C. Enforcement of Regulations, Permits and Orders 1/1/98 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 Replaces 9 VAC 5-20-30A.-D. and 5-160-60. 5-170-130A. Right of Entry 1/1/98 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 Replaces 9 VAC 5-20-100. Part VI Board Actions 5-170-150 Local Ordinances 1/1/98 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 Replaces 9 VAC 5-20-60. 5-170-160 Conditions on Approvals 1/1/98 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 Replaces 9 VAC 5-20-110. 5-170-170 Considerations for Approval Actions 1/1/98 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 Replaces 9 VAC 5-20-140. Chapter 200 National Low Emission Vehicle Program 5-200-10 Definitions 4/14/99 12/28/99, 64 FR 72564 5-200-20 Participation in national LEV 4/14/99 12/28/99, 64 FR 72564 5-200-30 Transition from national LEV requirements to a Virginia Sec. 177 program 4/14/99 12/28/99, 64 FR 72564 2 VAC 5 Chapter 480 Regulation Governing the Oxygenation of Gasoline 5-480-10 Definitions 11/1/93 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 VR115-04-28, § 1. 5-480-20 Applicability 11/1/96 2/17/00, 65 FR 8051 5-480-30 Minimum oxygenate content 11/1/93 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 VR115-04-28, § 3. 5-480-40 Nature of oxygenates 11/1/93 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 VR115-04-28, § 4. 5-480-50 Record keeping and transfer requirements 11/1/93 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 VR115-04-28, § 5. 5-480-60 Gasoline pump labeling 11/1/93 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 VR115-04-28, § 6. 5-480-70 Sampling, testing and oxygen content calculations 11/1/93 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 VR115-04-28, § 7. 5-480-80 Compliance and enforcement 11/1/93 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 VR115-04-28, § 8. Code of Virginia Section 10.1-1316.1A. Through D Severe ozone nonattainment areas; fees 7/1/04 12/29/04, 69 FR 77909 Provision authorizes the Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ)to collect Federal penalty fees from major stationary sources if the nonattainment area does not attain the ozone standard by the statutory attainment date.

(d)*EPA-Approved State Source Specific Requirements* EPA-Approved Source Specific Requirements Source name Permit/order or registration number State effective date EPA approval date 40 CFR part 52 citation Norfolk Naval Base—Exchange Service Station [NONE] 8/6/79 8/17/81, 46 FR 41499 52.2465(c)(41). Reynolds Metals Co.—Rolling Mill DSE-597-87 9/30/87 8/20/90, 55 FR 33904 52.2465(c)(92). Aqualon (Hercules) Company 50363 9/26/90 11/1/91, 56 FR 56159 52.2465(c)(93). Nabisco Brands, Inc DTE-179-91 4/24/91 3/6/92, 57 FR 8080 52.2465(c)(95). Reynolds Metals Co.—Bellwood DSE-413A-86 10/31/86 6/13/96, 61 FR 29963 52.2465(c)(110). Reynolds Metals Co.—Richmond Foil Plant DSE-412A-86 10/31/86 6/13/96, 61 FR 29963 52.2465(c)(110). Philip Morris, Inc.—Blended Leaf Facility 50080 2/27/86 10/14/97, 62 FR 53277 52.2465(c)(120). Philip Morris, Inc.—Park 500 Facility 50722 3/26/97 10/14/97, 62 FR 53277 52.2465(c)(120). Philip Morris, Inc.—Richmond Manufacturing Center 50076 7/13/96 10/14/97, 62 FR 53277 52.2465(c)(120). Virginia Electric and Power Co.—Innsbrook Technical Center 50396 5/30/96 10/14/97, 62 FR 53277 52.2465(c)(120). Hercules, Inc.—Aqualon Division V-0163-96 7/12/96 10/14/97, 62 FR 53277 52.2465(c)(120). City of Hopewell—Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility 50735 5/30/96 10/14/97, 62 FR 53277 52.2465(c)(120). Allied Signal, Inc.—Hopewell Plant 50232 3/26/97 10/14/97, 62 FR 53277 52.2465(c)(121). Allied Signal, Inc.—Chesterfield Plant V-0114-96 5/20/96 10/14/97, 62 FR 53277 52.2465(c)(121). Bear Island Paper Co. L.P V-0135-96 7/12/96 10/14/97, 62 FR 53277 52.2465(c)(121). Stone Container Corp.—Hopewell Mill 50370 5/30/96 10/14/97, 62 FR 53277 52.2465(c)(121). E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co.—Spruance Plant V-0117-96 5/30/96 10/14/97, 62 FR 53277 52.2465(c)(121). ICI Americas Inc.—Films Division—Hopewell Site 50418 5/30/96 10/14/97, 62 FR 53277 52.2465(c)(121). Tuscarora, Inc 71814 6/5/96 1/22/99, 64 FR 3425 52.2465(c)(128). Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)—Potomac River Generating Station [Permit to Operate] Registration No. 70228; County-Plant No. 510-0003 9/18/00 12/14/00, 65 FR 78100 52.2420(d)(2). Virginia Power (VP)—Possum Point Generating Station [Permit to Operate] Registration No. 70225; County-Plant No. 153-0002 9/26/00 12/14/00, 65 FR 78100 52.2420(d)(2). Cellofoam North America, Inc.—Falmouth Plant [Consent Agreement] Registration No. 40696; FSO-193-98 8/10/98 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). CNG Transmission Corporation—Leesburg Compressor Station [Permit to Operate] Registration No. 71978; County-Plant No. 107-0101 5/22/00 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). Columbia Gas Transmission Company—Loudoun County Compressor Station [Permit to Operate] Registration No. 72265; County-Plant No. 107-0125 5/23/2000 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). District of Columbia's Department of Corrections—Lorton Correctional Facility [Permit to Operate] Registration No. 70028; County-Plant No. 0059-0024 12/10/99 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). Michigan Cogeneration Systems, Inc.—Fairfax County I-95 Landfill [Permit to Operate] Registration No. 71961; County-Plant No. 0059-0575 5/10/00 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority—Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport [Permit to Operate] Registration No. 70005; County-Plant No. 0013-0015 5/22/00 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). Noman M. Cole, Jr., Pollution Control Plant [Consent Agreement] Registration No. 70714 12/13/99 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). Ogden Martin Systems of Alexandria/Arlington, Inc. [Consent Agreement] Registration No. 71895; NVRO-041-98 7/31/98 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). Ogden Martin Systems of Fairfax, Inc. [Consent Agreement] Registration No. 71920 4/3/98 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). U.S. Department of Defense—Pentagon Reservation [Permit to Operate] Registration No. 70030; County-Plant No. 0013-0188 5/17/00 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)—Potomac River Generating Station [Consent Agreement] Registration No. 70228; NVRO-106-98 7/31/98 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3) NO X RACT requirements. Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)—Potomac River Generating Station Registration No. 70228; County Plant No. 510-0003 5/8/00 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3) VOC RACT requirements. United States Marine Corps.—Quantico Base [Permit to Operate] Registration No. 70267; County-Plant No. 153-0010 5/24/00 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation—Compressor Station No. 185 [Consent Agreement] Registration No. 71958 9/5/96 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). U.S. Army Garrison at Fort Belvoir [Permit to Operate] Registration No. 70550; County-Plant No. 059-0018 5/16/00 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). Virginia Power (VP)—Possum Point Generating Station [Permit containing NO X RACT requirements] Registration No. 70225; County-Plant No. 153-0002 7/21/00 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). Virginia Electric and Power Company—Possum Point Generating Station [Consent Agreement containing VOC RACT requirements] Registration No. 70225 6/12/95 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). Washington Gas Light Company—Springfield Operations Center [Consent Agreement] Registration No. 70151; NVRO-031-98 4/3/98 1/02/01, 66 FR 8 52.2420(d)(3). Georgia Pacific—Jarratt Softboard Plant Registration No. 50253 9/28/98 3/26/03, 68 FR 14542 40 CFR 52.2420(d)(4); Note: In Section E, Provision 1, the portion of the text which reads “ * * * and during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction.” is not part of the SIP. Prince William County Landfill Registration No. 72340 4/16/04 9/9/04; 69 FR 54581 52.2420(d)(5). Washington Gas Company, Ravensworth Station Registration No. 72277 4/16/04 08/11/04 10/6/2004; 69 FR 59812 52.2420(d)(6). Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), George Bush Center for Intelligence Registration No. 71757 4/16/04 12/13/04; 69 FR 72115 52.2420(d)(6). National Reconnaissance Office, Boeing Service Center Registration No. 71988 4/16/04 12/13/04; 69 FR 72115 52.2420(d)(6). Roanoke Electric Steel Corp Registration No. 20131 12/22/04 4/27/05; 70 FR 21621 52.2420(d)(7). Roanoke Cement Company Registration No. 20232 12/22/04 4/27/05; 70 FR 21621 52.2420(d)(7). Norfolk Southern Railway Company—East End Shops Registration No. 20468 12/22/04 4/27/05; 70 FR 21621 52.2420(d)(7). Global Stone Chemstone Corporation Registration No. 80504 02/09/05 4/27/05; 70 FR 21621 52.2420(d)(7).

(e)*EPA-approved nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory material.* Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation Commitment Letter—Clean fuel fleet or alternative substitute program Northern Virginia Ozone nonattainment Area 1/25/93 9/23/93, 58 FR 50846 52.2423(j). 9 VAC 5-60-100 (adopts 40 CFR 63.460 through 63.469 by reference) Statewide 10/9/98 11/3/99, 64 FR 59648 52.2423(q). Documents Incorporated by Reference Statewide 4/12/89 8/23/95, 60 FR 43714 52.2423(m). Documents Incorporated by Reference Statewide 2/12/93 8/23/95, 60 FR 43714 52.2423(n). Documents Incorporated by Reference (9 VAC 5-20-21, Section E) Statewide 6/22/99 1/7/03, 68 FR 663 52.2423(r). Documents Incorporated by Reference (9 VAC 5-20-21, paragraph E.12) Statewide 2/23/04 6/8/04, 69 FR 31893 52.2423(s). Documents Incorporated by Reference Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area designated in 9 VAC 5-20-206 3/24/04 5/12/05, 70 FR 24970 9 VAC 5-20-21, Sections E.1.a.(7)., E.4.a.(12) through a.(17), E.10., E.11., E.13.a.(1), and E.13.a.(2). Documents Incorporated by Reference (9 VAC 5-20-21, Sections D., E. (introductory sentence), E.2 (all paragraphs), E.3.b, E.4.a.(1) and (2), E.4.b., E.5. (all paragraphs), and E.7. (all paragraphs)) Statewide 8/25/05 3/3/06, 71 FR 10838 State effective date is 2/1/00. Documents Incorporated by Reference (9 VAC 5-20-21, Section B Statewide 10/25/05 3/3/06, 71 FR 10838 State effective date is 3/9/05; approval is for those provisions of the CFR which implement control programs for air pollutants related to the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and regional haze. Documents Incorporated by Reference Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area designated in 9 VAC 5-20-206 10/25/05 1/30/07, 72 FR 4207 State effective date is 3/9/05 9 VAC 5-20-21, Sections E.1.a.(16), E.4.a.(18) through a.(20), E.6.a, E.11.a.(3), E.12.a.(5) through a.(8), E.14.a. and E.14.b. Motor vehicle emissions budgets Hampton Roads Ozone Maintenance Area 8/29/96 6/26/97, 62 FR 34408 52.2424(a). Motor vehicle emissions budgets Richmond Ozone Maintenance Area 7/30/96 11/17/97, 62 FR 61237 52.2424(b). 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory—Carbon Monoxide

(CO)Metropolitan Washington Area 11/1/93, 4/3/95, 10/12/95 1/30/96, 61 FR 2931 52.2425(a). 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory—Carbon Monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), & volatile organic compounds

(VOC)Richmond-Petersburg, Norfolk-Virginia Beach, and Smyth County Ozone Areas 11/11/92, 11/18/92, 11/1/93, 12/15/94 9/16/96, 61 FR 48657 52.2425(b). 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory—Carbon Monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), & volatile organic compounds

(VOC)Northern Virginia (Metropolitan Washington) Ozone Nonattainment Area 11/30/92, 11/1/93, 4/3/95 9/16/96, 61 FR 54656 52.2425(c). 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory-oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), & volatile organic compounds

(VOC)Northern Virginia (Metropolitan Washington) Ozone Nonattainment Area 12/17/97 7/8/98, 63 FR 36854 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations

(PAMS)Program Northern Virginia (Metropolitan Washington) Ozone Nonattainment Area 11/15/94 9/11/95, 60 FR 47081 52.2426. Attainment determination of the ozone NAAQS Richmond Ozone Nonattainment Area 7/26/96 10/6/97, 62 FR 52029 52.2428(a). 15% rate of progress plan Northern Virginia (Metropolitan Washington) Ozone Nonattainment Area 4/14/98 10/6/00, 65 FR 59727 52.2428(b). Small business stationary source technical and environmental assistance program Statewide 11/10/92 2/14/94, 59 FR 5327 52.2460. Establishment of Air Quality Monitoring Network Statewide 3/24/80 12/5/80, 45 FR 86530 52.2465(c)(38). Lead

(Pb)SIP Statewide 12/31/80 3/21/82, 45 FR 8566 52.2465(c)(61). Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Arlington County & Alexandria City 10/4/95 1/30/96, 61 FR 2931 52.2465(c)(107). 3/22/04 04/04/05, 70 FR 16958 Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Base Year Emissions Inventory using MOBILE6. Ozone Maintenance Plan, emissions inventory & contingency measures Hampton Roads Area 8/27/96 6/26/97, 62 FR 34408 52.2465(c)(117). Ozone Maintenance Plan, emissions inventory & contingency measures Richmond Area 7/26/96 11/17/97, 62 FR 61237 52.2465(c)(119). Non-Regulatory Voluntary Emission Reduction Program Washington, DC severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 2/25/2004 5/12/05, 70 FR 24987 The nonregulatory measures found in section 7.6 and Appendix J of the plan. 1996-1999 Rate-of-Progress Plan SIP and the Transportation Control Measures

(TCMs)in Appendix H Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 12/29/2003, 5/25/1999 5/16/05, 70 FR 25688 Only the TCMs in Appendix H of the 5/25/1999 revision, 1999 motor vehicle emissions budgets of 128.5 tons per day

(tpy)of VOC and 196.4 tpy of NO X . 1990 Base Year Inventory Revisions, Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 8/19/2003, 2/25/2004 5/16/05, 70 FR 25688 1999-2005 Rate-of-Progress Plan SIP Revision and the Transportation Control Measures

(TCMs)in Appendix J Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 8/19/2003, 2/25/2004 5/16/05, 70 FR 25688 Only the TCMs in Appendix J of the 2/25/2004 revision, 2002 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) of 125.2 tons per day

(tpy)for VOC and 290.3 tpy of NO X , and, 2005 MVEBs of 97.4 tpy for VOC and 234.7 tpy of NO X . VMT Offset SIP Revision Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 8/19/2003, 2/25/2004 5/16/05, 70 FR 25688 Contingency Measure Plan Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 8/19/2003, 2/25/2004 5/16/05, 70 FR 25688 1-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration of Attainment and Attainment Plan Washington 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 8/19/2003, 2/25/2004 5/16/05, 70 FR 25688 2005 motor vehicle emissions budgets of 97.4 tons per day

(tpy)for VOC and 234.7 tpy of NO X . Attainment Demonstration and Early Action Plan for the Roanoke MSA Ozone Early Action Compact Area Botetourt County, Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and Salem City 12/21/04, 2/15/05 8/17/05, 70 FR 43277 Attainment Demonstration and Early Action Plan for the Northern Shenandoah Valley Ozone Early Action Compact Area City of Winchester and Frederick County 12/20/04, 02/15/05 8/17/05, 70 FR 43280 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Fredericksburg VA Area City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, and Stafford County 5/4/05 12/23/05, 70 FR 76165 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Madison & Page Cos. (Shenandoah NP), VA Area Madison County

(part)and Page County

(part)9/23/05 1/3/05, 71 FR 24 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News (Hampton Roads), VA Area 10/12/06, 10/16/06, 10/18/06, 11/20/06, 2/13/07 6/1/07, 72 FR 30490 The SIP effective date is 6/1/07. 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory Richmond-Petersburg, VA Area 9/18/06, 9/20/06, 9/25/06, 11/17/06, 2/13/07 6/1/07, 72 FR 30485 The SIP effective date is 6/18/07. [FR Doc. E7-13545 Filed 7-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 135 Monday, July 16, 2007 Proposed Rules Part IV Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 51 and 59 National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings; Proposed Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51 and 59 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971; FRL-8336-5] RIN 2060-AN69 National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This action proposes a national reactivity-based volatile organic compound

(VOC)emissions regulation for the aerosol coatings (aerosol spray paints) category under section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The proposed standards implement section 183(e) of the CAA, as amended in 1990, which requires the Administrator to control VOC emissions from certain categories of consumer and commercial products for purposes of minimizing VOC emissions contributing to ozone formation and causing non-attainment. This regulation will establish a nationwide reactivity-based standard for aerosol coatings. States have promulgated rules for the aerosol coatings category based upon reductions of VOC by mass; however, the Agency believes that a national rule based upon the relative reactivity approach may achieve more reduction in ozone formation than can be achieved by a mass-based approach for this specific product category. EPA believes that this rule will better control a product's contribution to ozone formation by encouraging the use of less reactive VOC ingredients, rather than treating all VOC in a product alike through the traditional mass-based approach. We are also proposing to revise EPA's regulatory definition of VOC exempt compounds for purposes of this regulation in order to account for all the reactive compounds in aerosol coatings that contribute to ozone formation. Therefore, compounds that would not be VOC under the otherwise applicable definition will count towards a product's reactivity limits under this proposed regulation. The initial listing of product categories and schedule for regulation was published on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15264). This proposed action announces EPA's final decision to list aerosol coatings for regulation under group III of the consumer and commercial product category for which regulations are mandated under section 183

(e)of the Act. DATES: *Comments.* Written comments on the proposed regulation must be received by EPA by August 15, 2007, unless a public hearing is requested by July 26, 2007. If a hearing is requested, written comments must be received by August 30, 2007. *Public Hearing.* If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing concerning the proposed regulation by July 26, 2007, we will hold a public hearing on July 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: *Comments.* Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*

(202)566-1741. • *Mail:* Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. We request that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503. • *Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to the applicable docket. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Public Hearing.* If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. on July 31, 2007 at Building C on the EPA campus in Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate site nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony must contact Ms. Dorothy Apple, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number:

(919)541-4487, fax number

(919)541-3470, e-mail address: *apple.dorothy@epa.gov,* no later than July 26, 2007 in the **Federal Register** . Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Apple to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. If no one contacts Ms. Apple by July 26, 2007 in the **Federal Register** with a request to present oral testimony at the hearing, we will cancel the hearing. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1742, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is

(202)566-1744. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the aerosol coatings rule, contact Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number:

(919)541-2509, fax number

(919)541-3470, e-mail address: *whitfield.kaye@epa.gov* . For information concerning the CAA section 183(e) consumer and commercial products program, contact Mr. Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number:

(919)541-5460, fax number

(919)541-3470, e-mail address: *moore.bruce@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Entities Potentially Affected by this Action* . The entities potentially regulated by the proposed regulation encompass aerosol coatings operations. This includes manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of aerosol coatings for sale or distribution in the United States, or manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers that supply the entities listed with aerosol coatings for sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States. The entities potentially affected by this action include: Category NAICS code a Examples of regulated entities Paint and coating manufacturing 32551 Manufacturing of lacquers, varnishes, enamels, epoxy coatings, oil and alkyd vehicle, plastisols, polyurethane, primers, shellacs, stains, water repellant coatings. All other miscellaneous chemical production and preparation manufacturing 325998 Aerosol can filling, aerosol packaging services. a *http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html.* This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether you would be affected by this action, you should examine the applicable industry description in section I.E of this notice. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate EPA contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. *Preparation of Comments.* Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. *World Wide Web (WWW)* . In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web

(WWW)through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/* . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. *Organization of This Document.* The information presented in this notice is organized as follows: I. Background A. The Ozone Problem B. Statutory and Regulatory Background C. What is Photochemical Reactivity? D. Role of Reactivity in VOC/Ozone Regulations E. The Aerosol Coating Industry II. Summary of Proposed Standards A. Applicability of the Standards and Regulated Entities B. Regulated Pollutant C. Regulatory Limits D. Compliance Requirements E. Labeling Requirements F. Recordkeeping and Reporting G. Variance H. Test Methods III. Summary of Impacts A. Environmental Impacts B. Energy Impacts C. Cost and Economic Impacts IV. Rationale A. Applicability B. Regulated Pollutant C. Regulatory Approach D. VOC Regulatory Limits E. Compliance Demonstration Requirements F. Labeling Requirements G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements H. Variance Criteria I. Test Methods V. Statutory and Executive Order

(EO)Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. Background A. The Ozone Problem Ground-level ozone, a major component of smog, is formed in the atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight. The formation of ground-level ozone is a complex process that is affected by many variables. Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of human health effects, as well as agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and ecosystems. Controlled human exposure studies show that acute health effects are induced by short-term (1 to 2 hour) exposures (observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)), generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion, and by prolonged (6 to 8 hour) exposures to ozone (observed at concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm and possibly lower), typically while individuals are engaged in moderate exertion. Transient effects from acute exposures include pulmonary inflammation, respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise performance, and increased airway responsiveness. Epidemiological studies have shown associations between ambient ozone levels and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Groups at increased risk of experiencing elevated exposures include active children, outdoor workers, and others who regularly engage in outdoor activities. Those most susceptible to the effects of ozone include those with preexisting respiratory disease, children, and older adults. The literature suggests the possibility that long-term exposures to ozone may cause chronic health effects (e.g., structural damage to lung tissue and accelerated decline in baseline lung function). B. Statutory and Regulatory Background Under section 183(e) of the CAA, EPA conducted a study of VOC emissions from the use of consumer and commercial products to assess their potential to contribute to levels of ozone that violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and to establish criteria for regulating VOC emissions from these products. Section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to list for regulation those categories of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial products in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone nonattainment areas), and to divide the list of categories to be regulated into four groups. EPA published the initial list in the **Federal Register** on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15264). In that notice, EPA stated that it may amend the list of products for regulation, and the groups of product categories, in order to achieve an effective regulatory program in accordance with the Agency's discretion under CAA section 183(e). EPA has revised the list several times. Most recently, in May 2006, EPA revised the list to add one product category, portable fuel containers, and to remove one product category, petroleum dry cleaning solvents. See 71 FR 28320 (May 16, 2006). The aerosol spray paints (aerosol coatings) category currently is listed for regulation as part of Group III of the CAA section 183(e) list. CAA section 183(e) directs EPA to regulate Consumer and Commercial Products using “best available controls” (BAC). CAA section 183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC as “the degree of emissions reduction that the Administrator determines, on the basis of technological and economic feasibility, health, environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation, product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for use, consumption, storage, or disposal.” CAA section 183(e) also provides EPA with authority to use any system or systems of regulation that EPA determines is the most appropriate for the product category. Under CAA section 183(e)(4), EPA can impose “any system or systems of regulation as the Administrator deems appropriate, including requirements for registration and labeling, self-monitoring and reporting, prohibitions, limitations, or economic incentives (including marketable permits and auctions of emissions rights) concerning the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, consumption or disposal of the product.” Under these provisions, EPA has previously issued national regulations for architectural coatings, autobody refinishing coatings, consumer products, and portable fuel containers. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1 National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings” 63 FR 48848, (September 11, 1998). 2 “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings” 63 FR 48806, (September 11, 1998). 3 “Consumer and Commercial Products: Schedule for Regulation” 63 FR 48792, (September 11, 1998). 4 “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products” 63 FR 48819, (September 11, 1998). 5 “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Portable Fuel Containers” 72 FR 8428, (February 26, 2007). For any category of consumer or commercial products, the Administrator may issue control techniques guidelines

(CTGs)in lieu of national regulations if the Administrator determines that such guidance will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds which contribute to ozone levels in areas which violate the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. In many cases, CTGs can be effective regulatory approaches to reduce emissions of VOC in nonattainment areas because of the nature of the specific product and the uses of such product. A critical distinction between a national rule and a CTG is that a CTG may include provisions that affect the users of the products. For other product categories, such as wood furniture coatings and shipbuilding coatings, EPA has previously determined that, under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), a CTG would be substantially as effective as a national rule and, therefore, issued CTGs to provide guidance to States for development of appropriate State regulations. For the category of aerosol coatings, EPA has determined that a national rule applicable nationwide is the best system of regulation to achieve necessary VOC emission reductions from this type of product. Aerosol coatings are typically used in relatively small amounts by consumers and others on an occasional basis and at varying times and locations. Under such circumstances, reformulation of the VOC content of the products is a more feasible way to achieve VOC emission reductions, rather than through a CTG approach that would only affect a smaller number of relatively large users. Aerosol coatings regulations are already in place in three States (California, Oregon, and Washington), and other States are considering developing regulations for these products. For the companies that market aerosol coatings in different States, trying to fulfill the differing requirements of State rules may create administrative, technical, and marketing problems. A Federal rule is expected to provide some degree of consistency, predictability, and administrative ease for the industry. A national rule also helps States reduce compliance problems associated with noncompliant coatings being transported into nonattainment areas from neighboring areas and neighboring States. A national rule will also enable States to obtain needed VOC emission reductions from this sector in the near term, without having to expend their limited resources to develop similar rules in each State. 6 6 *ALARM Caucus* v. *EPA* , 215 F.3d 61,76 (D.C. Cir. 2000), *cert. denied* , 532 U.S. 1018 (2001). C. What Is Photochemical Reactivity? There are thousands of individual species of VOC chemicals that can participate in a series of reactions involving nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and the energy from sunlight, resulting in the formation of ozone. The impact of a given species of VOC on formation of ground-level ozone is sometimes referred to as its “reactivity.” It is generally understood that not all VOC are equal in their effects on ground-level ozone formation. Some VOC react extremely slowly and changes in their emissions have limited effects on ozone pollution episodes. Some VOC form ozone more quickly than other VOCs, or they may form more ozone than other VOC. Other VOC not only form ozone themselves, but also act as catalysts and enhance ozone formation from other VOC. By distinguishing between more reactive and less reactive VOC, however, EPA believes that it may be possible to develop regulations that will decrease ozone concentrations further or more efficiently than by controlling all VOC equally. Assigning a value to the reactivity of a specific VOC species is a complex undertaking. Reactivity is not simply a property of the compound itself; it is a property of both the compound and the environment in which the compound is found. Therefore, the reactivity of a specific VOC varies with VOC:NO X ratios, meteorological conditions, the mix of other VOC in the atmosphere, and the time interval of interest. Designing an effective regulation that takes account of these interactions is difficult. Implementing and enforcing such a regulation requires an extra burden for both industry and regulators, as those impacted by the rule must characterize and track the full chemical composition of VOC emissions rather than only having to track total VOC content as is required by traditional mass-based rules. EPA's September 13, 2005 final rule 7 to approve a comparable reactivity-based aerosol coating rule as part of the California State Implementation Plan for ozone contains additional background information on photochemical reactivity. Recently, EPA issued interim guidance to States regarding the use of VOC reactivity information in the development of ozone control measures. 8 7 “Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan and Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)-Removal of VOC Exemptions for California's Aerosol Coating Products Reactivity-based Regulation” 70 FR 53930, (September 13, 2005). 8 “Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans”) 70 FR 54046, (September 13, 2005). 1. What Research Has Been Conducted in Reactivity? Much of the initial work on reactivity scales was funded by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which was interested in comparing the reactivity of emissions from different alternative fueled vehicles. In the late 1980s, CARB provided funding to William P. L. Carter at the University of California to develop a reactivity scale. Carter investigated 18 different methods of ranking the reactivity of individual VOC in the atmosphere using a single-cell trajectory model with a state-of-the-art chemical reaction mechanism. 9 Carter suggested three scales for further consideration: 9 Carter, W. P. L.

(1994)“Development of ozone reactivity scales for organic gases,” J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 44: 881-899. i. Maximum Incremental Reactivity

(MIR)scale-an ozone yield scale derived by adjusting the NO X emissions in a base case to yield the highest incremental reactivity of the base reactive organic gas mixture. ii. Maximum Ozone Incremental Reactivity

(MOIR)scale-an ozone yield scale derived by adjusting the NO X emission in a base case to yield the highest peak ozone concentration. iii. Equal Benefit Incremental Reactivity

(EBIR)scale-an ozone yield scale derived by adjusting the NO X emissions in a base case scenario so VOC and NO X reductions are equally effective in reducing ozone. Carter concluded that, if only one scale is used for regulatory purposes, the maximum incremental reactivity

(MIR)scale is the most appropriate. 10 The MIR scale is defined in terms of environmental conditions where ozone production is most sensitive to changes in hydrocarbon emissions and, therefore, represents conditions where hydrocarbon controls would be the most effective. CARB therefore used the MIR scale to establish fuel-neutral VOC emissions limits in its low-emitting vehicle and alternative fuels regulation. 11, 12 Subsequently, Carter has updated the MIR scale several times as the chemical mechanisms in the model used to derive the scale have evolved with new scientific information. CARB incorporated a 1999 version of the MIR scale in its own aerosol coatings rule. The latest revision to the MIR scale was issued in 2003. 10 “Initial Statement of Reasons for the California Aerosol Coatings Regulation, California Air Resources Board,” 2000. 11 California Air Resources Board “Proposed Regulations for Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels—Staff Report and Technical Support Document,” State of California, Air Resources Board, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812, August 13, 1990. 12 California Air Resources Board “Proposed Regulations for Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels—Final Statement of Reasons,” State of California, Air Resources Board, July 1991. In addition to Carter's work, there have been other attempts to create reactivity scales. One such effort is the work of R.G. Derwent and coworkers, who have published articles on a scale called the photochemical ozone creation potential

(POCP)scale. 13, 14 This scale was designed for the emissions and meteorological conditions prevalent in Europe. The POCP scale is generally consistent with that of Carter, although there are some differences because it uses a different model, chemical mechanism, and emission and meteorological scenarios. Despite these differences, there is a good correlation of r 2 =0.9 between the results of the POCP and the MIR scales 12 . 13 Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin, S.M. Saunders and M.J. Pilling

(2001)“Characterization of the Reactivities of Volatile Organic Compounds Using a Master Chemical Mechanism,” J. Air Waste Management Assoc., 51: 699-707. 14 Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin, S.M. Saunders and M.J. Pilling

(1998)“Photochemical Ozone Creation Potentials for Organic Compounds in Northwest Europe Calculated with a Master Chemical Mechanism,” Atmos. Env., 32(14/15):2429-2441. As CARB worked to develop reactivity-based regulations in California, EPA began to explore the implications of applying reactivity scales in other parts of the country. In developing its regulations, CARB has maintained that the MIR scale is the most appropriate metric for application in California, but cautions that its research has focused on California atmospheric conditions and that the suitability of the MIR scale for regulatory purposes in other areas has not been demonstrated. In particular, specific concerns have been raised about the suitability of using the MIR scale in relation to multi-day stagnation or transport scenarios or over geographic regions with very different VOC:NO X ratios than those of California. In 1998, EPA participated in the formation of the Reactivity Research Working Group (RRWG), which was organized to help develop an improved scientific basis for reactivity-related regulatory policies. 15 All interested parties were invited to participate. Since that time, representatives from EPA, CARB, Environment Canada, States, academia, and industry have met in public RRWG meetings to discuss and coordinate research that would support this goal. 15 See *http://www.narsto.org/section.src?SID=10* . The RRWG has organized a series of research efforts to explore: i. The sensitivity of ozone to VOC mass reductions and changes in VOC composition under a variety of environmental conditions; ii. The derivation and evaluation of reactivity scales using photochemical airshed models under a variety of environmental conditions; iii. The development of emissions inventory processing tools for exploring reactivity-based strategies; and iv. The fate of VOC emissions and their availability for atmospheric reactions. This research has led to a number of findings that increase our confidence in the ability to develop regulatory approaches that differentiate between specific VOC on the basis of relative reactivity. The first two research objectives listed above were explored in a series of three parallel modeling studies that resulted in four reports and one journal article. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 EPA commissioned a review of these reports to address a series of policy-relevant science questions. 21 In 2007, an additional peer review was commissioned by EPA to assess the appropriateness of basing a national aerosol coatings regulation on reactivity. Generally, the peer reviews support the appropriateness of the use of the box-model based MIR metric nationwide for the aerosol coatings category. The results are available in the rulemaking docket. 16 Carter, W.P.L., G. Tonnesen, and G. Yarwood

(2003)Investigation of VOC Reactivity Effects Using Existing Regional Air Quality Models, Report to American Chemistry Council, Contract SC-20.0-UCR-VOC-RRWG, April 17, 2003. 17 Hakami, A., M.S. Bergin, and A.G. Russell

(2003)Assessment of the Ozone and Aerosol Formation Potentials (Reactivities) of Organic Compounds over the Eastern United States, Final Report, Prepared for California Air Resources Board, Contract No. 00-339, January 2003. 18 Hakami, A., M.S. Bergin, and A.G. Russell (2004a) Ozone Formation Potential of Organic Compounds in the Eastern United States: A Comparison of Episodes, Inventories, and Domains, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 6748-6759. 19 Hakami, A., M. Arhami, and A.G. Russell (2004b) Further Analysis of VOC Reactivity Metrics and Scales, Final Report to the U.S. EPA, Contract #4D-5751-NAEX, July 2004. 20 Arunachalam S., R. Mathur, A. Holland, M.R. Lee, D. Olerud, Jr., and H. Jeffries

(2003)Investigation of VOC Reactivity Assessment with Comprehensive Air Quality Modeling, Prepared for U.S. EPA, GSA Contract # GS-35F-0067K, Task Order ID: 4TCG68022755, June 2003. 21 Derwent, R.G.

(2004)Evaluation and Characterization of Reactivity Metrics, Final Draft, Report to the U.S. EPA, Order No. 4D-5844-NATX, November 2004. The results of the RRWG-organized study and the subsequent reviews suggest that there is good correlation between different relative reactivity metrics calculated with photochemical airshed models, regardless of the choice of model, model domain, scenario, or averaging times. Moreover, the scales calculated with photochemical airshed models correlate relatively well with the MIR metric derived with a single cell, one-dimensional box model. Prior to the RRWG-organized studies, little analysis of the robustness of the box-model derived MIR metric and its applicability to environmental conditions outside California had been conducted. Although these studies were not specifically designed to test the robustness of the box-model derived MIR metrics, the results suggest that the MIR metric is relatively robust. D. Role of Reactivity in VOC/Ozone Regulations Historically, EPA's general approach to regulation of VOC emissions has been based upon control of total VOC by mass, without distinguishing between individual species of VOC. EPA considered the regulation of VOC by mass to be the most effective and practical approach based upon the scientific and technical information available when EPA developed its VOC control policy. EPA issued the first version of its VOC control policy in 1971, as part of EPA's State Implementation Plan

(SIP)preparation guidance. 22 In that guidance, EPA emphasized the need to reduce the total mass of VOC emissions, but also suggested that substitution of one compound for another might be useful when it would result in a clearly evident decrease in reactivity and thus tend to reduce photochemical oxidant formation. This latter statement encouraged States to promulgate SIPs with VOC emission substitution provisions similar to the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District's (LACAPCD) Rule 66, which allowed some VOC that were believed to have low to moderate reactivity to be exempted from control. The exempt status of many of those VOC was questioned a few years later, when research results indicated that, although some of those compounds do not produce much ozone close to the source, they may produce significant amounts of ozone after they are transported downwind from urban areas. 22 “Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of Implementation Plans”, Appendix B, 36 FR 15495, (August 14, 1971). In 1977, further research led EPA to issue a revised VOC policy under the title “Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds,” (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977), offering its own, more limited list of exempt organic compounds. The 1977 policy identified four compounds that have very low photochemical reactivity and determined that their contribution to ozone formation and accumulation could be considered negligible. The policy exempted these “negligibly reactive” compounds from VOC emissions limitations in programs designed to meet the ozone NAAQS. Since 1977, the EPA has added other compounds to the list of negligibly reactive compounds based on new information as it has been developed. In 1992, the EPA adopted a formal regulatory definition of VOC for use in SIP, which explicitly excludes compounds that have been identified as negligibly reactive (40 CFR 51.100(s)). To date, EPA has exempted 54 compounds or classes of compounds in this manner. In effect, EPA's current VOC exemption policy has generally resulted in a two bin system in which most compounds are treated equally as VOC and are controlled and a separate smaller group of compounds are treated as negligibly reactive and are exempt from VOC control. 23 This approach was intended to encourage the reduction of emissions of all VOC that participate in ozone formation. From one perspective, it appears that this approach has been relatively successful. EPA estimates that, between 1970 and 2003, VOC emissions from man-made sources nationwide declined by 54 percent. This decline in VOC emissions has helped to decrease average ozone concentration by 29 percent (based on 1-hour averages) and 21 percent (based on 8-hour averages) between 1980 and 2003. These reductions occurred even though, between 1970 and 2003, population, vehicle miles traveled, and gross domestic product rose 39 percent, 155 percent and 176 percent respectively. 24 23 For some analytical purposes, EPA has distinguished between VOC and “highly reactive” VOC, such as in the Agency's initial evaluation of consumer products for regulation. *See* , “Final Listing,” 63 FR 48792, 48795-6 (Sept. 11, 1998) (explaining EPA's approach); *see also* , *ALARM Caucus* v. *EPA* , 215 F. 3d 61, 69—73 (D.C. Cir. 2000), *cert. denied* , 532 U.S. 1018

(2001)(approving EPA's approach as meeting the requirements of CAA section 183(e)). 24 “Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 Status and Trends,” EPA 454/K-03-001, (August 2003); and “The Ozone Report Measuring Progress through 2003,” EPA 454/K-04-001, (April 2004); Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. On the other hand, some have argued that a reactivity-based approach for reducing VOC emissions would be more effective than the current mass-based approach. One group of researchers conducted a detailed modeling study of the Los Angeles area and concluded that, compared to the current approach, a reactivity-based approach could achieve the same reductions in ozone concentrations at significantly less cost or, for a given cost, could achieve a significantly greater reduction in ozone concentrations. 25 Although the traditional approach to VOC control focused on reducing the overall mass of emissions may be adequate in some areas of the country, EPA's recent guidance on control of VOC in ozone SIPs recognizes that approaches to VOC control that differentiate between VOC based on relative reactivity are likely to be more effective and efficient under certain circumstances. 26 In particular, reactivity-based approaches are likely to be important in areas for which aggressive VOC control is a key strategy for reducing ozone concentrations. Such areas include: 25 A. Russell, J. Milford, M. S. Bergin, S. McBride, L. McNair, Y. Yang, W. R. Stockwell, B. Croes, “Urban Ozone Control and Atmospheric Reactivity of Organic Gases,” Science, 269: 491-495, (1995). 26 “Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans,” 70 FR 54046, September 13, 2005). • Areas with persistent ozone nonattainment problems; • Urbanized or other NO X -rich areas where ozone formation is particularly sensitive to changes in VOC emissions; • Areas that have already implemented VOC RACT measures and need additional VOC emission reductions. In these areas, there are a variety of possible ways of addressing VOC reactivity in the SIP development process, including: • Developing accurate, speciated VOC emissions inventories. • Prioritizing control measures using reactivity metrics. • Targeting emissions of highly-reactive VOC compounds with specific control measures. • Encouraging VOC substitution and composition changes using reactivity-weighted emission limits. The CARB aerosol coatings rule is an example of this last application of the concept of reactivity. CARB's reactivity-based rule encouraged the use of compounds that were less effective at producing ozone. It contained limits for aerosol coatings expressed as grams of ozone formed per gram of product instead of the more traditional limits expressed as percent VOC. EPA approved CARB's aerosol coatings rule as part of the California SIP for ozone. EPA's national aerosol coatings rule builds largely upon CARB's efforts to regulate this product category based upon relative reactivity. E. The Aerosol Coating Industry Aerosol coatings include all coatings that are specially formulated and packaged for use in pressurized cans. They are used by both professional and by do-it-yourself

(DIY)consumers. The DIY segment accounts for approximately 80 percent of all sales. The remainder of aerosol coatings is sold for industrial maintenance and original equipment manufacturer use. Aerosol coatings are used for a number of applications including small domestic coating jobs, field and construction site marking, and touch-up of marks and scratches in paintwork of automobiles, appliances and machinery. The aerosol coatings industry includes the formulators and manufacturers of the concentrated product. These manufacturers may package the product or they may use toll fillers (processors). These toll fillers may work not only with the large manufacturers, but for other coating manufacturers who do not have the specialized equipment to fill aerosol containers. The fillers may then supply the product to coating dealers, home supply stores, distributors, company-owned stores, and industrial customers. An aerosol consists of a gas in which liquid or solid substances may be dispensed. Aerosol coatings are pressurized coatings that, like other coatings, consist of pigments and resins and solvents. However, aerosol coatings also contain a propellant that dispenses the product ingredients. A controlled amount of propellant in the product vaporizes as it leaves the container, creating the aerosol spray. The combination of product and propellant is finely tuned to produce the correct concentration and spray pattern for an effective product. Aerosol coatings can be packaged in disposable cans for hand-held applications or for use in specialized equipment in ground traffic/marking applications. As with other coatings, aerosol coatings are available in both solvent-based and water-based formulations. In developing the proposed national rule for aerosol coatings, EPA is using the same coating categories, and the same definitions for those categories, previously identified by CARB in its comparable regulation for aerosol coatings. We believe these categories adequately categorize the industry and encompass the range of products included in our own analysis of this category that we conducted in preparing the Report to Congress (EPA-453/R-94-066-A). Use of the same definitions and categories has the added benefit of providing regulated entities with consistency between the CARB and national rules. The categories we propose include six general categories and 30 specialty categories. Based on a survey of aerosol coating manufacturers conducted by CARB in 1997, VOC emissions from the six general categories together with the specialty category of Ground Traffic/Marking Coatings account for approximately 85 percent of the ozone formed as a result of the use of aerosol coatings. These categories are defined in this proposed regulation and are described in more detail in the docket to this rulemaking. There are currently no national regulations addressing VOC emissions from aerosol coatings. California, Oregon and Washington are the only States that currently regulate aerosol coating products and Oregon's and Washington's rules are identical to the Tier 1 VOC mass-based limits developed by CARB that became effective in 1996. Unlike other EPA or State regulations and previous CARB regulations for aerosol coatings that regulate VOC ingredients by mass in the traditional approach, the current California regulation for aerosol coatings is designed to limit the ozone formed from VOC emissions from aerosol coatings by establishing limits on the reactivity of the cumulative VOC ingredients of such coatings. A more thorough discussion of the reactivity approach and the proposed reactivity limits are presented later in this preamble (section IV.D). II. Summary of Proposed Standards A. Applicability of the Standards and Regulated Entities The proposed Aerosol Coatings Reactivity Rule

(ACRR)will apply to manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of aerosol coatings used by both the general population (i.e., the “Do It Yourself” market) and industrial applications (e.g., at original equipment manufacturers and other industrial sites). This regulation will also apply to distributors if those distributors are responsible for any of the labeling of the aerosol products. The proposed rule includes an exemption from the limits in Table 1 of subpart E of the rule for those manufacturers that manufacture very limited amounts of aerosol coatings, i.e., products with a total VOC content by mass of no more than 7,500 kilograms of VOC per year in the aggregate for all products. EPA notes that an exemption under EPA's national rule for aerosol coatings under section 183(e) does not alter any requirements under any applicable State or local regulations. B. Regulated Pollutant The regulated pollutants under this proposed regulation are VOC, as that term is defined in 40 CFR 51.100(s). However, the listed exempt compounds that are normally excluded from the definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1) will be regulated as VOC for purposes of this regulation. Because all of these compounds contribute to ozone formation, we are proposing to amend the regulatory definition of VOC for purposes of this rule. While the regulated pollutants will be VOCs, the emission limits in the standard will be expressed in terms of weight of ozone generated from the VOC ingredients per weight of coating material, rather than the traditional weight of VOC ingredients per weight or volume of product. We believe that this approach will allow us to reduce the overall amount of ozone that results from the VOCs emitted to the atmosphere from these products, while providing manufacturers with the flexibility to select VOC ingredients for their products. This approach provides incentives to manufacturers to reformulate their products using VOC ingredients that will likely result in less ozone production. C. Regulatory Limits The proposed regulatory limits for the ACRR are a series of reactivity limits for six general coating categories and 30 subcategories of specialty coatings. These reactivity limits are expressed in terms of mass of ozone generation per gram of product. In addition to compliance with the reactivity limits, a regulated entity is also required to comply with labeling, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. D. Compliance Requirements The proposed rule requires all regulated entities to comply by January 1, 2009. The proposed rule includes a provision that allows regulated entities that have not previously manufactured, imported, or distributed for sale or distribution in California any product that complies with applicable California regulations for aerosol coatings to seek an extension of the compliance date until January 1, 2011. After the compliance date, the regulated entity under this proposed rule will be required to conduct initial compliance demonstration calculations for all coating formulations manufactured or filled at each of their facilities. These calculations must be maintained on-site for 5 years after the product is manufactured, processed, distributed, or imported, and must be submitted to the Agency upon request. The regulated entity may use formulation data to make the compliance calculations; however, EPA is proposing to adopt California's Method 310 as the underlying test method (i.e., formulation data should be verifiable with CARB 310, if requested). Facilities will also be allowed to use EPA's Test Method 311. E. Labeling Requirements The proposed rule also includes labeling requirements to facilitate implementation and enforcement of the limits. Labels must clearly identify the product category or the category code provided in Table 1 of the regulation, the limit for that category, and the product date code. If the date code is not easily discernable, an explanation of the code would need to be included in the initial notification discussed below. F. Recordkeeping and Reporting The proposed rule includes a requirement for an initial notification report from all regulated entities to EPA 90 days before the compliance date. This report will provide basic information about the regulated entity and will identify all manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of aerosol coatings. In addition, this report will need to explain the date code system used to label products and it must include a statement certifying that all of the company's products will be in compliance with the limits by the compliance date. The regulated entity is required to maintain compliance calculations for each of its aerosol coatings formulations. For each batch of a particular formulation, the regulated entity must maintain records of the date(s) the batch was manufactured, the volume of the batch, and the VOC formula for the formulation. Records of these calculations must be maintained 5 years after the product is manufactured, processed, distributed for wholesale, or imported for sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States. The proposed rule does not include any regular, ongoing reporting requirements for most regulated entities. Reporting after the initial compliance report is only required when a manufacturer adds a new coating category. When this happens, a new notification is required. However, the EPA also invites public comment on the feasibility and need for additional reporting requirements. The proposed rule requires those small manufactures that qualify for exemption from the limits of Table 1 of subpart E of the rule to make an annual report to EPA providing necessary information and documentation to establish that the products made by the entity should be exempt. G. Variance The proposed rule allows regulated entities to submit a written application to the Agency requesting a temporary variance if, for reasons beyond their reasonable control, they cannot comply with the requirements of the rule. An approved variance order would specify a final compliance date and a condition that imposes increments of progress necessary to assure timely compliance. A variance would end immediately if the regulated entity failed to comply with any term or condition of the variance. The Administrator will provide special consideration to variance requests from regulated entities, particularly small businesses that have not marketed their products in areas subject to State regulations for these products prior to this rulemaking. EPA notes that a variance under EPA's national rule for aerosol coatings under section 183(e) does not alter any requirements under any applicable state or local regulations. H. Test Methods Although regulated entities may use formulation data to demonstrate compliance with the reactivity limits, EPA believes it is also necessary to have test methods in place that can be used to verify the accuracy of the formulation data. Therefore, we have included two test methods that can be used by regulated entities or the Administrator to determine compliance with the reactivity limits. In those cases where the formulation data and test data are not in agreement, data collected using the approved test methods will prevail. Regulated entities or regulatory agencies may use either CARB Method 310—Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products or EPA Method 311—Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings to determine the reactive organic compound content of an aerosol coating. CARB Method 310 includes some test procedures that are not required to determine the VOC content of aerosol coatings; for example, Method 310 incorporates EPA Method 24 for determining the VOC content of a coating. We have identified those sections of Method 310 that are not required for compliance demonstration purposes in the regulation. EPA Method 311 was originally developed for liquid coatings; so, it does not include provisions for the collection of the propellant portion of an aerosol coating. Therefore, those choosing to use Method 311 must separate the aerosol propellant from the coating using either ASTM D3063-94 or ASTM D 3074-94. III. Summary of Impacts This section presents a summary of the impacts expected as a result of this proposed rule. To ensure that the impacts are not minimized, we followed an approach that would provide conservative estimates for each impact. For environmental impacts, we ensured that our estimated positive impact (i.e., emission reduction) was not overstated (i.e., conservatively low). For cost and economic impacts, we ensured that our estimated impacts were not understated (i.e., conservatively high). This approach ensures that conclusions drawn on the overall impact on facilities, including small businesses, are based on conservative assumptions. A. Environmental Impacts In accordance with section 183(e), EPA has evaluated what regulatory approach would constitute “best available controls” for this product category, taking into account the considerations noted in the statute. EPA has evaluated the incremental increase or decrease in air pollution, water pollution, and solid waste reduction that would result from implementing the proposed standards. 1. Air Pollution Impacts The proposed rule will reduce both VOC emissions and the amount of ozone generated from the use of aerosol coatings. Because most States will use the VOC emission reductions resulting from this rule in their ozone SIP planning, we have calculated the reductions associated with the rule in terms of mass VOC emissions and we will refer to a reduction in mass VOC emissions when discussing the impacts of the proposed regulation. EPA believes this is appropriate because the reactivity limits were designed to ensure that the ozone reductions that would be achieved by the limits were equivalent to the mass VOC reductions that would have been achieved by the CARB 2002 mass-based VOC limits. However, because the limits actually reduce the amount of ozone generated from the VOC used in aerosol coatings rather than VOC content by mass, the VOC reductions that we refer to are more accurately described as an “equivalent reduction in VOC emissions.” We will use the term “reduction” in subsequent discussions. Additional information on the method used to calculate the air impacts of the proposed rule are included in the impacts calculation memo contained in the docket to this rulemaking. As proposed, EPA believes that this rule would reduce nationwide emissions of VOC from the use of aerosol coatings by an estimated 15,570 Mg (17,130 tons) from the 1990 baseline. This represents a 19.4 percent reduction from the 1990 baseline of 80,270 Mg (88,300 tons) of VOC emissions from the product category. While we believe that the above numbers accurately assess the impacts of the proposed rule for SIP credit purposes, we recognize that significant reductions have already occurred as the result of the implementation of the CARB aerosol coatings regulations. Because many manufacturers sell “CARB compliant” coatings across the country, some of these VOC emission reductions have already been achieved outside of California. We estimate that approximately 18 percent of the total products sold are not compliant with EPA's proposed limits. Therefore, we estimate that this rule will result in additional VOC reductions equivalent to 3,100 tons per year (i.e., 18 percent of 17,130). We request comment on our estimate of the products that are not compliant with these limits specifically, and on our evaluation of the potential VOC emission reductions generally. The 18 percent reduction in VOC emissions represents new reductions. However, for ozone SIP purposes, we plan to give States that do not currently have aerosol coating regulations in place full credit for the 19.4 percent reduction from the 1990 baseline. This 19.4 percent reduction is equivalent to a 0.114 pound of VOC reduction per capita. Although we have not quantified the anticipated impacts of this rule on HAP emissions, EPA expects that the proposed rule would reduce emissions of toluene and xylene, two highly reactive toxic compounds. Toluene and xylene are hazardous air pollutants that manufacturers have historically used extensively in some aerosol coating formulations. However, both of these compounds are also highly reactive VOCs. Therefore, it will be difficult for regulated entities to continue to use these compounds in significant concentrations and still meet the reactivity limits in the proposed rule. EPA believes that the proposed rule based upon VOC reactivity, rather than VOC mass, will provide a significant incentive for manufacturers to cease or reduce use of toluene and xylene in their products. Due to the reduction in equivalent VOC emissions and ozone formation and the anticipated reduction in hazardous air pollutant emissions, we believe the rule will improve human health and the environment. 2. Water and Solid Waste Impacts There are no adverse solid waste impacts anticipated from the compliance with this rule. Because companies can continue to sell and distribute coatings that do not meet the reactivity limits after the compliance date as long as those coatings were manufactured before the compliance date the industry does not have to dispose of aerosol cans containing noncompliant product, which would result in an increase in solid waste. It is possible that the proposed rule will actually result in a reduction in solid waste as more concentrated higher solids coatings may be used as an option for meeting the proposed limits. This will result in fewer containers requiring disposal when the same volume of solids is applied by product users. There are no anticipated adverse water impacts from this rulemaking. B. Energy Impacts There are no adverse energy impacts anticipated from compliance with this proposed rule. EPA believes that regulated entities will comply through product reformulation which will not significantly alter energy impacts. The proposed rule does not include add-on controls or other measures that would add to energy usage or other impacts. C. Cost and Economic Impacts There are four types of facilities that will be impacted by the proposed rule. These include the aerosol coating manufacturers, aerosol coating processors, and aerosol coating wholesale distributors, and importers of aerosol coatings. For some products, the manufacturer is also the filler and distributor, while for other products the manufacturing process, the filling process, and the distribution may be done by three separate companies. The primary focus of our cost and economic analysis is the aerosol coating manufacturers as we anticipate that the costs to the fillers, distributors, or importers will be minimal. For the aerosol coating manufacturer, we evaluated three components in determining the total cost of the proposed rule. These three components include the cost of the raw materials that the manufacturer will use to formulate coatings that comply with the proposed rule, the cost of research and development efforts that will be necessary to develop compliant formulations, and the cost of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the proposed rule. Because we have limited information on aerosol coating sales for the aerosol coating manufacturers that we have identified, we evaluated each of these costs on a per can basis for each of the 36 coating categories. A brief discussion of each of these cost components is presented below. A more detailed discussion of the cost analysis is presented in the cost analysis memorandum that is included in the docket. The proposed rule is based on reactivity limits established for six general coating categories and 30 specialty coating categories. To meet the limits, aerosol coating manufacturers may have to reformulate their existing coatings with different solvents and propellants, or at least different combinations of those compounds. The difference in the cost of the solvents and propellants used for formulating the complying coatings and those used for formulating the noncomplying coatings is the basis for the raw material costs. To determine the raw material costs, we used data compiled by CARB from its 1997 survey of the aerosol coatings industry. Using the data from the survey, CARB developed a typical formulation for a complying coating for each category and a typical formulation for a noncomplying coating for each category. We then compared the cost of the materials used in each formulation to determine the raw material costs per can for each category. The raw material costs per can ranged from a cost savings of $0.04/can, that is, the cost of the raw materials used in the complying coating was less than the cost of the raw materials used in the noncomplying coating, to a cost increase of $0.12/can. Aerosol coating manufacturers not only have to develop formulations that meet the reactivity limits in the proposed rule, but they also must ensure that the reformulated coatings have the same performance characteristics and the coatings that they will replace. We anticipate that this may require manufacturers to invest resources in research and development efforts. For the purposes of this analysis, we assumed that each aerosol coating manufacturer would have to hire one additional chemist to assist in reformulation efforts. Using a list of aerosol coating manufacturers and the categories of coatings they manufactured that was developed by CARB using its 1997 survey data, we assigned chemists to each coating category based on the number of companies manufacturing coatings in that category. Because most companies manufacture coatings in more than one category, we assigned the chemists for each company based on the number of categories they manufactured. For example, if a company manufactured products in two categories, we assigned 0.5 chemists to that category. We then totaled the number of chemists required for each category. Using data from the American Chemical Society on chemist salaries and the number of chemists for each category, we then developed annualized research and development costs for each category. The annualized costs were based on a period of 10 years and an interest rate of 7 percent. These annualized research and development costs for each category were then divided by the number of aerosol cans manufactured in each category to determine the total research and development costs per can for each coating category. Research and development costs ranged from $0.00/can to $0.109/can. Aerosol coating manufacturers will also have costs associated with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the proposed rule. These costs include the time required for such activities as reading and understanding the reporting requirements of the rule, reviewing the compliance calculations required under the rule and implementing an approach for performing those calculations, and preparing the initial compliance report. Because the reactivity approach is new to coating manufacturers, we assumed that a supervisor would be performing each of these tasks. We estimated the total cost for recordkeeping and reporting for the industry at $670,140 per year which equates to $0.002/can. The total cost per can for raw materials, research and development, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements ranges from $0.002 to $0.141. Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau on the volume of aerosol paint concentrates produced for packaging in aerosol coatings and information provided by the National Paint and Coatings Association

(NPCA)on the amount of concentrate in a can, we estimated that 329,536,000 10.5 ounce cans were produced in 2005. If all of these cans required reformulation, the total nationwide cost of the proposed rule would be $20,360,521. However, we know that significant progress has already been made in reformulating aerosol coatings to meet the proposed limits. Even before CARB's regulation became effective, its survey data showed that for 10 coating categories, 100 percent of the coatings were complying with the proposed limits in 1997. For the remaining categories, all but two had complying market shares greater than 20 percent in 1997. With CARB's regulation in place, we anticipate that the number of coatings already meeting the proposed limits has increased significantly. As discussed earlier, we do not think that fillers and distributors will incur additional costs from the proposed rule. The filler would incur additional costs only if the proposed rule would require them to invest in new equipment and we do not anticipate that this will be the case. The mix of propellants and solvents used by the manufacturer is expected to change, but the changes will not be so significant that the fillers will be unable to continue to use their existing equipment. The only potential costs to the distributor are the labeling requirements and any costs associated with not being able to sell noncompliant coatings. However, the proposed rule does not require the information to be included on the paper label and most manufacturers are meeting the labeling requirements associated with CARB's regulation by using an ink stamp on the bottom of the can. Therefore, the labeling requirements are not expected to have a cost impact on the distributor. The proposed rule also allows distributors to continue to sell products that were manufactured before the compliance date as long as necessary so they will have no lost revenue from the noncompliant coatings. IV. Rationale A. Applicability CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) of the CAA defines “regulated entities” as:

(i)Manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of consumer or commercial products for sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States; or

(ii)manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers that supply the entities listed under clause(i) with such products for sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States. The proposed ACRR will regulate manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of aerosol coatings. This includes those regulated entities that make aerosol coatings for the DIY market and for the industrial markets. Regulated entities include processors commonly referred to as “fillers” that obtain the liquid and propellant portions of the coating separately and fill the aerosol can. In addition, the rule will regulate distributors of aerosol coatings if those facilities have any responsibility for the labeling of the coatings. We are proposing an exemption from the limits of the rule for those entities that manufacture only a small amount of aerosol coatings. We believe that this exemption will serve to mitigate the impacts of the rule upon small manufacturers for whom compliance with the rule could impose disproportionately high costs through reformulation of products produced only in small volumes. Given this objective, and in order to avoid unnecessary excess VOC emissions that could be significant in the aggregate, we are proposing that this exemption from the limits would be available only for those manufacturers that have annual production of aerosol coatings products with total VOC content not in excess of 7,500 kg of VOC in all aerosol coating product categories. We emphasize that this to be determined by total VOC content by mass, in all product categories manufactured by the entity. We consider making this distinction based upon total VOC mass, rather than some reactivity-adjusted calculation, necessary both to minimize the analytical impacts upon the entity seeking the exemption from the rule, and to provide for more effective implementation and enforcement of this aspect of the rule. A manufacturer that qualifies for the exemption must notify EPA of this in the initial notification report required in proposed section 59.511. As a condition for the exemption from the limits, the proposed rule also requires the entity to file an annual report with EPA providing the information necessary to evaluate and to establish that the products manufactured by the entity are properly exempt from the limits of rule. This information is necessary to assure that the entity is in compliance, even if its products do not meet the limits of the rule. EPA notes that an exemption under EPA's national rule for aerosol coatings under section 183(e) does not alter any requirements under any applicable state or local regulations. We specifically request comment on whether there is a need for an exemption of this type for very small manufacturers. In addition, we request comment on the features of the exemption as we have proposed it. Finally, in order to get better information about the number of manufactures that would potentially use such an exemption, we specifically request that interested commenters indicate whether they would elect to use the exemption from the limits. The proposed rule requires all regulated entities to comply by January 1, 2009. EPA believes that compliance by this date is readily achievable by most, if not all, regulated entities subject to this rule. However, in the case of regulated entities that have not previously met the limits already imposed by regulation in the State of California, EPA believes that it may be appropriate to provide an extension of the compliance date on a case by case basis. Therefore, the proposed rule includes a provision that will allow regulated entities that have not previously manufactured, imported, or distributed for sale or distribution in California any product in any category listed in Table 1 of this subpart that complies with applicable California regulations for aerosol coatings to seek an extension of the compliance date. Such extensions will be granted at the discretion of the Administrator. The grant or denial of a compliance date extension does not affect the right of the regulated entity to seek a variance under this rule. B. Regulated Pollutant Under CAA section 183(e), Congress has directed EPA to issue regulations to reduce VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products. Traditionally, we have regulated the mass of VOC ingredients of the products to attain this end. This regulation will regulate VOC, but will take a different approach. With this regulation, EPA is proposing a rule intended to limit the amount of ozone that is generated by the specific VOC ingredients of the aerosol coating products rather than limit the VOC mass content of the product. This approach will allow EPA to regulate different species of VOC differently, depending on their relative contribution to ozone formation once emitted into the atmosphere. We believe that this approach will achieve reductions in the overall amount of ozone formed by the VOC emitted to the atmosphere from these products, and provide manufacturers with flexibility to formulate products using VOC ingredients. We believe that this approach provides incentives to manufacturers to use VOC ingredients with less reactivity and therefore contribute to less ozone formation. Under 40 CFR 51.100(s), we have previously excluded compounds from the definition of VOC in recognition of the fact that individual organic compounds differ with respect to their incremental contribution to ozone formation. EPA's approach to VOC exemptions separates organic compounds into reactive and negligibly reactive compounds. The reactivity based approach that EPA uses in the proposed rule, however, recognizes that all such compounds contribute to the formation of ozone. The differences in the amount of ozone that may be formed from a particular VOC are reflected in the reactivity factors assigned to each VOC in Table 2 of the rule. Compounds that EPA previously identified as negligibly reactive have low reactivity factors, while those that are more reactive have higher reactivity factors. The use of reactivity factors makes the distinction between negligibly reactive and reactive compounds unnecessary for the proposed aerosol coatings rule. These previously exempted compounds will continue to be excluded from the Federal definition of VOC for other purposes. C. Regulatory Approach Section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to issue national regulations to achieve VOC emission reductions from those categories of consumer products that EPA has identified on the list of product categories. As an alternative, EPA is also authorized to issue a CTG in lieu of such a national regulation if the CTG would be substantially as effective as the rule in achieving the necessary VOC emission reductions. We have determined that a national rule is the best approach for this category. When developing a regulation under CAA section 183(e), EPA has broad discretion to develop the most effective approach to achieve the intended VOC emission reductions from a category of consumer products. Specifically, CAA section 183(e)(4) states:

(4)Systems of regulation.—The regulations under this subsection may include any system or systems of regulation as the Administrator may deem appropriate, including requirements for registration and labeling, self-monitoring and reporting, prohibitions, limitations, or economic incentives (including marketable permits and auctions of emissions rights) concerning the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, consumption, or disposal of the product. This proposed regulation includes a combination of reactivity limits, labeling requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and reporting requirements. We have concluded that the only technologically and economically feasible option for reducing the VOC emissions from aerosol coatings and the ozone that is formed as a result of these emissions is to set VOC content limits that will result in reformulation. This conclusion is based on the fact that once a manufacturer uses a VOC as an ingredient in an aerosol coating, it will ultimately be emitted to the atmosphere (i.e., when the product is used). For stationary industrial sources of VOC emissions, EPA has evaluated add-on control devices as a potential option for reducing emissions. Installing such devices to reduce the emissions from an aerosol coating can is neither technologically nor economically feasible. Although EPA could theoretically achieve VOC emission reductions through requirements imposed on product users, CAA section 183(e) only allows the regulation of users through the mechanism of a CTG. EPA has determined that a CTG is not the appropriate mechanism for aerosol coatings because of the nature of the product category and its users. In developing this regulation, we have, therefore, focused on reformulation options for reducing the amount of ozone formed from VOC emissions from aerosol coating products. Most EPA and State coating standards include limits in terms of weight of VOC per weight (or volume) of product. However, for reasons discussed below in D.1, we are proposing to regulate this product category based upon the relative reactivity of the VOC ingredients. In addition to these coating limits, the standard includes other regulatory requirements necessary to facilitate effective implementation and enforcement of the coating limits. D. VOC Regulatory Limits 1. Evolution of Reactivity-Based Requirements CAA section 183(e) requires EPA to regulate VOC emissions from consumer products for the purpose of reducing ozone. Although EPA has traditionally focused on reducing VOC ingredients by mass in developing regulations under CAA section 183(e), EPA believes that is has authority under that section to devise alternative approaches to reduce VOC emissions from consumer products where appropriate. The statute directs EPA to evaluate what would constitute “best available controls”

(BAC)for a product category, and we believe that provision authorizes EPA to consider different approaches for different products. In determining what would be BAC for aerosol coatings, we are proposing a new approach to achieve the goal of the CAA 183(e) program: A reduction in the formation of ozone. As discussed in section I.C. of this preamble, we believe that the scientific understanding of VOC reactivity has progressed sufficiently to support a reactivity-based regulation for the purposes of this product category. As discussed previously, EPA has concluded that the only reasonable approach for limiting ozone formation from aerosol coatings is to impose limits that encourage reformulation to reduce ozone formation. A brief overview of the various types of rulemakings available to use, and the selection of reformulation levels is presented below. The labeling and other requirements are addressed in future sections. i. Traditional VOC Mass-Based Limits. In previous national rules developed under section 183(e), EPA has established limits on the VOC content of coatings by mass. For the consumer products rule and the automotive refinishing rule, these limits were based on the weight percent of VOC in the coating. For the architectural and industrial maintenance

(AIM)coatings rule, the limits were based on the weight of VOC per volume of coating. To meet traditional VOC content limits, coating manufacturers have several options. For example, increasing the solids content of the coating will result in a lower VOC content per unit of volume or weight. Replacing some of the organic solvent in a coating with water can also decrease the VOC content of the coating. Over the years, EPA has also determined that some compounds are negligibly reactive compared to other VOC; that is, they produce less ozone or produce ozone less quickly than other VOC. We have exempted these compounds from the generally applicable regulatory definition of VOC. To achieve compliance with other CAA section 183(e) regulations, manufacturers can use these exempt compounds in place of other VOCs and thereby reduce the VOC content of their coatings for regulatory purposes. The approach a manufacturer chooses to use to reduce the VOC content of its coatings varies depending upon many factors including the intended use of the product, the cost of the reformulated product, the performance of the reformulated product, and other environmental impacts of the reformulated product. For each coating in the aerosol coating category, the approach for reducing the VOC content may be different because each category, and even each product within the category, has different performance requirements. Even though reducing the VOC content of aerosol coatings could have a significant impact on the ozone resulting from emissions of VOC from aerosol coatings, this approach does have limitations. With an aerosol coating, manufacturers are more limited on how high the solids content of the coating compared to coatings applied using spray techniques or brushing. In addition, as the solids content increases, manufacturers are often forced to use more of VOC such as toluene and xylene that are more effective solvents but are also more reactive and hazardous air pollutants. Increasing water content in aerosol coatings can be a problem because water-based coatings take longer to dry, which is a particular concern in humid environments. A coating that takes longer to dry may impact production at an industrial facility where many specialty aerosol coatings are used. Replacing some VOC ingredients with others that are exempt from the regulatory definition of VOC can also have some negative implications. For example, acetone is extremely volatile and may dry too fast for some applications. We are also concerned about the environmental impacts of increasing the use of such solvents as methylene chloride, which although exempt from the definition of VOC is listed as a hazardous air pollutant. Although potential limitations exist for establishing limits on the VOC content of aerosol coatings, we believe that it is a technologically feasible alternative for reducing the formation of ozone from the use of aerosol coatings. It is an approach we have used in many regulatory programs, including 183(e). Our evaluation of BAC options for aerosol coatings includes two options for limiting the VOC content of coatings. ii. Reactivity-Based Limits. EPA recognizes that individual VOC can react differently in the atmosphere and can vary in the amount of ozone generated. Organic compounds can produce varying amounts of ozone because they react at different rates and via different reaction mechanisms. One concern expressed by industry is that if the VOC content limits are too low manufacturers may be forced to use more reactive solvents to achieve comparable product performance. For example, as discussed earlier, manufacturers may have to increase the usage of toluene and xylene in order to reformulate to a higher solids coating. Both toluene and xylene are very reactive compounds and have the potential to form significantly larger quantities of ozone than many other solvents. If manufacturers use VOC with higher reactivities, it is possible that decreasing the VOC content of the coating potentially increases the actual ozone formation. This situation of a decrease in VOC emissions by mass but a potential increase in ozone formation has already been seen to occur in California. For example, Table 11-2 of California's 2005 Architectural Coatings Survey, (draft report), indicates that between 2001 and 2005, the sales volume for flat coatings increased by 7 percent (to 37.3 million gallons) while the total mass of VOC for this category for the same period decreased by 11 percent. However, even though the total emissions of VOC by mass decreased, the total ozone formed as a result of those VOC is estimated to have increased 5.4 percent (1.88 tpd) during the same period. This potential increase in ozone formation, notwithstanding decreased VOC emissions by mass, is a result of manufacturers using smaller amounts total VOC, but an increased amount of more reactive VOC in order to meet tighter VOC limits (See California's 2001 Architectural Coatings Survey Final Reactivity Analysis—Table 2-6 (March 2005) and 2005 Architectural Coatings Survey DRAFT Reactivity Analysis—Table 2-2 (January 2007)). [For a complete copy of this report, please see *http://www.arb.ca.gov/coatings/arch/survey/2005/Draft_2005_Survey_Rpt.pdf* . *http://www.arb.ca.gov/coatings/arch/reactivity/Draft_Reactivity_Rpt.pdf* . *http://www.arb.ca.gov/coatings/arch/reactivity/final_reactivity_analysis_rpt.pdf* . EPA believes that the use of relative reactivity is appropriate for aerosol coatings in particular, because there is a limit to the extent that solids contents can be increased and still have a coating that can be dispensed through an aerosol canister. This limitation precludes the range of reformulation with higher solids content that can be achieved for other types of coatings. In the past, EPA has expressed reservations about using the concept of VOC relative reactivity in regulations for consumer products due to limitations in scientific studies and practical concerns about developing an effective regulation based on this concept. More recently, the California Air Resources Board

(CARB)has worked to develop an effective way to regulate based upon this concept. In developing its own standards for aerosol coatings, CARB established limits are intended to limit the amount of ozone that is formed by a particular coating, rather than limit the VOC content of the coatings by mass. To develop a reactivity-based rule, CARB first identified the relative reactivity of each VOC ingredient used in aerosol coatings. CARB evaluated this using the Maximum Incremental Reactivity scale developed by Dr. William Carter. 27 In developing this scale, Dr. Carter identified and quantified each mechanism for ozone production that would exist for specific VOC, including those used in aerosol coatings. The final MIR value for each VOC is expressed in units of weight of ozone production per weight of VOC. 28 CARB used MIR values and the uncertainty values assigned particular bins of chemicals with product formulation data to derive, through an iterative process, a limit for the overall mass of ozone production allowed per mass of product. Because all organic compounds can contribute to the formation of ozone, CARB's reactivity limits include ozone formed by all VOC ingredients included in the coating, including compounds that EPA had previously exempted from the regulatory definition of VOC. 27 Carter, W. P. L.

(1994)“Development of ozone reactivity scales for organic gases,” J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 44: 881-899. 28 “Initial Statement of Reasons for the California Aerosol Coatings Regulation, California Air Resources Board,” May 5, 2005. After review of Dr. Carter's work, the CARB rule, and recent studies organized under the RRWG (described earlier in the background section), we believe that the reactivity approach is a viable option for reducing the ozone that results from VOC emissions from the aerosol coatings category. These previous studies have indicated that the use of VOC reactivity can be effective for controlling ozone in episodes where NO X is at its highest levels, such as in urban areas. For these types of VOC-limited conditions, ozone formation is more sensitive to VOC emissions. In such situations, limiting the reactivity of the VOC emissions can be more effective than merely limiting the overall mass of the VOC emissions. EPA notes that metrics other than the MIR scale for characterizing reactivity have been studied, for example, the Maximum Ozone Incremental Reactivity

(MOIR)or the Regional Average Ozone metric, but the box model MIR is the scale that has been most widely used and analyzed. Recent studies of 9 different ways of defining VOC reactivity have shown that all major methods are directionally consistent and highly correlated. 29 Derwent

(2004)further concluded that “the most promising reactivity metrics are EKMA-MIR and Regional MIR or MIR-3D.” Because the only metrics with detailed values available for all chemical species of interest are the box model

(EKMA)metrics, and the box model MIR has been used extensively in formulations under the California rule, we believe that the box model MIR is the most feasible metric for VOC relative reactivity to use at the current time. One important characteristic of the box model MIR is that it has the widest range of all metrics, which provides the best incentive for the substitution of higher reactive VOC with lower-reactive VOC. While this might allow a larger mass of VOC to be emitted than other metrics, tight limits will ensure that the increased mass will be restricted to the least reactive VOC. 29 Carter, et al., 2003, Derwent, R.G.

(2004)“Evaluation and Characterization of Reactivity Metrics,” Final Draft, Report to the U.S. EPA, Order No. 4D-5844-NATX, November 2004. Previous studies of large-scale, equal-ozone substitutions of VOC species have shown that downwind ozone could increase due to upwind substitutions of larger amounts of lesser reactive VOCs, but any increases tended to be much smaller than the magnitude of concurrent ozone decreases. The substitutions had a larger effect on reducing the higher ozone concentrations in the area upwind than they did on increasing downwind concentrations. Even in the extreme substitution scenarios that have been studied, the benefits for ozone (reduction in ozone peak) were significant. We believe that realistic changes in formulation using the MIR, especially if limited to aerosol coatings, are unlikely to result in a noticeable increase in ozone downwind. First, downwind areas are usually NO X -limited, so small amounts of additional VOC will not influence ozone formation significantly. Furthermore, in cases where downwind areas are VOC-limited, potential downwind ozone increases will be counteracted to some extent by ozone decreases resulting from VOC substitution occurring simultaneously in the downwind area. Thus, we expect VOC reformulations based on the MIR scale to lead to an overall net decrease in ozone formation and exposure. In the past, there has been some concern over the applicability of MIR values across the entire country, however studies 30 now demonstrate that the calculated MIR scales do not have significant geographical or temporal variation. Based on this information, we believe that using the MIR values to establish the relative reactivity of VOC ingredients in a reactivity-based approach is a viable option for consideration in a national rule. 30 Hakami, A., M.S. Bergin, and A.G. Russell (2004a) “Ozone Formation Potential of Organic Compounds in the Eastern United States: A Comparison of Episodes, Inventories, and Domains,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 6748-6759. While the chemical mechanisms for ozone production for many individual chemicals are somewhat to highly uncertain, this uncertainty is smaller for the majority of the organic compounds used as ingredients in aerosol coatings. Most of the VOC used in the products covered by this rule have been characterized as category 1 or 2 uncertainty, which Carter classifies as relatively certain (category 1) or uncertainty less than a factor of 2 (category 2). 31 31 Carter, W.P.L.

(2003)“The SAPRC-99 Chemical Mechanism and Updated VOC Reactivity Scales,” Report to the * California Air Resources Board * , Contracts No. 92-329 and 95-308. *http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/~carter/reactdat.htm.* Furthermore, uncertainty in the reactivity scales can be taken into account in the selection of reactivity limits as CARB did in defining the limits in its aerosol coatings regulation. CARB assigned each compound in its table of MIR values to one of six bins based on expert judgment about the level of uncertainty in the chemical mechanisms used to calculate the MIR value. CARB assigned an uncertainty factor to each of the six bins. CARB then adjusted the MIR values used in the calculation of the reactivity limits by multiplying each MIR by its assigned uncertainty factor. By applying this uncertainty factor, the resulting reactivity limits are more stringent than they would be calculated based on the MIR values alone, and provide some protection against setting values too low based on incomplete understanding of the chemistry of specific compounds. For some compounds used in aerosol coatings for which no MIR value has been calculated, CARB assigned an upper limit MIR value based on theoretical limits of the ozone that could be formed by the compound. This approach is also conservative, providing some protection against setting reactivity limits too low or allowing reformulations that would increase ozone formation. We have set the reactivity factors in the proposed rule equal to the MIR or upper limit MIR used by CARB. This ensures that the limits in our proposed rule are equivalent to CARB's current rule, but allows EPA flexibility in the future to change this approach, if warranted. All of the VOC that we have identified as common VOC components of aerosol coatings have been assigned reactivity factors. However, it is possible that a novel compound could be used in a product affected by this rule. In CARB's rule, if a VOC has not been assigned a MIR or upper limit MIR value, it cannot be used in a product to comply with that rule. In EPA's proposed rule, if a VOC is not assigned a reactivity factor, then the compound is assigned the maximum reactivity factor for any compound listed in the rule. Manufacturers and other interested parties can petition the Administrator to add a reactivity factor to the table in the rule for such a compound and are encouraged to provide sufficient evidence to allow the Administrator to assign a reactivity factor that is consistent with values assigned to the other listed compounds. This approach ensures that the reformulations allowed by the rule will not increase ozone formation. Based on the information that we have about VOC used in aerosol coatings, we believe that the relative reactivity approach for this particular consumer product category is appropriate. However, there may be other source categories EPA considers for regulation where the organic compounds and their relative reactivity have not been as well-characterized. EPA has determined that it is appropriate to use the MIR values as the reactivity factors for this particular regulation. If a more suitable reactivity scale is developed in the future, EPA will evaluate that scale for possible regulatory use. Therefore, our determination that the reactivity approach using the MIR values as the reactivity factors is currently only applicable to the aerosol coatings category. EPA has not concluded that it is appropriate to use the MIR scale for all applications. In developing future regulations, EPA may determine that a reactivity approach is not appropriate for a particular context or that a reactivity approach should be based upon reactivity factors other than the MIR values. EPA will make such future determinations on a case-by-case basis. Based on EPA's determination that the reactivity approach can be effective in reducing the amount of ozone formed from the use of aerosol coatings, EPA has included the evaluation of limits based on reactivity in selecting BAC for the aerosol coatings category. The options EPA considered in developing BAC are presented in the following section. 2. Assessment of Best Available Controls. CAA section 183(e) directs EPA to regulate Consumer and Commercial Products using “best available controls.” The term “best available controls” is defined in CAA section 183(e)(1)(A) as: The degree of emissions reduction that the Administrator determines, on the basis of technological and economic feasibility, health, environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation, product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for use, consumption, storage, or disposal. EPA believes that CAA section 183(e) thus authorizes EPA to evaluate what approach would be “best” for this product category in light of various relevant factors. In order to evaluate what would constitute BAC for this source category, EPA examined the approaches already attempted in other regulations by States. As discussed above, the California Air Resources Board

(CARB)has a history of regulating VOC emissions from the aerosol coatings category. While several other States have regulations under consideration, only Oregon and Washington have existing standards and both of those States' regulations are based on CARB's 1996 Tier 1 VOC mass-based limits. Based on the experiences of CARB, EPA has considered both mass-based and reactivity-based limits for this product category. We considered three possible options for BAC for this category based upon past CARB regulations: i. CARB 1996 VOC mass-based limits (Tier 1); ii. CARB 2002 VOC mass-based limits (Tier 2); and, iii. CARB 2002 reactivity-based limits. In 1996, CARB implemented its first aerosol coatings regulation. The 1996 regulation contained two tiers of mass-based VOC limits. The first tier took effect in 1996 and the second tier, which contained more stringent mass-based VOC limits, was scheduled to take effect in 1999. CARB was required to conduct a public hearing on or before December 31, 1998, on the technological and commercial feasibility of achieving the 1999 limits and could grant an extension of time not to exceed 5 years if their Board determined that the second tier of limits was not technologically or commercially feasible by December 31, 1999. On November 19, 1998, CARB adopted amendments to its aerosol coatings regulation by modifying the December 31, 1999, mass-based VOC limits and extended the effective date for those limits to 2002. However, CARB's Board recognized that some of the second tier limits would still be technologically challenging and directed CARB staff to develop a compliance option based on VOC reactivity. On June 22, 2000, CARB amended its regulation to replace the 2002 mass-based VOC limits with reactivity-based VOC limits intended to achieve the same degree of ozone reduction. EPA did not consider the 1999 mass-based limits in our BAC analysis because CARB determined that those limits were not technologically feasible and never implemented the limits. CARB replaced the 1999 mass-based limits with more stringent limits in some categories and less stringent limits in other categories. We did include these 2002 VOC mass-based limits that replaced the 1999 VOC mass-based limits in our BAC analysis. Each of the three options EPA considered is discussed below. See the docket to this rulemaking for the tables of limits for each option. i. CARB 1996 VOC Limits. In 1995, CARB proposed limits on the VOC content of aerosol coatings. These limits were based on limits established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in Rule 8-49 in 1990. CARB's regulation included limits on six general categories of aerosol coating products and 29 specialty coating categories. The regulation established limits on the maximum VOC content, based on percent by weight, for each coating category. The standards were effective January 8, 1996; therefore they are referred to throughout this preamble as “CARB 1996 VOC limits.” According to CARB's Initial Statement of Reasons, the support document prepared by CARB for the new regulation, the 1996 limits were expected to reduce VOC emissions from the use of aerosol coatings in California by 12 percent. CARB determined that for most of the aerosol coating product categories covered by the rule, there were already products in the marketplace that met the 1996 limits. Comments made by industry members on the regulation indicated that industry believed the limits were feasible. We believe that the 1996 VOC mass-based limits established by CARB for aerosol coatings are both technologically and economically feasible. Industry has complied with the 1996 limits in California for many years. CARB estimated that the 1996 limits would achieve a reduction of approximately 12 percent in VOC emissions and we believe that implementing these limits nationwide would result in a similar reduction. In 1997, CARB conducted a survey of aerosol coating manufacturers. For each of the major categories of aerosol coatings, the sales-weighted average VOC content for the category met or was lower than the 1996 limit. We know of no reason why these limits could not be established on a nationwide basis for the aerosol coatings category, providing a similar level of emission reduction. ii. CARB 2002 VOC Mass-Based Limits. As discussed earlier, CARB's 1995 regulation established two tiers of mass-based limits that took effect in 1996 and 1999. In 1997, CARB conducted a survey of manufacturers supplying aerosol coatings in California. The survey requested formulation and cost data for existing products in each category and information on the manufacturer's research and development efforts to reduce the VOC content of coatings. Using the results from the 1997 survey and input from manufacturers, CARB revised the second tier aerosol coatings limits and extended the compliance date from 1999 to January 1, 2002. These limits are referred to as “CARB 2002 VOC Limits” in this preamble. The new limits were more stringent than the 1996 limits for all of the coating categories. CARB estimated that the 2002 limits would result in a VOC reduction of 3.1 tons VOC/day (or 8.4 percent) from the 1997 emission levels. Based on CARB's 1997 survey data and CARB's later conclusion that the second tier mass-based VOC limits may not be feasible, EPA is concerned about the technological feasibility and availability of coatings to meet the 2002 VOC limits. Although the limits appear to be both feasible and available for some categories of aerosol coatings, the survey data indicate that this may not be true for all of the categories. For example, for the category of flat coating products, the survey showed that out of a total of 129 products, none met the 2002 VOC limits. For primers, only 5 of 162 products, less than 1 percent of the market, met the 2002 VOC limits. The market share for non-flat coatings meeting the limit was only 5 percent. These three categories, flat coatings, non-flat coatings, and primers, represent three of the four largest categories of aerosol coatings. While not dispositive, we think the absence of products meeting the limits is indicative of technological and feasibility constraints that would make the limits difficult to achieve. Although the CARB survey was conducted in 1997 and it is possible that the technology has advanced since that time in order to meet such stringent mass based limits, we are concerned that this may not have happened. Although CARB adopted the 2002 VOC limits, these mass-based limits never took effect because CARB replaced the 2002 VOC limits when CARB adopted new reactivity-based limits for aerosol coatings in June 2000. It is likely that coating manufacturers have adjusted their research and development efforts towards reducing the reactivity of the VOC content of their coatings rather than the VOC mass content of their coatings. In some cases, a reduction in the reactivity may coincide with a reduction in VOC content but as discussed earlier, this is not necessarily the case. In fact, it may be possible to increase the VOC content of a coating while reducing the overall reactivity of the VOC ingredients. Because of this, we presume that industry may be no closer to meeting the 2002 VOC mass limits than they were in 1997. In the March 2000 edition of the “Issue Backgrounder,” NPCA's quarterly newsletter, NPCA states that the 2002 limits “would be technologically impossible for water-based coatings.” CARB has also indicated that some of the limits may be difficult to meet with water-based technology. As water-based coatings are among the most environmentally friendly coatings, we are reluctant to base a rule on limits that could preclude the use of this technology. Although we believe the 2002 VOC limits would have a significant environmental benefit, we have concerns about the technological feasibility and availability of coatings that meet these limits and therefore whether these limits represent BAC for the aerosol coatings industry. iii. CARB 2002 Reactivity Limits. As directed by its Board in 1998, CARB worked with industry to evaluate a VOC reactivity-based approach for the aerosol coatings category that would achieve a reduction in the formation of ozone equivalent to the 2002 mass-based VOC limits. Although CARB initially planned the reactivity-based approach as an alternative compliance method to the 2002 VOC mass-based limits, it ultimately concluded that having simultaneous mass-based and reactivity-based limits would cause confusion and decided to have only reactivity-based limits. To ensure the reactivity-based limits would achieve, at a minimum, an equivalent reduction in the formation of ozone to the 2002 VOC mass-based limits, CARB based its 2002 reactivity limits on the 2002 VOC limits. CARB first determined the amount of ozone reduction that it anticipated would be achieved from the implementation of the 2002 mass-based VOC limits. CARB then calculated, through an iterative process, an equivalent reactivity-based limit, so that the reactivity-based limit would result in the same ozone reduction as the mass-based limit. As described earlier, the required amount of ozone reduction was adjusted upwards to account for the possible uncertainty in reactivity values. 32 32 “Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerosol Coating Products—California Air Resources Board,” Chapter IV, May 5, 2000. The data from the 1997 survey demonstrated that complying products for the aerosol coatings reactivity limits were available in all but two specialty categories even in 1997. CARB has only received one variance request for the reactivity-based aerosol coating limits ( *http://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/variance/variance.htm* ). NPCA has supported both the reactivity approach and the established limits. Based on a review of the limits and the supporting data, we believe that the reactivity limits established by CARB for the aerosol coatings category are technologically feasible and available as contemplated in section 183(e). 3. Determination of Best Available Controls

(BAC)We believe that the 1996 VOC limits developed by CARB are technologically feasible and, based on CARB's cost analysis, are also economically feasible. Therefore, they are certainly “available.” However, these limits were based on technology that was available in 1995, when CARB first proposed the limits. During the last 10 years, manufacturers of all types of paints and coatings have made significant technological advances in coating technology in response to the development of various state and national rules limiting both the VOC and HAP content of coatings. The 12 percent reduction in VOC emissions that could be achieved through the implementation of the 1996 limits is significantly less than the estimated 20 percent reduction in VOC emissions achieved by the implementation of the other national rules established under CAA section 183(e). We believe that the CARB 1996 VOC limits do not represent BAC for the aerosol coatings category if more stringent levels are available. Although we believe the industry is capable of meeting limits more stringent than the 1996 VOC limits, we are concerned about the technological feasibility of the 2002 VOC mass-based limits. The 2002 VOC limits are more stringent than the 1996 limits. CARB's survey data indicated that many manufacturers would have a difficult time achieving the VOC content limits proposed for several of the major categories of aerosol coatings (See *http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/conspro/aerosol/isor.pdf* ). In addition, NPCA's concern that the limits may not be achievable through the use of water-based technology is of particular concern to us. Water-based coatings are an environmentally friendly technology that we do not want to be lost as an option to manufacturers. So long as VOC emission reductions contemplated by CAA section 183(e) are achieved, we believe that it is important that manufacturers retain as much flexibility as possible in selecting a reformulation technology to ensure they can manufacture coatings that meet the performance specifications required. In addition, we remain concerned that if water-based coatings are not an option to meet the limits, higher-solids coatings will be the primary alternative. Although we support the use of higher-solids coatings as an alternative to high VOC content coatings, we are concerned that if the limits are too stringent industry will be driven to increase its use of toluene, xylene, and other aromatic compounds. These aromatic compounds are all extremely effective solvents for use in higher-solids coatings, but they are also highly reactive compounds that generate more ozone than other solvents commonly used by the aerosols coating category. As discussed earlier, we believe the reactivity approach is appropriate for the aerosol coatings category because the organic compounds used by the industry are well-characterized. Because the 2002 reactivity limits developed by CARB are based on the VOC reduction associated with the 2002 VOC limits, they ensure that the reactivity limits will achieve an equivalent environmental benefit to the 2002 VOC limits. The reactivity limits also offer industry significantly more flexibility in achieving that environmental benefit. Industry can substitute to lower reactivity solvents, use water-based technology, use higher-solids technology (without the potential drawbacks associated with the use of this technology in a mass-based VOC standard), or any combination of these approaches to meet the limits. We have concluded that the reactivity limits established by CARB are based on sound scientific principles and represent an equivalent environmental benefit to even the most stringent 2002 VOC limits. It is likely that if EPA were to use a mass-based VOC approach for the aerosol coatings category, we would be required to set less stringent limits, perhaps based on the 1996 limits. Such an approach would achieve less environmental benefit. EPA then evaluated the cost and economic impacts of the reactivity-based limits. The economic impact assessment focuses on changes in market prices and output levels. A more detailed discussion of the economic impacts is presented in the economic impact analysis memorandum that is included in the docket. Both the magnitude of control costs needed to comply with the proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market prices and quantities will change in response to the proposed rule when finalized. In this case, at the facility level, we have some uncertainty concerning both the amount of individual products being produced and whether the products currently comply with the proposed rule, or whether additional costs associated with reformulating the products will be required. Because California has a similar rule and products sold in California have already complied with the California rule, the costs imposed by the proposed EPA rule would entail only minor additional recordkeeping and recording costs. We also know that facilities are involved in production of other products not covered by this rule. We have no quantitative information on the relative contribution to revenue of products not covered by the rule in comparison to products covered by the rule. Provided with the cost analysis is a cost per can estimate of going from a non-complying formulation to a complying formulation, and a sales price per can for each of the six general coating categories and the thirty specialty coating categories. Also provided is an estimate of the fraction of each coating category that complied before the imposition of the CARB rule. Finally, with the cost analysis is a list of facilities producing products covered by the CARB rule from a 1997 CARB survey and which categories are produced at each facility. The cost per can, as a percentage of prices per can for going from non-complying to complying on a category basis, ranges from a cost savings to cost of 2.71 percent for the exact match finish industrial category. In order to provide a very rough measure of the impact on a per facility basis, the cost per price measure for each category produced by a particular facility was multiplied by the pre-CARB rule non-complying percentage and averaged across categories using a weighting of industry-wide market share from the pre-CARB rule survey. The highest cost-to-sales ratio is 1.42 percent. Since this does not include revenues from other products, or the reduction in cost due to the CARB rule, it is very unlikely that the cost-to-sales ratio for any facility would exceed 1 percent. Thus a significant impact is not expected for a substantial number of small entities. No significant market impact is expected because of the small cost increase compared to the price. Neither full cost absorption nor full cost pass- through would result in significant impacts. 4. Consideration of Other Factors In evaluating options for BAC, EPA must evaluate not only the positive environmental benefits of BAC but any potential negative environmental or health benefit. While reducing the population's exposure to ground-level ozone is important, exposing the population to increased levels of potentially toxic VOC is also a concern. This could occur since the use of relative reactivity encourages the use of specific (i.e., low reactivity) compounds to reduce ozone, despite other potential environmental and public health concerns. One compound that we are concerned about is methylene chloride, which has an extremely low MIR value and has also been listed as a HAP under section 112 of the Clean Air Act because of its potential toxic effects on human health and the environment. We remain concerned about the potential impact of an increase in the use of this compound. There are some HAP that would be reduced as a result of a regulation with a reactivity-based approach. For example, HAP such as toluene are highly reactive and accordingly have high MIR values. Therefore, they are unlikely to be used in large quantities in any aerosol coatings subject to a relative reactivity based regulation. In fact, we expect their use to be reduced. Thus, although CAA section 183(e) directs EPA to control VOC emissions from consumer products only for purposes of achieving the ozone NAAQS, we anticipate that choices made to regulate VOC can have collateral benefits or disbenefits in ways not related to the ozone NAAQS. We are seeking comment on possible approaches to address the HAP emissions from aerosol coatings, including the use of a voluntary program. A voluntary program would seek to provide incentives to industry that voluntarily reduce the use of HAP in their product formulations. We request comment and suggestions on how this program could be identified, tracked, and recognized, including suggestions on the following: • Whether the program would recognize only those formulations that reduced HAP content from a baseline before this rule was promulgated or if it should recognize all “low HAP” coatings. • What should constitute “low HAP.” This could potentially be a set amount (percent or absolute) reduction or a maximum overall HAP content. • What type of documentation should be required to document that the voluntary reduction has occurred. We are concerned that the documentation not be so burdensome as to be prohibitive; however, we want to ensure that facilities claiming “low HAP” coatings are meeting these requirements. • What type of acknowledgement can be provided. We believe that some type of labeling of the product would be an option, but welcome other suggestions. E. Compliance Demonstration Requirements EPA is proposing compliance demonstration requirements necessary to ensure compliance with the rule. Initial compliance demonstration with this rule requires the regulated entity to complete initial compliance calculations for all coatings and develop and submit the initial notification. Ongoing compliance demonstration and reporting is only required when a regulated entity becomes responsible for a coating category that was not included in the original notification. 1. Determination of Coating Content The ACRR allows a facility to determine compliance using either VOC formulation data or through the use of California's Test Method 310 or EPA's Test Method 311 (see Selection of Test Method). If formulation data are used, the regulated entity would need to identify and maintain records of all VOC present in the coating and propellant portions of the final aerosol product at a level equal to or greater than 0.1 percent. The same levels of recordkeeping would be required if CARB Method 310 or EPA Method 311 were used. In the event of an inconsistency between the results of Method 310 or 311 test data and a calculation based upon formulation data, the Method 310/311 data will govern the compliance calculation. These formulation data will then be used to calculate the reactivity value for the coatings, which would be compared to the limits presented in Table 1 of the rule. We are aware that a single regulated entity may have tens, or even hundreds, of different product formulations, especially if different colors of the same basic product have slightly different formulations. It is not our intent to create unnecessary burden and we seek comment on how to limit this burden and still ensure compliance. 2. Calculation of Reactivity of Coating Once the coating (including coating liquid and propellant) formulation data are known (i.e., either through formulation calculations or use of an approved test method), the calculation of the reactivity value for the product is relatively simple. Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C of the regulation contain reactivity factors that are currently based on the MIR values, and in some cases the upper limit MIR values, used by CARB in its regulation. These reactivity factors are used in conjunction with the formulation data to demonstrate compliance with the reactivity limits. First the compound Weighted Reactivity Factor

(WRF)is calculated by multiplying the weight fraction of the individual ingredient (obtained from the formulation data) by the reactivity factor

(RF)for that ingredient obtained from Table 2 of the regulation. EP16JY07.004 Where: WRF i = Weighted reactivity factor for component i, g O 3 /g product WF i = Weight fraction of component i RF i = reactivity factor for component i, g O 3 /compound i The WRFs for each component in the total coating are then summed to obtain the Product Weighted Reactivity (PWR). EP16JY07.005 Where: PWR p = Product weighted reactivity for product P, g O 3 /g product WRF 1 = Weighted reactivity factor for component 1, g O 3 /g component WRF 2 = Weighted reactivity factor for component 2, g O 3 /g component WRF n = Weighted reactivity factor for component n, g O 3 /g component Both of these steps are incorporated into a single equation: EP16JY07.006 Where: PWR p = Product weighted reactivity for product P, g O 3 /g product WF i = Weight fraction of component i RF i = Reactivity factor for component i, g O 3 /compound i n = Number of components in product P The reactivity factor equals zero for non-solid components without carbon. Solid components, including but not limited to resins, pigments, fillers, plasticizers and extenders do not need to be included in this equation since the reactivity factor for all solids is zero. If a VOC component is not listed in Table 2, it is assigned a RF equal to the maximum value listed in the table. The PWR for each product must then be compared to the limit for the specific coating category, provided in Table 1 of the regulation, to determine compliance. F. Labeling Requirements Section 183(e) of the CAA explicitly authorizes the EPA to require labeling and other requirements as part of a regulation. We are proposing to include labeling requirements that are necessary to implement the regulations effectively and to assure compliance. The requirements we propose pertain to the date the aerosol can is filled, the coating category of the product, and the applicable ACRR limit for the product. The proposed regulation requires that containers for all subject coatings display the date of manufacture (or a code indicating the date). The date of manufacture on the label or can allows enforcement personnel to determine whether the coating was manufactured prior to or after the compliance date. The coating category and reactivity limit allow enforcement personnel to select a can of aerosol coating, test it using either CARB Method 310 or EPA Method 311, and compare the test results to the reactivity limit on the can. G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements CAA section 183(e) also authorizes EPA to impose recordkeeping and reporting requirements. We are proposing recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are necessary to ensure compliance with the regulation. We propose to require an initial notification report for regulated entities. This report will provide basic information on the regulated entity (e.g. name, location) and will identify all coating categories that are manufactured at the facility. This will provide the EPA Regional Offices with a listing of companies in their areas that are manufacturing, processing, distributing, or importing aerosol coatings so that the appropriate Regional Office can follow up with those companies in the event a compliance issue arises. Furthermore, this report will explain the date code system used to label products, if the date code is not immediately obvious (e.g., month-day-year format). This will assist EPA in identifying products that were manufactured after the compliance date and are therefore subject to this regulation. Finally, the affected entity is required to include an explanation of how the term “batch” will be interpreted for each formulation. This report is due 90 days before the compliance date for the rule. Under the proposed rule, the regulated entity is required to conduct compliance calculations for each coating formulation. These calculations must be maintained onsite, for 5 years. However, we are proposing that no reporting of these calculations or the results to EPA is required unless a specific request for those results is made by the Administrator (defined in the regulation to include EPA Regional Offices). We are also proposing that the regulated entity must maintain records of the date each batch of a particular formulation was manufactured, the volume of each batch, the number of cans manufactured in each batch and each formulation, and the recipe used for formulating each batch. After the initial compliance report, we are proposing to require additional reporting if a regulated entity adds a new coating category or changes other information in the initial report (e.g., contact information, file location). Specifically, when this happens, we are proposing to require a new notification containing the updated information. We are also requesting comment on whether the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements included in this proposed rule should be expanded to ensure that the Agency can verify a regulated entity's compliance with the regulation. To verify compliance of an individual product with the applicable limit, it is necessary to analyze its VOC composition and calculate the product-weighted reactivity of the mixture. Without prior information about product composition, identifying the VOC composition of a product is difficult. Therefore, we request comment on the feasibility and need for a requirement for regulated entities to submit to the Agency their VOC formulations for each product or product formulation in the initial report and on a periodic basis thereafter. We anticipate that such a report would consist of a simple listing of the following items:

(1)A manufacturer identifier,

(2)a product identifier,

(3)the applicable product-weighted reactivity-based limit,

(4)the Chemical Abstract Service number of each VOC component,

(5)the maximum mass fraction of the VOC component in the product, and

(6)the applicable reactivity factor for the VOC component. Because CAA section 183(e) is intended to achieve VOC emission reductions for purposes of reducing ozone, the composition information provided in the report would be limited to the VOC components of the coating and would not include information on the resins or other non-VOC components. Because each unit of product must meet the applicable limits of the rule, the report would only need to address VOC composition and would not include information on the quantity of each product produced or sold. Given that regulated entities are required to keep such composition information to demonstrate compliance under the proposed rule, a requirement to submit this information to EPA periodically in a simple format should impose minimal additional burden or cost for industry provided that the reporting mechanism is easy to access and use. Such a report would provide regulated entities an opportunity to review their products' compliance with the applicable standards and therefore help to assure compliance. EPA notes that the VOC composition of coatings subject to this proposed rule is “emissions data” under section 114 of the CAA, and EPA's regulatory definition of such term in 40 CFR part 2, because the information is necessary to determine compliance with applicable limits. As such, this information must be available to the public regardless of whether EPA obtains the information through a reporting requirement or through a specific request to the regulated entity. Therefore, such information is not eligible for treatment as “confidential business information” under proposed section 59.516. We specifically solicit comment on the following questions related to the initial report and any potential periodic reporting requirement for information related to VOC composition of products subject to this rule:

(1)Whether there is a need for such a reporting requirement to allow for more effective implementation and enforcement of the regulation; and

(2)what specific contents should be required in such reports. With respect to any potential periodic reporting requirement, we also request comment on what frequency or under what circumstances such reporting should be required. As to the mechanism or method for submitting initial or periodic reports to EPA, we specifically solicit comment on whether, given the nature of the reports under consideration, it would be advantageous for regulated entities to submit reports electronically. Electronic reporting to a centralized electronic database could help to decrease the burden and cost to regulated entities. A database of composition information would also help EPA track the effect of the rule on VOC emissions composition and provide information that is necessary for effective implementation and enforcement of the rule. For each of these questions, EPA solicits comment regarding the burdens and cost that reporting requirements might impose, and what EPA could do to minimize the burdens and cost, especially with respect to small entities. We are proposing an exemption from the limits of the rule for those entities that manufacturer only a small amount of aerosol coatings. We believe that this exemption will serve to mitigate the impacts of the rule upon small manufacturers for whom compliance with the rule could impose disproportionately high costs through reformulation of products produced only in small volumes. Given this objective, and in order to avoid unnecessary excess VOC emissions that could be significant in the aggregate, we are proposing that this exemption from the limits would be available only for those manufacturers that have annual production of aerosol coatings products with total VOC content not in excess of 7,500 kg of VOC in all aerosol coating product categories. We emphasize that this to be determined by total VOC content by mass, in all product categories manufactured by the entity. We consider making this distinction based upon total VOC mass, rather than some reactivity-adjusted calculation, necessary both to minimize the analytical impacts upon the entity seeking the exemption from the rule, and to provide for more effective implementation and enforcement of this aspect of the rule. A manufacturer that qualifies for the exemption must notify EPA of this in the initial notification report required in proposed section 59.511. As a condition for the exemption from the limits, the proposed rule also requires the entity to file an annual report with EPA providing the information necessary to evaluate and to establish that the products manufactured by the entity are properly exempt from the limits of rule. This information is necessary to assure that the entity is in compliance, even if its products do not meet the limits of the rule. EPA notes that an exemption under EPA's national rule for aerosol coatings under section 183(e) does not alter any requirements under any applicable state or local regulations. We specifically request comment on whether there is a need for an exemption of this type for very small manufacturers. In addition, we request comment on the features of the exemption as we have proposed it. Finally, in order to get better information about the number of manufactures that would potentially use such an exemption, we specifically request that interested commenters indicate whether they would elect to use the exemption from the limits. The proposed rule requires all regulated entities to comply by January 1, 2009. EPA believes that compliance by this date is readily achievable by most, if not all, regulated entities subject to this rule. However, in the case of regulated entities that have not previously met the limits already imposed by regulation in the State of California, EPA believes that it may be appropriate to provide an extension of the compliance date on a case by case basis. Therefore, the proposed rule includes a provision that will allow regulated entities that have not previously manufactured, imported, or distributed for sale or distribution in California any product in any category listed in Table 1 of this subpart that complies with applicable California regulations for aerosol coatings to seek an extension of the compliance date. Such extensions will be granted at the discretion of the Administrator. The grant or denial of a compliance date extension does not affect the right of the regulated entity to seek a variance under this rule. H. Variance Criteria The proposed ACRR includes a variance provision. Companies may require a variance for several reasons. The regulated entity may be responsible for a coating that has more extensive performance requirements than other coatings in the category so that reformulating that coating to meet the reactivity limits is more difficult than it is for other coatings. In some cases, a regulated entity may experience an interruption in the supply of a particular compound necessary to the performance of a coating due to a fire or other exceptional event at the supplier's facility. Furthermore, small companies may require longer to reformulate a coating due to limited resources. The proposed rule requires regulated entities to submit a written application to the Administrator requesting a variance if, for reasons beyond their reasonable control, they cannot comply with the requirements of the proposed rule. The application must include the following information:

(1)The specific products for which the variance is sought;

(2)The specific provisions of the subpart for which the variance is sought;

(3)The specific grounds upon which the variance is sought;

(4)The proposed date(s) by which compliance with the provisions of the rule will be achieved; and

(5)A compliance plan detailing the method(s) by which compliance will be achieved. Upon receipt of the variance application, the Administrator will determine whether a variance is warranted. The Administrator may grant a variance if the following criteria are met:

(1)Complying with the provisions of this subpart would not be technologically or economically feasible.

(2)The compliance plan proposed by the applicant can reasonably be implemented and will achieve compliance as expeditiously as possible. The approved variance order will designate a final compliance date and a condition that specifies increments of progress necessary to assure timely compliance. A variance shall end immediately upon the failure of the regulated entity to comply with any term or condition of the variance. The EPA understands that some regulated entities may face more challenges in meeting the limits of the regulation than others. Therefore, the Administrator will carefully evaluate requests from regulated entities' facilities, particularly small businesses that have not marketed their products in regulated areas prior to this rulemaking. I. Test Methods To demonstrate compliance with the proposed reactivity limits, it is necessary to identify the species of reactive organic compounds that are present in the coating and the percent weight of each compound. While regulated entities may use formulation data to demonstrate compliance with this rule, the rule requires that the results of calculations using formulation data be consistent with results of calculations obtained from approved test methods. CARB's Method 310 is the primary test method we have included in the regulation for demonstrating compliance with the reactivity limits. Method 310 is essentially a compendium of methods developed by other agencies (for example, ASTM, U.S. EPA, NIOSH) that focus on identifying and quantifying the components of an aerosol coating. Manufacturers and regulatory agencies using Method 310 to determine the compliance status of a coating must select the appropriate methods from Method 310 that will ensure the necessary data are generated. There is no one method that will provide the necessary data. For example, as a minimum, it will be necessary to use one of the ASTM methods referenced in Method 310 to separate the propellant from the liquid portion of the coating and another method, or in some cases, multiple methods, to analyze the propellant and liquid portions for VOC content. Although Method 310 is complex, EPA believes that it is an appropriate method to incorporate into the aerosol coatings regulation. The method has been used in California to demonstrate compliance with the reactivity limits developed for aerosol coatings in that state and EPA believes it is an effective method for demonstrating compliance with this regulation. [Other issues associated with this method are identified in a memorandum included in the docket to this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971)]. We have also included EPA's Test Method 311—Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings—as an alternative test method to CARB's Method 310. Aerosol coating manufacturers and regulatory agencies can elect to use Method 311 to demonstrate compliance with the reactivity limits. As the title of Method 311 suggests, EPA originally developed this method to analyze the HAP content of coatings. However, EPA believes that the method is applicable to the identification and quantification of organic compounds that may be present in aerosol coatings. As with Method 310, it is necessary that the analyst be provided with a list of the compounds in the coating so that the analyst can properly calibrate the gas chromatograph that will be used for the analysis. Because Method 311 was developed specifically for the analysis of coatings, it is in many ways a simpler and more straightforward method than 310. The results from Method 311 are based on percent by weight, so it is not necessary to convert the results to another metric. The sample preparation instructions in Method 311, with the exception of the aerosol portion of the coating, do not require any adjustments since they were specifically developed for the analysis of liquid samples. We know of no reason why the data collected using Method 311 should be any less accurate than those collected using Method 310. For these reasons, we have decided to include Method 311 as an alternative to Method 310. Because Method 311 was developed for the analysis of liquid coatings and aerosol coatings containing both liquid and gaseous components, those electing to use Method 311 must also use either ASTM Method D3063-94 or D3074-94 to collect the propellant for analysis. As discussed earlier, this is also true for those running Method 310. The only difference is that the ASTM methods are specifically referenced in Method 310. V. Statutory and Executive Order

(EO)Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order

(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action” since it raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request

(ICR)document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2266.01. The information collection requirements are based on recordkeeping and reporting requirements. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed standards would require regulated entities to submit an initial notification and other reports as outlined in section IV.F. We estimate that about 62 regulated entities would be subject to the proposed standards. New and existing regulated entities would have no capital costs associated with the information collection requirements in the proposed standards. The estimated recordkeeping and reporting burden in the 3rd year after the effective date of the promulgated rule is estimated to be 7986 labor hours at a cost of $472,386.00. This estimate includes the cost of reporting, including reading instructions, information gathering, preparation of initial and supplemental reports, and variance applications. Recordkeeping cost estimates include reading instructions, planning activities, calculation of reactivity, and maintenance of batch information. The average hours and cost per regulated entity would be 128 hours and $7,619.00. About 62 facilities would respond per year. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971. Submit any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after July 16, 2007 in the **Federal Register** , a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 15, 2007 in the **Federal Register** . The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:

(1)A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's

(SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;

(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed regulatory action, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the cost to sales ratio is small for all of the facilities owned by small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are small manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of aerosol coatings for sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States. Our analysis indicates that all 43 of the identified small entities (seventy-two percent of all identified facilities) will likely experience a cost impact of less than one percent of revenues. Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities in two ways. First, the proposed rule considers issuance of a special compliance extension that extends the date of compliance by two years for regulated entities that have never manufactured, imported, or distributed aerosol coatings for sale or distribution in California in compliance with California's Regulation for Reducing Ozone Formed from Aerosol Coating Product Emissions, Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Sections 94520-94528. Finally, the proposed rule includes an exemption from the limits in Table 1 of subpart E of the rule for those manufacturers that manufacture very limited amounts of aerosol coatings, i.e., products with a total VOC content by mass of no more than 7,500 kilograms of VOC per year in the aggregate for all products. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives, and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that the proposed regulatory action does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, this proposed action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have determined that the proposed regulatory action contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because they contain no regulatory requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the EO to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” The proposed regulatory action does not have federalism implications. The action does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in EO 13132. The CAA establishes the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, and this action does not impact that relationship. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to the proposed regulatory action. However, in the spirit of EO 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA is soliciting comment on the proposed regulatory action from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments EO 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.” The proposed action does not have Tribal implications as defined by EO 13175. The proposed regulatory action does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, in that the proposed action imposes no regulatory burdens on tribes. Furthermore, the proposed action does not affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule

(TAR)establish the relationship of the Federal Government and Tribes in implementing the Clean Air Act. Because the proposed rule does not have Tribal implications, EO 13175 does not apply. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that

(1)is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under EO 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, section 5B501 of the EO directs the Agency to evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. The proposed regulatory action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. In addition, EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health and safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulations. The proposed regulatory action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not include regulatory requirements based on health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards

(VCS)in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS. This proposed rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the following standards in this rule: California Air Resources Board

(ARB)Method 310, “Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC)in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products;” EPA Method 311 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, in conjunction with American Society of Testing and Materials

(ASTM)method D3063-94 or D3074-94 for analysis of the propellant portion of the coating; South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) method 318-95, “Determination of Weight Percent Elemental Metal in Coatings by X-ray Diffraction” for metal content; ASTM D523-89

(1999)for specular gloss of flat and nonflat coatings; and ASTM D1613-03, “Standard Test Method for Acidity in Volatile Solvents and Chemical Intermediates Used in Paint, Varnish, Lacquer, and Related Products” for acid content of rust converters. The EPA Method 311 also is a compilation of voluntary consensus standards. The following are incorporated by reference in Method 311: ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4457-85, ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS9-94. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified. For the methods required by the proposed rule, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures under sections 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of Subpart A of the General Provisions. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order

(EO)12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income populations. Further, it establishes national emission standards for VOC in aerosol coatings. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 51 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compound. 40 CFR Part 59 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Consumer products, Aerosol coatings. Dated: June 29, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 59 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 51—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows: Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. 2. Section 51.100 is amended by adding paragraph (s)(7) to read as follows: § 51.100 Definitions.

(s)* * *

(7)For the purposes of determining compliance with EPA's aerosol coatings reactivity based regulation (as described in Part 59—National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer and Commercial Products) any organic compound in the volatile portion of an aerosol coating is counted towards the product's reactivity-based limit. Therefore, the compounds identified in paragraph

(s)of this section as negligibly reactive and excluded from EPA's definition of VOC are to be counted towards a product's reactivity limit for the purposes of determining compliance with EPA's aerosol coatings reactivity-based national regulation. PART 59—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 59 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7511b(e). 4. Subpart E is added to read as follows: Subpart E—National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings Sec. 59.500 What is the purpose of this subpart? 59.501 Am I subject to this subpart? 59.502 When do I have to comply with this subpart? 59.503 What definitions apply to this subpart? 59.504 What limits must I meet? 59.505 How do I demonstrate compliance with the reactivity limits? 59.506 How do I demonstrate compliance if I manufacture multi-component kits? 59.507 What are the labeling requirements for aerosol coatings? 59.508 What test methods must I use? 59.509 Can I get a variance? 59.510 What records am I required to maintain? 59.511 What reports must I submit? 59.512 Addresses of EPA regional offices. 59.513 State authority. 59.514 Circumvention. 59.515 Incorporations by reference. 59.516 Availability of information and confidentiality Table 1 to Subpart E to Part 59—Product-Weighted Reactivity Limits by Coating Category Table 2A to Subpart E to Part 59—Reactivity Factors Table 2B to Subpart E to Part 59—Reactivity Factors for Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Solvent Mixtures Table 2C to Subpart E to Part 59—Reactivity Factors for Aromatic Hydrocarbon Solvent Mixtures Subpart E—National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings § 59.500 What is the purpose of this subpart? This subpart establishes the product weighted reactivity

(PWR)limits regulated entities must meet to in order to comply with the national rule for volatile organic compounds emitted from aerosol coatings. This subpart also establishes labeling, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements for regulated entities. § 59.501 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a)You are a regulated entity under this rule and subject to this subpart if you are listed in either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section.

(1)Manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of aerosol coatings for sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States; or

(2)Manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers that supply the entities listed in paragraph (a)(1) with such products for sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States.

(b)Except as provided in paragraph

(e)of this section, as a manufacturer or importer of the product, you are subject to the product weighted reactivity limits presented in § 59.504 even if you are not named on the label. If you are a distributor named on the label, you are responsible for compliance with all sections of this subpart except for the limits presented in § 59.504. Distributors that are not named on the label are not subject to this subpart. If there is no distributor named on the label, then the manufacturer or importer is responsible for complying with all sections of this subpart.

(c)Except as provided in paragraph

(e)of this section, the provisions of this subpart apply to aerosol coatings manufactured on or after January 1, 2009 for sale or distribution in the United States.

(d)You are not a regulated entity under this subpart if you manufacture coatings (in or outside of the United States) that are exclusively for sale outside the United States.

(e)If you are a manufacture of aerosol coatings but the total amount of VOC by mass in the products you manufacture, in the aggregate, is less than 7,500 kg per year, then the products you manufacture in such year are exempt from the product-weighted reactivity limits presented in § 59.504, so long as you are in compliance with the other applicable provisions of this subpart. § 59.502 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a)Except as provided in § 59.509 and paragraph

(b)of this section, you must be in compliance with all provisions of this subpart by January 1, 2009.

(b)The Administrator will consider issuance of a special compliance extension that extends the date of compliance until January 1, 2011, to regulated entities that have never manufactured, imported, or distributed aerosol coatings for sale or distribution in California in compliance with California's Regulation for Reducing Ozone Formed from Aerosol Coating Product Emissions, Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Sections 94520-94528. In order to be considered for an extension of the compliance date, you must submit a special compliance extension application to the EPA Administrator no later than 90 days before the compliance date or within 90 days before the date that you first manufacture aerosol coatings, whichever is later. This application must contain the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of the section:

(1)Company name;

(2)A signed certification by a responsible company official that the regulated entity has not at any time manufactured, imported, or distributed for sale or distribution in California any product in any category listed in Table 1 of this subpart that complies with California's Regulation for Reducing Ozone Formed From Aerosol Coating Product Emissions, Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Sections 94520-94528;

(3)A statement that the regulated entity will, to the extent possible within its reasonable control, take appropriate action to achieve compliance with this subpart by January 1, 2011;

(4)A list of the product categories in Table 1 of this subpart that the regulated entity manufactures, imports, or distributes; and,

(5)Name, title, address, telephone, e-mail address, and signature of the certifying company official.

(6)If a regulated entity remains unable to comply with the limits of this rule by January 1, 2011, the regulated entity may seek a variance in accordance with § 59.509. § 59.503 What definitions apply to this subpart? The following terms are defined for the purposes of this subpart only. *Administrator* means the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or an authorized representative. *Aerosol Coating Product* means a pressurized coating product containing pigments or resins that dispenses product ingredients by means of a propellant and is packaged in a disposable can for hand-held application or for use in specialized equipment for ground traffic/marking applications. For the purpose of this regulation, applicable aerosol coatings categories are listed in Table 1 of this subpart. *Art Fixative or Sealant* means a clear coating, including art varnish, workable art fixative, and ceramic coating, which is designed and labeled exclusively for application to paintings, pencil, chalk, or pastel drawings, ceramic art pieces, or other closely related art uses, in order to provide a final protective coating or to fix preliminary stages of artwork while providing a workable surface for subsequent revisions. ASTM means the American Society for Testing and Materials. *Autobody Primer* means an automotive primer or primer surfacer coating designed and labeled exclusively to be applied to a vehicle body substrate for the purposes of corrosion resistance and building a repair area to a condition in which, after drying, it can be sanded to a smooth surface. *Automotive Bumper and Trim Product* means a product, including adhesion promoters and chip sealants, designed and labeled exclusively to repair and refinish automotive bumpers and plastic trim parts. *Aviation Propeller Coating* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to provide abrasion resistance and corrosion protection for aircraft propellers. Aviation or Marine Primer means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to meet federal specification TT-P-1757. *Clear Coating* means a coating which is colorless, containing resins but no pigments except flatting agents, and is designed and labeled to form a transparent or translucent solid film. *Coating Solids* means the nonvolatile portion of an aerosol coating product, consisting of the film forming ingredients, including pigments and resins. *Commercial Application* means the use of aerosol coating products in the production of goods, or the providing of services for profit, including touch-up and repair. *Corrosion Resistant Brass, Bronze, or Copper Coating* means a clear coating designed and labeled exclusively to prevent tarnish and corrosion of uncoated brass, bronze, or copper metal surfaces. *Distributor* means any person to whom an aerosol coating product is sold or supplied for the purposes of resale or distribution in commerce, except that manufacturers, retailers, and consumers are not distributors. *Enamel* means a coating which cures by chemical cross-linking of its base resin and is not resoluble in its original solvent. *Engine Paint* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to coat engines and their components. *Exact Match Finish, Automotive* means a topcoat which meets all of the following criteria:

(1)The product is designed and labeled exclusively to exactly match the color of an original, factory-applied automotive coating during the touch-up of automobile finishes;

(2)The product is labeled with the manufacturer's name for which they were formulated; and

(3)The product is labeled with one of the following:

(i)The original equipment manufacturer's (O.E.M.) color code number;

(ii)The color name; or

(iii)Other designation identifying the specific O.E.M. color to the purchaser. Not withstanding the foregoing, automotive clear coatings designed and labeled exclusively for use over automotive exact match finishes to replicate the original factory applied finish shall be considered to be automotive exact match finishes. *Exact Match Finish, Engine Paint* means a coating which meets all of the following criteria:

(1)The product is designed and labeled exclusively to exactly match the color of an original, factory-applied engine paint;

(2)The product is labeled with the manufacturer's name for which they were formulated; and

(3)The product is labeled with one of the following:

(i)The original equipment manufacturer's (O.E.M.) color code number;

(ii)The color name; or

(iii)Other designation identifying the specific original equipment manufacturer (O.E.M.) color to the purchaser. *Exact Match Finish, Industrial* means a coating which meets all of the following criteria:

(1)The product is designed and labeled exclusively to exactly match the color of an original, factory-applied industrial coating during the touch-up of manufactured products;

(2)The product is labeled with the manufacturer's name for which they were formulated; and

(3)The product is labeled with one of the following:

(i)O.E.M. color code number;

(ii)the color name; or

(iii)other designation identifying the specific O.E.M. color to the purchaser. *Flat Paint Products* means a coating which, when fully dry, registers specular gloss less than or equal to 15 on an 85° gloss meter, or less than or equal to 5 on a 60° gloss meter, or which is labeled as a flat coating. *Flatting Agent* means a compound added to a coating to reduce the gloss of the coating without adding color to the coating. *Floral Spray* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively for use on fresh flowers, dried flowers, or other items in a floral arrangement for the purposes of coloring, preserving or protecting their appearance. *Fluorescent Coating* means a coating labeled as such, which converts absorbed incident light energy into emitted light of a different hue. *Glass Coating* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively for use on glass or other transparent material to create a soft, translucent light effect, or to create a tinted or darkened color while retaining transparency. *Ground Traffic/Marking Coating* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to be applied to dirt, gravel, grass, concrete, asphalt, warehouse floors, or parking lots. Such coatings must be in a container equipped with a valve and spray head designed to direct the spray toward the surface when the can is held in an inverted vertical position. *High Temperature Coating* means a coating, excluding engine paint, which is designed and labeled exclusively for use on substrates which will, in normal use, be subjected to temperatures in excess of 400°F. *Hobby/Model/Craft Coating* means a coating which is designed and labeled exclusively for hobby applications and is sold in aerosol containers of 6 ounces by weight or less. *Impurity* means an individual chemical compound present in a raw material which is incorporated in the final aerosol coatings formulation, if the compound is present in amounts below the following in the raw material:

(1)For individual compounds that are carcinogens each compound must be present in an amount less than 0.1 percent by weight;

(2)For all other compounds present in a raw material, a compound must be present in an amount less than 1 percent by weight. *Ingredient* means a component of an aerosol coating product. *Lacquer* means a thermoplastic film-forming material dissolved in organic solvent, which dries primarily by solvent evaporation, and is resoluble in its original solvent. *Manufacturer* means any person who imports, manufactures, assembles, produces, packages, repackages, or relabels a consumer product. *Marine Spar Varnish* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to provide a protective sealant for marine wood products. *Metallic Coating* means a topcoat which contains at least 0.5 percent by weight elemental metallic pigment in the formulation, including propellant, and is labeled as “metallic”, or with the name of a specific metallic finish such as “gold”, “silver”, or “bronze.” *Multi-Component Kit* means an aerosol spray paint system which requires the application of more than one component (e.g. foundation coat and top coat), where both components are sold together in one package. *Nonflat Paint Product* means a coating which, when fully dry, registers a specular gloss greater than 15 on an 85° gloss meter or greater than five on a 60° gloss meter. *Ozone* means a colorless gas with a pungent odor, having the molecular form O 3 . *Photograph Coating* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to be applied to finished photographs to allow corrective retouching, protection of the image, changes in gloss level, or to cover fingerprints. *Pleasure Craft* means privately owned vessels used for noncommercial purposes. *Pleasure Craft Finish Primer/Surfacer/Undercoater* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to be applied prior to the application of a pleasure craft topcoat for the purpose of corrosion resistance and adhesion of the topcoat, and which promotes a uniform surface by filling in surface imperfections. *Pleasure Craft Topcoat* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to be applied to a pleasure craft as a final coat above the waterline and below the waterline when stored out of water. This category does not include clear coatings. *Polyolefin Adhesion Promoter* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to be applied to a polyolefin or polyolefin copolymer surface of automotive body parts, bumpers, or trim parts to provide a bond between the surface and subsequent coats. *Primer* means a coating labeled as such, which is designed to be applied to a surface to provide a bond between that surface and subsequent coats. *Product Weighted Reactivity

(PWR)Limit* means the maximum “product-weighted reactivity,” as calculated in § 59.505, allowed in an aerosol coating product that is subject to the limits specified in § 59.504 for a specific category, expressed as g O 3 /g product. *Propellant* means a liquefied or compressed gas that is used in whole or in part, such as a co-solvent, to expel a liquid or any other material from the same self-pressurized container or from a separate container. *Reactivity Factor (RF)* is a measure of the change in mass of ozone formed by adding a gram of a VOC to the ambient atmosphere, expressed to hundredths of a gram (g O 3 /g VOC). The RF values for individual compounds and hydrocarbon solvents are specified in Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C of this subpart. *Regulated Entity* means the company, firm, or establishment which is listed on the product's label. If the label lists two companies, firms or establishments, the responsible party is the party which the product was “manufactured for” or “distributed by”, as noted on the label. *Retailer* means any person who sells, supplies, or offers aerosol coating products for sale directly to consumers. *Retail Outlet* means any establishment where consumer products are sold, supplied, or offered for sale, directly to consumers. *Shellac Sealer* means a clear or pigmented coating formulated solely with the resinous secretion of the lac beetle (Laccifer lacca), thinned with alcohol, and formulated to dry by evaporation without a chemical reaction. *Slip-Resistant Coating* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively as such, which is formulated with synthetic grit and used as a safety coating. *Spatter Coating/Multicolor Coating* means a coating labeled exclusively as such wherein spots, globules, or spatters of contrasting colors appear on or within the surface of a contrasting or similar background. *Stain* means a coating which is designed and labeled to change the color of a surface but not conceal the surface. *Vinyl/Fabric/Leather/Polycarbonate Coating* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to coat vinyl, fabric, leather, or polycarbonate substrates or to coat flexible substrates including rubber or thermoplastic substrates. *Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)* means any organic compound as defined in § 51.100(s) of this chapter. Exemptions from the definition of VOC in § 51.100(s)(1) are inapplicable for purposes of this subpart. *Webbing/Veiling Coating* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to provide a stranded to spider webbed appearance when applied. *Weight Fraction* means the weight of an ingredient divided by the total net weight of the product, expressed to thousandths of a gram of ingredient per gram of product (excluding container and packaging). *Weld-Through Primer* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to provide a bridging or conducting effect for corrosion protection following welding. *Wood Stain* means a coating which is formulated to change the color of a wood surface but not conceal the surface. *Wood Touch-Up/Repair/Restoration* means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to provide an exact color or sheen match on finished wood products. *Working Day* means any day between Monday and Friday, inclusive, except for days that are federal holidays. § 59.504 What limits must I meet?

(a)Except as provided in § 59.509, each aerosol coating product you manufacture or import for sale or use in the United States must meet the PWR limits presented in Table 1 of this subpart. These limits apply to the final aerosol coating, including the propellant. The PWR limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart are also applicable to any aerosol coating product that is assembled by adding bulk coating to aerosol containers of propellant.

(b)If a product can be included in both a general coating category and a specialty coating category, and the product meets all of the criteria of the specialty coating category, then the specialty coating limit will apply instead of the general coating limit, unless the product is a high temperature coating. High-temperature coatings that contain at least 0.5 percent by weight of an elemental metallic pigment in the formulation, including propellant, are subject to the limit specified for metallic coatings.

(c)Except as provided in paragraph

(b)of this section, if anywhere on the container of any aerosol coating product subject to the limits in Table 1 of this subpart, or on any sticker or label affixed to such product, or in any sales or advertising literature, the manufacturer, importer or distributor of the product makes any representation that the product may be used as, or is suitable for use as a product for which a lower limit is specified, then the lowest applicable limit will apply. § 59.505 How do I demonstrate compliance with the reactivity limits?

(a)To demonstrate compliance with the PWR limits presented in Table 1 of this subpart, you must calculate the product weighted reactivity

(PWR)for each coating as described in paragraphs (a)(1) through

(2)of this section:

(1)Calculate the weighted reactivity factor

(WRF)for each propellant and coating component using Equation 1: EP16JY07.007 Where: WRF i = Weighted reactivity factor of component i, g O 3 /g component i. RF i = reactivity factor of component i, g O 3 / g component i, from Table 2A, 2B, or 2C. WF i = weight fraction of component i in the product.

(2)Calculate the product weighted reactivity

(PWR)of each product using Equation 2: EP16JY07.008 Where: PWR p = Product weighted reactivity for product P, g O 3 /g product. WRF 1 = weighted reactivity factor for component 1, g O 3 /g component. WRF 2 = weighted reactivity factor for component 2, g O 3 /g component. WRF n = weighted reactivity factor for component n, g O 3 /g component.

(b)In calculating the PWR you should follow the guidelines in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.

(1)Any ingredient which does not contain carbon is assigned a RF value of 0.

(2)Any aerosol coating solid, including but not limited to resins, pigments, fillers, plasticizers, and extenders is assigned a RF of 0. These items do not have to be identified individually in the calculation.

(3)All individual compounds present in the coating in an amount equal to or exceeding 0.1 percent will be considered ingredients regardless of whether or not the ingredient is reported to the manufacturer.

(4)Any component that is a VOC but is not listed in Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of this subpart is assigned the maximum RF value for all compounds listed in Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of this subpart.

(c)You may use either formulation data (including information for both the liquid and propellant phases), CARB's Method 310 [Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC)in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products], or EPA's Method 311 [Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings] of 40 CFR part 63 to calculate the Product Weighed Reactivity. However, if there are inconsistencies between the formulation data and the Method 310 or Method 311 results, the Method 310 or 311 results will govern.

(d)If you manufacture a coating containing either an aromatic or aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent mixture, you may use the appropriate reactivity factor for that mixture provided in Table 2B or 2C of this subpart when calculating the PWR using formulation data. However, when calculating the PWR for a coating containing these mixtures using data from EPA Method 310 of 40 CFR part 63 or CARB Method 311, you must identify the individual compounds that are present in the solvent mixture and use the weight fraction of those individual compounds and their reactivity factors from Table 2A of this subpart in the calculation.

(e)If a VOC is not listed in Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of this subpart, the Reactivity Factor is assumed to be 22.04 g O 3 /g VOC. Regulated entities may petition the Administrator to add a compound to Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of this subpart. Petitions should provide adequate data for the Administrator to evaluate the reactivity of the compound and assign a RF value consistent with the values for the other compounds listed in Table 2 of this subpart.

(f)In calculating the PWR value for a coating containing an aromatic hydrocarbon solvent with a boiling range different from the ranges specified in Table 2C of this subpart, you must assign a reactivity factor as described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section:

(1)If the solvent boiling point is lower than or equal to 420 degrees F, then you should use the reactivity factor in Table 2C of this subpart specified for bin 3;

(2)If the solvent boiling point is higher than 420 degrees F, then you should use the reactivity factor specified in Table 2C of this subpart for bin 24.

(g)For purposes of compliance with the PWR limits, all VOC compounds must be included in the calculation. The exemptions from the definition of VOC in § 59.100(s)(1) are inapplicable for purposes of this subpart. § 59.506 How do I demonstrate compliance if I manufacture multi-component kits?

(a)If you manufacture multi-component kits as defined in § 59.503, then the Kit Product Weighted Reactivity must not exceed the Total Reactivity Limit.

(b)You can calculate the Kit Product Weighted Reactivity and the Total Reactivity Limit as follows:

(1)KIT PWR = (PWR (1) × W 1 ) + (PWR (2) × W 2 )+. ...+(PWR (n) × W n )

(2)Total Reactivity Limit = (RL 1 × W 1 ) + (RL 2 × W 2 ) +...+ (RL n × W n ).

(3)Kit PWR ≤ Total Reactivity Limit. Where: W = The weight of the product contents (excluding container) RL = the Product Weighted Reactivity Limit specified in Table 1 of this subpart. Subscript 1 denotes the first component product in the kit Subscript 2 denotes the second component product in the kit Subscript n denotes any additional component product § 59.507 What are the labeling requirements for aerosol coatings?

(a)Aerosol coatings manufactured after January 1, 2009 must be labeled with the following information:

(1)The aerosol coating category or category code shown in Table 1 of this subpart, as defined in § 59.503;

(2)The applicable PWR limit for the product specified in Table 1 of this subpart;

(3)The day, month, and year on which the product was manufactured, or a code indicating such date;

(4)The name and a contact address for the manufacturer, distributor, or importer that is the regulated entity under this rule.

(b)The label on the product must be displayed in such a manner that it is readily observable without removing or disassembling any portion of the product container or packaging. The information may be displayed on the bottom of the container as long as it is clearly legible without removing any product packaging. § 59.508 What test methods must I use?

(a)Except as provided in § 59.505(c), you must use the procedures in CARB's Method 310 [Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC)in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products] or EPA's Method 311 [Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings] to determine the speciated ingredients and weight percentage of each ingredient of each aerosol coating product. Method 311 should be used in conjunction with ASTM Method D3063-94 or D3074-94 for analysis of the propellant portion of the coating. Those choosing to use Method 310 should follow the procedures specified in section 5.0 of that method with the exception of section 5.3.1, which requires the analysis of the VOC content of the coating. For the purposes of this regulation, you are not required to determine the VOC content of the aerosol coating. For both Method 310 and Method 311, you must have a listing of the VOC ingredients in the coating before conducting the analysis.

(b)To determine the metal content of metallic aerosol coating products, you must use SCAQMD Method 318-95, “Determination of Weight Percent Elemental Metal in Coatings by X-ray Diffraction.”

(c)To determine the specular gloss of flat and nonflat coatings you must use ASTM Method D-523-89 (1999).

(d)To determine the acid content of rust converters you must use ASTM Method D-1613-03, “Standard Test Method for Acidity in Volatile Solvents and Chemical Intermediates Used in Paint, Varnish, Lacquer, and Related Products.” § 59.509 Can I get a variance?

(a)Any regulated entity that cannot comply with the requirements of this subpart because of circumstances beyond its reasonable control may apply in writing to the Administrator for a temporary variance. The variance application must include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.

(1)The specific products for which the variance is sought.

(2)The specific provisions of the subpart for which the variance is sought.

(3)The specific grounds upon which the variance is sought.

(4)The proposed date(s) by which the regulated entity will achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart. This date must be no later than 3 years after the issuance of a variance.

(5)A compliance plan detailing the method(s) by which the regulated entity will achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart.

(b)Within 30 days of receipt of the original application and within 30 days of receipt of any supplementary information that is submitted, the Administrator will send a regulated entity written notification of whether the application contains sufficient information to make a determination. If an application is incomplete, the Administrator will specify the information needed to complete the application, and provide the opportunity for the regulated entity to submit written supplementary information or arguments to the Administrator to enable further action on the application. The regulated entity must submit this information to the Administrator within 30 days of being notified that its application is incomplete.

(c)Within 60 days of receipt of sufficient information to evaluate the application, the Administrator will send a regulated entity written notification of approval or disapproval of a variance application. This 60-day period will begin after the regulated entity has been sent written notification that its application is complete.

(d)The Administrator will issue a variance if the criteria specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section are met to the satisfaction of the Administrator.

(1)Complying with the provisions of this subpart would not be technologically or economically feasible.

(2)The compliance plan proposed by the applicant can reasonably be implemented and will achieve compliance as expeditiously as possible.

(e)A variance may specify dates by which the regulated entity will achieve increments of progress towards compliance, and will specify a final compliance date by which the regulated entity will achieve compliance with this subpart.

(f)A variance will cease to be effective upon failure of the party to whom the variance was issued to comply with any term or condition of the variance. § 59.510 What records am I required to maintain?

(a)Beginning January 1, 2009, you are required to maintain records of the following at the location specified in § 59.511(a)(4) for each product subject to the PWR limits in Table 1 of this subpart: The product category, all product calculations, the Product Weighted Reactivity, and the weight fraction of all ingredients including: Water, solids, each VOC, and any compounds assigned a reactivity factor of zero as specified in § 59.505. If an individual VOC is present in an amount less than 0.1 percent by weight, then it does not need to be reported as an ingredient. In addition, an impurity that meets the definition provided in § 59.503 does not have to be reported as an ingredient. For each batch of each product subject to the PWR limits, you must maintain records of the date the batch was manufactured, the volume of the batch, the recipe used for formulating the batch, and the number of cans manufactured in each batch and each formulation.

(b)A copy of each notification that you submit to comply with this subpart, the documentation supporting each notification, and a copy of the label for each product.

(c)If you claim the exemption under § 59.501(e), a copy of the initial report and each annual report that you submit to EPA, and the documentation supporting such report.

(d)You must maintain all records required by this subpart for a period of 5 years. § 59.511 What reports must I submit?

(a)You must submit an initial notification report no later than 90 days before the compliance date or within 90 days before the date that you first manufacture, distribute, or import aerosol coatings, whichever is later. The initial report must include the information in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section.

(1)Company name;

(2)Name, title, number, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and signature of certifying company official;

(3)A list of the product categories from Table 1 of this subpart that you manufacture, import or distribute;

(4)The street address of each of your facilities in the United States that is manufacturing, packaging, or importing aerosol coatings that are subject to the provisions of this subpart and the street address where compliance records are maintained for each site, if different;

(5)A description of date coding systems, clearly explaining how the date of manufacture is marked on each sales unit;

(6)For each product category, an explanation of how the manufacturer, distributor, or importer will define a batch for the purpose of the recordkeeping requirements; and

(7)A statement certifying that all products manufactured by the company that are subject to the limits in Table 1 of this subpart will be in compliance with those limits.

(b)If you change any information included in the initial notification report, including the list of aerosol categories, contact information, records location, or the date coding system reported according to paragraph (a)(5) of this section, you must notify the Administrator of such changes within 30 days following the change.

(c)Upon 60 days written notice, you must submit to the Administrator a written report with all the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this section for each product you manufacture, distribute, or import under your name or another company's name.

(1)The brand name of the product;

(2)A copy of the product label;

(3)The owner of the trademark or brand names;

(4)The product category as defined in § 59.503;

(5)Product formulation data for each formulation manufactured including the PWR and the weight fraction of all ingredients including: Water, solids, each VOC present in an amount greater than or equal to 0.1 percent, and any compounds assigned a reactivity factor of zero.

(d)If you claim the exemption under § 59.501(e), you must submit an initial notification report no later than 90 days before the compliance date or within 90 days before the date that you first manufacture aerosol coatings, whichever is later. The initial report must include the information in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section.

(1)Company name;

(2)Name, title, number, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and signature of certifying company official;

(3)A list of the product categories from Table 1 of this subpart that you manufacture;

(4)The total amount of product you manufacture in each category and the total VOC mass content of such products for the preceding calendar year;

(5)The street address of each of your facilities in the United States that is manufacturing aerosol coatings that are subject to the provisions of this subpart and the street address where compliance records are maintained for each site, if different; and

(6)A list of the States in which you sell or otherwise distribute the products you manufacture. After the initial report, you must file an annual report for each year in which you claim an exemption from the limits of this subpart. Such annual report must be filed by March 1 of the year following the year in which you manufactured the products. The annual report shall include the same information required in paragraphs (a)(1) through

(6)of this section. § 59.512 Addresses of EPA regional offices. All requests (including variance requests), reports, submittals, and other communications to the Administrator pursuant to this regulation shall be submitted to the Regional Office of the EPA which serves the State or territory for the address that is listed on the aerosol coating product in question. These areas are indicated in the following list of EPA Regional Offices. *EPA Region I* (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont), Director, Office of Environmental Stewardship, Mailcode: SAA, JFK Building, Boston, MA 02203. *EPA Region II* (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands), Director, Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866. *EPA Region III* (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia), Air Protection Division, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. *EPA Region IV* (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee), Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics, Management Division, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, GA 30365. *EPA Region V* (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin), Director, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507. *EPA Region VI* (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. *EPA Region VII* (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska), Director, Air and Toxics Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101. *EPA Region VIII* (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming), Director, Air and Toxics Division, 999 18th Street, 1 Denver Place, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2405. *EPA Region IX* (American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada), Director, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. *EPA Region X* (Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Washington), Director, Air and Toxics Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. § 59.513 State authority. The provisions in this regulation will not be construed in any manner to preclude any State or political subdivision thereof from:

(a)Adopting and enforcing any emission standard or limitation applicable to a manufacturer, distributor or importer of aerosol coatings or components in addition to the requirements of this subpart.

(b)Requiring the manufacturer, distributor or importer of aerosol coatings or components to obtain permits, licenses, or approvals prior to initiating construction, modification, or operation of a facility for manufacturing an aerosol coating or component. § 59.514 Circumvention. Each manufacturer, distributor, and importer of an aerosol coating or component subject to the provisions of this subpart must not alter, destroy, or falsify any record or report, to conceal what would otherwise be noncompliance with this subpart. Such concealment includes, but is not limited to, refusing to provide the Administrator access to all required records and date-coding information, altering the PWR content of a coating or component batch, or altering the results of any required tests to determine the PWR. § 59.515 Incorporations by reference.

(a)The following material is incorporated by reference

(IBR)in the paragraphs noted in § 59.508. These incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the date of approval, and notice of any changes in these materials will be published in the **Federal Register** .

(1)California Air Resources Board Method 310, Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC)in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products, IBR approved for § 59.508.

(2)South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Test Method 318-95, Determination of Weight Percent Elemental Metal in Coatings by X-ray Diffraction, IBR approved for § 59.508.

(3)ASTM Method D-523-89 (1999), Specular Gloss of Flat and Nonflat Coatings, IBR approved for § 59.508.

(4)ASTM Method D-1613-03, Standard Test Method for Acidity in Volatile Solvents and Chemical Intermediates Used in Coating, Varnish, Lacquer and Related Products, IBR approved for § 59.508.

(5)EPA Method 311—Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph, IBR approved for § 59.508.

(b)The materials are available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* ; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC; and at the EPA Library (Mail Code C267-07), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

(c)*Reports and Applications* . The content of all reports and applications required to be submitted to the Agency under § 59.511, § 59.509 or § 59.502 of this subpart are not entitled to protection under section 114(c) of the Clean Air Act. § 59.516 Availability of information and confidentiality.

(a)*Availability of information* . The availability to the public of information provided to or otherwise obtained by the Administrator under this part shall be governed by part 2 of this chapter.

(b)*Confidentiality.* All confidential business information entitled to protection under section 114(c) of the Clean Air Act that must be submitted or maintained by each regulated entity pursuant to this subpart shall be treated in accordance with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Tables to Subpart E Table 1 To Subpart E of Part 59.—Product-Weighted Reactivity Limits by Coating Category (g Ozone/g product) Coating category Category code Reactivity limit Clear Coatings CCP 1.50 Flat Coatings FCP 1.20 Fluorescent Coatings FLP 1.75 Metallic Coatings MCP 1.90 Non-Flat Coatings NFP 1.40 Primers PCP 1.20 Ground Traffic/Marking GTM 1.20 Art Fixatives or Sealants AFS 1.80 Auto body primers ABP 1.55 Automotive Bumper and Trim Products ABT 1.75 Aviation or Marine Primers AMP 2.00 Aviation Propellor Coatings APC 2.50 Corrosion Resistant Brass, Bronze, or Copper Coatings CRB 1.80 Exact Match Finish—Engine Enamel EEE 1.70 Exact Match Finish—Automotive EFA 1.50 Exact Match Finish—Industrial EFI 2.05 Floral Sprays FSP 1.70 Glass Coatings GCP 1.40 High Temperature Coatings HTC 1.85 Hobby/Model/Craft Coatings, Enamel HME 1.45 Hobby/Model/Craft Coatings, Lacquer HML 2.70 Hobby/Model/Craft Coatings, Clear or Metallic HMC 1.60 Marine Spar Varnishes MSV 0.90 Photograph Coatings PHC 1.00 Pleasure Craft Primers, Surfacers or Undercoaters PCS 1.05 Pleasure Craft Topcoats PCT 0.60 Polyolefin Adhesion Promoters PAP 2.50 Shellac Sealers, Clear SSC 1.00 Shellac Sealers, Pigmented SSP 0.95 Slip-Resistant Coatings SRC 2.45 Spatter/Multicolor Coatings SMC 1.05 Vinyl/Fabric/Leather/Polycarbonate Coatings VFL 1.55 Webbing/Veiling Coatings WFC 0.85 Weld-Through Primers WTP 1.00 Wood Stains WSP 1.40 Wood Touch-up/Repair or Restoration Coatings WTR 1.50 Table 2A To Subpart E of Part 59.—Reactivity Factors Organic compound Reactivity factor Carbon Monoxide 0.06 Methane 0.01 Ethane 0.31 Propane 0.56 n-Butane 1.33 n-Pentane 1.54 n-Hexane 1.45 n-Heptane 1.28 n-Octane 1.11 n-Nonane 0.95 n-Decane 0.83 n-Undecane 0.74 n-Dodecane 0.66 n-Tridecane 0.62 n-Tetradecane 0.58 n-Pentadecane 0.56 n-C16 0.52 n-C17 0.49 n-C18 0.47 n-C19 0.44 n-C20 0.42 n-C21 0.40 n-C22 0.38 Isobutane 1.35 Isopentane 1.68 Neopentane 0.69 Branched C5 Alkanes 1.68 2,2-Dimethyl Butane 1.33 2,3-Dimethyl Butane 1.14 2-Methyl Pentane (Isohexane) 1.80 3-Methyl Pentane 2.07 Branched C6 Alkanes 1.53 2,2,3-Trimethyl Butane 1.32 2,2-Dimethyl Pentane 1.22 2,3-Dimethyl Pentane 1.55 2,4-Dimethyl Pentane 1.65 2-Methyl Hexane 1.37 3,3-Dimethyl Pentane 1.32 3-Methyl Hexane 1.86 Branched C7 Alkanes 1.63 2,2,3,3-Tetramethyl Butane 0.44 2,2,4-Trimethyl Pentane (Isooctane) 1.44 2,2-Dimethyl Hexane 1.13 2,3,4-Trimethyl Pentane 1.23 2,3-Dimethyl Hexane 1.34 2,4-Dimethyl Hexane 1.80 2,5-Dimethyl Hexane 1.68 2-Methyl Heptane 1.20 3-Methyl Heptane 1.35 4-Methyl Heptane 1.48 Branched C8 Alkanes 1.57 2,2,5-Trimethyl Hexane 1.33 2,3,5-Trimethyl Hexane 1.33 2,4-Dimethyl Heptane 1.48 2-Methyl Octane 0.96 3,3-Diethyl Pentane 1.35 3,5-Dimethyl Heptane 1.63 4-Ethyl Heptane 1.44 4-Methyl Octane 1.08 Branched C9 Alkanes 1.25 2,4-Dimethyl Octane 1.09 2,6-Dimethyl Octane 1.27 2-Methyl Nonane 0.86 3,4-Diethyl Hexane 1.20 3-Methyl Nonane 0.89 4-Methyl Nonane 0.99 4-Propyl Heptane 1.24 Branched C10 Alkanes 1.09 2,6-Dimethyl Nonane 0.95 3,5-Diethyl Heptane 1.21 3-Methyl Decane 0.77 4-Methyl Decane 0.80 Branched C11 Alkanes 0.87 2,3,4,6-Tetramethyl Heptane 1.26 2,6-Diethyl Octane 1.09 3,6-Dimethyl Decane 0.88 3-Methyl Undecane 0.70 5-Methyl Undecane 0.72 Branched C12 Alkanes 0.80 2,3,5,7-Tetramethyl Octane 1.06 3,6-Dimethyl Undecane 0.82 3,7-Diethyl Nonane 1.08 3-Methyl Dodecane 0.64 5-Methyl Dodecane 0.64 Branched C13 Alkanes 0.73 2,4,6,8-Tetramethyl Nonane 0.94 2,3,6-Trimethyl 4-Isopropyl Heptane 1.24 3,7-Dimethyl Dodecane 0.74 3,8-Diethyl Decane 0.68 3-Methyl Tridecane 0.57 6-Methyl Tridecane 0.62 Branched C14 Alkanes 0.67 2,4,5,6,8-Pentamethyl Nonane 1.11 2-Methyl 3,5-Diisopropyl Heptane 0.78 3,7-Dimethyl Tridecane 0.64 3,9-Diethyl Undecane 0.62 3-Methyl Tetradecane 0.53 6-Methyl Tetradecane 0.57 Branched C15 Alkanes 0.60 2,6,8-Trimethyl 4-Isopropyl Nonane 0.76 3-Methyl Pentadecane 0.50 4,8-Dimethyl Tetradecane 0.58 7-Methyl Pentadecane 0.51 Branched C16 Alkanes 0.54 2,7-Dimethyl 3,5-Diisopropyl Heptane 0.69 Branched C17 Alkanes 0.51 Branched C18 Alkanes 0.48 Cyclopropane 0.10 Cyclobutane 1.05 Cyclopentane 2.69 Cyclohexane 1.46 Isopropyl Cyclopropane 1.52 Methylcyclopentane 2.42 C6 Cycloalkanes 1.46 1,3-Dimethyl Cyclopentane 2.15 Cycloheptane 2.26 Ethyl Cyclopentane 2.27 Methylcyclohexane 1.99 C7 Cycloalkanes 1.99 C8 Bicycloalkanes 1.75 1,3-Dimethyl Cyclohexane 1.72 Cyclooctane 1.73 Ethylcyclohexane 1.75 Propyl Cyclopentane 1.91 C8 Cycloalkanes 1.75 C9 Bicycloalkanes 1.57 1,1,3-Trimethyl Cyclohexane 1.37 1-Ethyl-4-Methyl Cyclohexane 1.62 Propyl Cyclohexane 1.47 C9 Cycloalkanes 1.55 C10 Bicycloalkanes 1.29 1,3-Diethyl Cyclohexane 1.34 1,4-Diethyl Cyclohexane 1.49 1-Methyl-3-Isopropyl Cyclohexane 1.26 Butyl Cyclohexane 1.07 C10 Cycloalkanes 1.27 C11 Bicycloalkanes 1.01 1,3-Diethyl-5-Methyl Cyclohexane 1.11 1-Ethyl-2-Propyl Cyclohexane 0.95 Pentyl Cyclohexane 0.91 C11 Cycloalkanes 0.99 C12 Bicycloalkanes 0.88 C12 Cycloalkanes 0.87 1,3,5-Triethyl Cyclohexane 1.06 1-Methyl-4-Pentyl Cyclohexane 0.81 Hexyl Cyclohexane 0.75 C13 Bicycloalkanes 0.79 1,3-Diethyl-5-Propyl Cyclohexane 0.96 1-Methyl-2-Hexyl Cyclohexane 0.70 Heptyl Cyclohexane 0.66 C13 Cycloalkanes 0.78 C14 Bicycloalkanes 0.71 1,3-Dipropyl-5-Ethyl Cyclohexane 0.94 1-Methyl-4-Heptyl Cyclohexane 0.58 Octyl Cyclohexane 0.60 C14 Cycloalkanes 0.71 C15 Bicycloalkanes 0.69 1,3,5-Tripropyl Cyclohexane 0.90 1-Methyl-2-Octyl Cyclohexane 0.60 Nonyl Cyclohexane 0.54 C15 Cycloalkanes 0.68 1,3-Dipropyl-5-Butyl Cyclohexane 0.77 1-Methyl-4-Nonyl Cyclohexane 0.55 Decyl Cyclohexane 0.50 C16 Cycloalkanes 0.61 Ethene 9.08 Propene (Propylene) 11.58 1-Butene 10.29 C4 Terminal Alkenes 10.29 1-Pentene 7.79 3-Methyl-1-Butene 6.99 C5 Terminal Alkenes 7.79 1-Hexene 6.17 3,3-Dimethyl-1-Butene 6.06 3-Methyl-1-Pentene 6.22 4-Methyl-1-Pentene 6.26 C6 Terminal Alkenes 6.17 1-Heptene 4.56 1-Octene 3.45 C8 Terminal Alkenes 3.45 1-Nonene 2.76 C9 Terminal Alkenes 2.76 1-Decene 2.28 C10 Terminal Alkenes 2.28 1-Undecene 1.95 C11 Terminal Alkenes 1.95 C12 Terminal Alkenes 1.72 1-Dodecene 1.72 1-Tridecene 1.55 C13 Terminal Alkenes 1.55 1-Tetradecene 1.41 C14 Terminal Alkenes 1.41 1-Pentadecene 1.37 C15 Terminal Alkenes 1.37 2-Methyl Pentene (Isobutene) 6.35 2-Methyl-1-Butene 6.51 2,3-Dimethyl-1-Butene 4.77 2-Ethyl-1-Butene 5.04 2-Methyl-1-Pentene 5.18 2,3,3-Trimethyl-1-Butene 4.62 C7 Terminal Alkenes 4.56 3-Methyl-2-Isopropyl-1-Butene 3.29 cis-2-Butene 13.22 trans-2-Butene 13.91 C4 Internal Alkenes 13.57 2-Methyl-2-Butene 14.45 cis-2-Pentene 10.24 trans-2-Pentene 10.23 2-Pentenes 10.23 C5 Internal Alkenes 10.23 2,3-Dimethyl-2-Butene 13.32 2-Methyl-2-Pentene 12.28 cis-2-Hexene 8.44 cis-3-Hexene 8.22 cis-3-Methyl-2-Pentene 12.84 cis-3-Methyl-2-Hexene 13.38 trans 3-Methyl-2-Hexene 14.17 trans 4-Methyl-2-Hexene 7.88 trans-2-Hexene 8.44 trans-3-Hexene 8.16 2-Hexenes 8.44 C6 Internal Alkenes 8.44 2,3-Dimethyl-2-Hexene 10.41 cis-3-Heptene 6.96 trans-4,4-Dimethyl-2-Pentene 6.99 trans-2-Heptene 7.33 trans-3-Heptene 6.96 2-Heptenes 6.96 C7 Internal Alkenes 6.96 cis-4-Octene 5.94 trans-2,2-Dimethyl-3-Hexene 5.97 trans-2,5-Dimethyl-3-Hexene 5.44 trans-3-Octene 6.13 trans-4-Octene 5.90 3-Octenes 6.13 C8 Internal Alkenes 5.90 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-Pentene 5.85 3-Nonenes 5.31 C9 Internal Alkenes 5.31 trans-4-Nonene 5.23 3,4-Diethyl-2-Hexene 3.95 cis-5-Decene 4.89 trans-4-Decene 4.50 C10 3-Alkenes 4.50 C10 Internal Alkenes 4.50 trans-5-Undecene 4.23 C11 3-Alkenes 4.23 C11 Internal Alkenes 4.23 C12 2-Alkenes 3.75 C12 3-Alkenes 3.75 C12 Internal Alkenes 3.75 trans-5-Dodecene 3.74 trans-5-Tridecene 3.38 C13 3-Alkenes 3.38 C13 Internal Alkenes 3.38 trans-5-Tetradecene 3.08 C14 3-Alkenes 3.08 C14 Internal Alkenes 3.08 trans-5-Pentadecene 2.82 C15 3-Alkenes 2.82 C15 Internal Alkenes 2.82 C4 Alkenes 11.93 C5 Alkenes 9.01 C6 Alkenes 6.88 C7 Alkenes 5.76 C8 Alkenes 4.68 C9 Alkenes 4.03 C10 Alkenes 3.39 C11 Alkenes 3.09 C12 Alkenes 2.73 C13 Alkenes 2.46 C14 Alkenes 2.28 C15 Alkenes 2.06 Cyclopentene 7.38 1-Methyl Cyclopentene 13.95 Cyclohexene 5.45 1-Methyl Cyclohexene 7.81 4-Methyl Cyclohexene 4.48 1,2-Dimethyl Cyclohexene 6.77 1,3-Butadiene 13.58 Isoprene 10.69 C6 Cyclic or Di-olefins 8.65 C7 Cyclic or Di-olefins 7.49 C8 Cyclic or Di-olefins 6.01 C9 Cyclic or Di-olefins 5.40 C10 Cyclic or Di-olefins 4.56 C11 Cyclic or Di-olefins 4.29 C12 Cyclic or Di-olefins 3.79 C13 Cyclic or Di-olefins 3.42 C14 Cyclic or Di-olefins 3.11 C15 Cyclic or Di-olefins 2.85 Cyclopentadiene 7.61 3-Carene 3.21 a-Pinene (Pine Oil) 4.29 b-Pinene 3.28 d-Limonene (Dipentene or Orange Terpene) 3.99 Sabinene 3.67 Terpene 3.79 Styrene 1.95 a-Methyl Styrene 1.72 C9 Styrenes 1.72 C10 Styrenes 1.53 Benzene 0.81 Toluene 3.97 Ethyl Benzene 2.79 Cumene (Isopropyl Benzene) 2.32 n-Propyl Benzene 2.20 C9 Monosubstituted Benzenes 2.20 s-Butyl Benzene 1.97 C10 Monosubstituted Benzenes 1.97 n-Butyl Benzene 1.97 C11 Monosubstituted Benzenes 1.78 C12 Monosubstituted Benzenes 1.63 C13 Monosubstituted Benzenes 1.50 m-Xylene 10.61 o-Xylene 7.49 p-Xylene 4.25 C8 Disubstituted Benzenes 7.48 m-Ethyl Toluene 9.37 p-Ethyl Toluene 3.75 o-Ethyl Toluene 6.61 C9 Disubstituted Benzenes 6.61 o-Diethyl Benzene 5.92 m-Diethyl Benzene 8.39 p-Diethyl Benzene 3.36 C10 Disubstituted Benzenes 5.92 C11 Disubstituted Benzenes 5.35 C12 Disubstituted Benzenes 4.90 C13 Disubstituted Benzenes 4.50 Isomers of Ethylbenzene 5.16 1,2,3-Trimethyl Benzene 11.26 1,2,4-Trimethyl Benzene 7.18 1,3,5-Trimethyl Benzene 11.22 C9 Trisubstituted Benzenes 9.90 Isomers of Propylbenzene 6.12 1,2,3,5-Tetramethyl Benzene 8.25 C10 Tetrasubstituted Benzenes 8.86 C10 Trisubstituted Benzenes 8.86 Isomers of Butylbenzene 5.48 C11 Pentasubstituted Benzenes 8.03 C11 Tetrasubstituted Benzenes 8.03 C11 Trisubstituted Benzenes 8.03 Isomers of Pentylbenzene 4.96 C12 Pentasubstituted Benzenes 7.33 C12 Hexasubstituted Benzenes 7.33 C12 Tetrasubstituted Benzenes 7.33 C12 Trisubstituted Benzenes 7.33 Isomers of Hexylbenzene 4.53 C13 Trisubstituted Benzenes 6.75 Indene 3.21 Indane 3.17 Naphthalene 3.26 Tetralin 2.83 Methyl Indans 2.83 Methyl Naphthalenes 4.61 1-Methyl Naphthalene 4.61 2-Methyl Naphthalene 4.61 C11 Tetralin or Indane 2.56 2,3-Dimethyl Naphthalene 5.54 C12 Disubstituted Naphthalenes 5.54 Dimethyl Naphthalenes 5.54 C12 Monosubstituted Naphthalenes 4.20 C12 Tetralin or Indane 2.33 C13 Disubstituted Naphthalenes 5.08 C13 Trisubstituted Naphthalenes 5.08 C13 Monosubstituted Naphthalenes 3.86 Acetylene 1.25 Methyl Acetylene 6.45 2-Butyne 16.33 Ethyl Acetylene 6.20 Methanol 0.71 Ethanol 1.69 Isopropanol (2-Propanol or Isopropyl Alcohol) 0.71 n-Propanol (n-Propyl Alcohol) 2.74 Isobutanol (Isobutyl Alcohol) 2.24 1-Butanol (n-Butyl Alcohol) 3.34 2-Butanol (s-Butyl Alcohol) 1.60 t-Butyl Alcohol 0.45 Cyclopentanol 1.96 2-Pentanol 1.74 3-Pentanol 1.73 n-Pentanol (Amyl Alcohol) 3.35 Isoamyl Alcohol (3-Methyl-1-Butanol) 2.73 2-Methyl-1-Butanol 2.60 Cyclohexanol 2.25 1-Hexanol 2.74 2-Hexanol 2.46 4-Methyl-2-Pentanol (Methyl Isobutyl Carbinol) 2.89 1-Heptanol 2.21 Dimethylpentanol (2,3-Dimethyl-1-Pentanol) 2.51 1-Octanol 2.01 2-Ethyl-1-Hexanol (Ethyl Hexyl Alcohol) 2.20 2-Octanol 2.16 3-Octanol 2.57 4-Octanol 3.07 5-Methyl-1-Heptanol 1.95 Trimethylcyclohexanol 2.17 Dimethylheptanol (2,6-Dimethyl-2-Heptanol) 1.07 2,6-Dimethyl-4-Heptanol 2.37 Menthol 1.70 Isodecyl Alcohol (8-Methyl-1-Nonanol) 1.23 1-Decanol 1.22 3,7-Dimethyl-1-Octanol 1.42 Trimethylnonanolthreoerythro; 2,6,8-Trimethyl-4Nonanol 1.55 Ethylene Glycol 3.36 Propylene Glycol 2.75 1,2-Butanediol 2.21 Glycerol (1,2,3-Propanetriol) 3.27 1,4-Butanediol 3.22 Pentaerythritol 2.42 1,2-Dihydroxy Hexane 2.75 2-Methyl-2,4-Pentanediol 1.04 2-Ethyl-1,3-Hexanediol 2.62 Dimethyl Ether 0.93 Trimethylene Oxide 5.22 1,3-Dioxolane 5.47 Dimethoxymethane 1.04 Tetrahydrofuran 4.95 Diethyl Ether 4.01 1,4-Dioxane 2.71 Alpha-Methyltetrahydrofuran 4.62 Tetrahydropyran 3.81 Ethyl Isopropyl Ether 3.86 Methyl n-Butyl Ether 3.66 Methyl t-Butyl Ether 0.78 2,2-Dimethoxypropane 0.52 Di n-Propyl Ether 3.24 Ethyl n-Butyl Ether 3.86 Ethyl t-Butyl Ether 2.11 Methyl t-Amyl Ether 2.14 Di-isopropyl Ether 3.56 Ethylene Glycol Diethyl Ether; 1,2Diethoxyethane 2.84 Acetal (1,1-Diethoxyethane) 3.68 4,4-Dimethyl-3-Oxahexane 2.03 2-Butyl Tetrahydrofuran 2.53 Di-Isobutyl Ether 1.29 Di-n-butyl Ether 3.17 2-Methoxy-1-(2-Methoxy-1-Methylethoxy)Propane 2.09 Di-n-Pentyl Ether 2.64 Ethylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether (2Methoxyethanol) 2.98 Propylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether (1-Methoxy2-Propanol) 2.62 2-Ethoxyethanol 3.78 2-Methoxy-1-Propanol 3.01 3-Methoxy-1-Propanol 4.01 Diethylene Glycol 3.55 Tetrahydro-2-Furanmethanol 3.54 Propylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether (1-Ethoxy-2Propanol) 3.25 Ethylene Glycol Monopropyl Ether (2Propoxyethanol) 3.52 3-Ethoxy-1-Propanol 4.24 3-Methoxy-1-Butanol 0.97 Diethylene Glycol Methyl Ether [2-(2Methoxyethoxy) Ethanol] 2.90 Propylene Glycol Monopropyl Ether (1-Propoxy2-Propanol) 2.86 Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether [2Butoxyethanol] 2.90 3-Methoxy-3-Methyl-Butanol 1.74 n-Propoxypropanol 3.84 2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy) Ethanol 3.19 Dipropylene Glycol 2.48 Triethylene Glycol 3.41 Propylene Glycol t-Butyl Ether (1-tert-Butoxy-2Propanol) 1.71 2-tert-Butoxy-1-Propanol 1.81 n-Butoxy-2-Propanol 2.70 Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether Isomer (1Methoxy-2-[2-Hydroxypropoxy]-Propane) 2.21 Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether Isomer (2-[2Methoxypropoxy]-1-Propanol) 3.02 2-Hexyloxyethanol 2.45 2-(2-Propoxyethoxy) Ethanol 3.00 2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-Pentanediol 1.74 2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)-Ethanol 2.70 2-[2-(2-Methoxyethoxy) Ethoxy] Ethanol 2.62 Dipropylene Glycol Ethyl Ether 2.75 Ethylene Glycol 2-Ethylhexyl Ether [2-(2Ethylhexyloxy) Ethanol] 1.71 2-[2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy) Ethoxy] Ethanol 2.66 Tetraethylene Glycol 2.84 1-(Butoxyethoxy)-2-Propanol 2.08 2-(2-Hexyloxyethoxy) Ethanol 2.03 Glycol Ether dpnb (1-(2-Butoxy-1-Methylethoxy)2-Propanol) 1.96 2-[2-(2-Propoxyethoxy) Ethoxy] Ethanol 2.46 2-[2-(2-Butoxyethoxy) Ethoxy] Ethanol 2.24 Tripropylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether 1.90 2,5,8,11-Tetraoxatridecan-13-ol 2.15 3,6,9,12-Tetraoxahexadecan-1-ol 1.90 Cumene Hydroperoxide (1-Methyl-1Phenylethylhydroperoxide) 12.61 Methyl Formate 0.06 Ethyl Formate 0.52 Methyl Acetate 0.07 gamma-Butyrolactone 1.15 Ethyl Acetate 0.64 Methyl Propionate 0.71 n-Propyl Formate 0.93 Isopropyl Formate 0.42 Ethyl Propionate 0.79 Isopropyl Acetate 1.12 Methyl Butyrate 1.18 Methyl Isobutyrate 0.70 n-Butyl Formate 0.95 Propyl Acetate 0.87 Ethyl Butyrate 1.25 Isobutyl Acetate 0.67 Methyl Pivalate (2,2-Dimethyl Propanoic Acid Methyl Ester) 0.39 n-Butyl Acetate 0.89 n-Propyl Propionate 0.93 s-Butyl Acetate 1.43 t-Butyl Acetate 0.20 Butyl Propionate 0.89 Amyl Acetate 0.96 n-Propyl Butyrate 1.17 Isoamyl Acetate (3-Methylbutyl Acetate) 1.18 2-Methyl-1-Butyl Acetate 1.17 EEP Solvent (Ethyl 3-Ethoxy Propionate) 3.61 2,3-Dimethylbutyl Acetate 0.84 2-Methylpentyl Acetate 1.11 3-Methylpentyl Acetate 1.31 4-Methylpentyl Acetate 0.92 Isobutyl Isobutyrate 0.61 n-Butyl Butyrate 1.12 n-Hexyl Acetate (Hexyl Acetate) 0.87 Methyl Amyl Acetate (4-Methyl-2-Pentanol Acetate) 1.46 n-Pentyl Propionate 0.79 2,4-Dimethylpentyl Acetate 0.98 2-Methylhexyl Acetate 0.89 3-Ethylpentyl Acetate 1.24 3-Methylhexyl Acetate 1.01 4-Methylhexyl Acetate 0.91 5-Methylhexyl Acetate 0.79 Isoamyl Isobutyrate 0.89 n-Heptyl Acetate (Heptyl Acetate) 0.73 2,4-Dimethylhexyl Acetate 0.93 2-Ethyl-Hexyl Acetate 0.79 3,4-Dimethylhexyl Acetate 1.16 3,5-Dimethylhexyl Acetate 1.09 3-Ethylhexyl Acetate 1.03 3-Methylheptyl Acetate 0.76 4,5-Dimethylhexyl Acetate 0.86 4-Methylheptyl Acetate 0.72 5-Methylheptyl Acetate 0.73 n-Octyl Acetate 0.64 2,3,5-Trimethylhexyl Acetate 0.86 2,3-Dimethylheptyl Acetate 0.84 2,4-Dimethylheptyl Acetate 0.88 2,5-Dimethylheptyl Acetate 0.86 2-Methyloctyl Acetate 0.63 3,5-Dimethylheptyl Acetate 1.01 3,6-Dimethylheptyl Acetate 0.87 3-Ethylheptyl Acetate 0.71 4,5-Dimethylheptyl Acetate 0.96 4,6-Dimethylheptyl Acetate 0.83 4-Methyloctyl Acetate 0.68 5-Methyloctyl Acetate 0.67 n-Nonyl Acetate 0.58 3,6-Dimethyloctyl Acetate 0.88 3-Isopropylheptyl Acetate 0.71 4,6-Dimethyloctyl Acetate 0.85 3,5,7-Trimethyloctyl Acetate 0.83 3-Ethyl-6-Methyloctyl Acetate 0.80 4,7-Dimethylnonyl Acetate 0.64 Methyl Dodecanoate (Methyl Laurate) 0.53 2,3,5,7-Tetramethyloctyl Acetate 0.74 3,5,7-Trimethylnonyl Acetate 0.76 3,6,8-Trimethylnonyl Acetate 0.72 2,4,6,8-Tetramethylnonyl Acetate 0.63 3-Ethyl-6,7-Dimethylnonyl Acetate 0.76 4,7,9-Trimethyldecyl Acetate 0.55 Methyl Myristate (Methyl Tetradecanoate) 0.47 2,3,5,6,8-Pentaamethylnonyl Acetate 0.74 3,5,7,9-Tetramethyldecyl Acetate 0.58 5-Ethyl-3,6,8-Trimethylnonyl Acetate 0.77 Dimethyl Carbonate 0.06 Propylene Carbonate (4-Methyl-1,3-Dioxolan-2one) 0.25 Methyl Lactate 2.75 2-Methoxyethyl Acetate 1.18 Ethyl Lactate 2.71 Methyl Isopropyl Carbonate 0.69 Propylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether Acetate (1Methoxy-2-Propyl Acetate) 1.71 2-Ethoxyethyl Acetate 1.90 2-Methoxy-1-Propyl Acetate 1.12 Methoxypropanol Acetate 1.97 Dimethyl Succinate 0.23 Ethylene Glycol Diacetate 0.72 1,2-Propylene Glycol Diacetate 0.94 Diisopropyl Carbonate 1.04 Dimethyl Glutarate 0.51 Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether Acetate (2Butoxyethyl Acetate) 1.67 Dimethyl Adipate 1.95 2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy) Ethyl Acetate 1.50 Dipropylene Glycol n-Propyl Ether Isomer #1 2.13 Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether Acetate Isomer #1 1.41 Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether Acetate Isomer #2 1.58 Dipropylene Glycol Methyl Ether Acetate 1.49 Glyceryl Triacetate 0.57 2-(2-Butoxyethoxy) Ethyl Acetate 1.38 Substituted C7 Ester

(C12)0.92 1-Hydroxy-2,2,4-Trimethylpentyl-3-Isobutyrate 0.92 3-Hydroxy-2,2,4-Trimethylpentyl-1-Isobutyrate 0.88 Hydroxy-2,2,4-Trimethylpentyl Isobutyrate Isomers (2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-Pentanediol Monoisobutyrate) 0.89 Substituted C9 Ester

(C12)0.89 Dimethyl Sebacate 0.48 Diisopropyl Adipate 1.42 Ethylene Oxide 0.05 Propylene Oxide 0.32 1,2-Epoxybutane (Ethyl Oxirane) 1.02 Formic Acid 0.08 Acetic Acid 0.71 Glycolic Acid (Hydroxyacetic Acid) 2.67 Peracetic Acid (Peroxyacetic Acid) 12.62 Acrylic Acid 11.66 Propionic Acid 1.16 Methacrylic Acid 18.78 Isobutyric Acid 1.22 Butanoic Acid 1.78 Malic Acid 7.51 3-Methylbutanoic Acid 4.26 Adipic Acid 3.37 2-Ethyl Hexanoic Acid 4.41 Methyl Acrylate 12.24 Vinyl Acetate 3.26 2-Methyl-2-Butene-3-ol (1,2-Dimethylpropyl-1en-1-ol) 5.12 Ethyl Acrylate 8.78 Methyl Methacrylate 15.84 Hydroxypropyl Acrylate 5.56 n-Butyl Acrylate 5.52 Isobutyl Acrylate 5.05 Butyl Methacrylate 9.09 Isobutyl Methacrylate 8.99 Isobornyl Methacrylate 8.64 a-Terpineol 5.16 2-Ethyl-Hexyl Acrylate 2.42 Furan 16.54 Formaldehyde 8.97 Acetaldehyde 6.84 Propionaldehyde 7.89 2-Methylpropanal 5.87 Butanal 6.74 C4 Aldehydes 6.74 2,2-Dimethylpropanal (Pivaldehyde) 5.40 3-Methylbutanal (Isovaleraldehyde) 5.52 Pentanal (Valeraldehyde) 5.76 C5 Aldehydes 5.76 Glutaraldehyde 4.79 Hexanal 4.98 C6 Aldehydes 4.98 Heptanal 4.23 C7 Aldehydes 4.23 2-Methyl-Hexanal 3.97 Octanal 3.65 C8 Aldehydes 3.65 Glyoxal 14.22 Methyl Glyoxal 16.21 Acrolein 7.60 Crotonaldehyde 10.07 Methacrolein 6.23 Hydroxy Methacrolein 6.61 Benzaldehyde 0.00 Tolualdehyde 0.00 Acetone 0.43 Cyclobutanone 0.68 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) 1.49 Cyclopentanone 1.43 C5 Cyclic Ketones 1.43 Methyl Propyl Ketone (2-Pentanone) 3.07 3-Pentanone 1.45 C5 Ketones 3.07 Methyl Isopropyl Ketone 1.64 2,4-Pentanedione 1.02 Cyclohexanone 1.61 C6 Cyclic Ketones 1.61 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (4-Methyl-2-Pentanone) 4.31 Methyl n-Butyl Ketone (2-Hexanone) 3.55 Methyl t-Butyl Ketone 0.78 C6 Ketones 3.55 C7 Cyclic Ketones 1.41 Methyl Amyl Ketone (2-Heptanone) 2.80 2-Methyl-3-Hexanone 1.79 Di-Isopropyl Ketone 1.63 C7 Ketones 2.80 3-Methyl-2-Hexanone 2.81 Methyl Isoamyl Ketone (5-Methyl-2-Hexanone) 2.10 C8 Cyclic Ketones 1.25 2-Octanone 1.66 C8 Ketones 1.66 C9 Cyclic Ketones 1.13 2-Propyl Cyclohexanone 1.71 4-Propyl Cyclohexanone 2.08 2-Nonanone 1.30 Di-Isobutyl Ketone (2,6-Dimethyl-4-Heptanone) 2.94 C9 Ketones 1.30 C10 Cyclic Ketones 1.02 2-Decanone 1.06 C10 Ketones 1.06 2,6,8-Trimethyl-4-Nonanone; Isobutyl Heptyl Ketone 1.86 Biacetyl 20.73 Methylvinyl ketone 8.73 Mesityl Oxide (2-Methyl-2-Penten-4-one) 17.37 Isophorone (3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexenone) 10.58 1-Nonene-4-one 3.39 Hydroxy Acetone 3.08 Dihydroxyacetone 4.02 Methoxy Acetone 2.14 Diacetone Alcohol (4-Hydroxy-4-Methyl-2Pentanone) 0.68 Phenol 1.82 C7 Alkyl Phenols 2.34 m-Cresol 2.34 p-Cresol 2.34 o-Cresol 2.34 C8 Alkyl Phenols 2.07 C9 Alkyl Phenols 1.86 C10 Alkyl Phenols 1.68 C11 Alkyl Phenols 1.54 C12 Alkyl Phenols 1.42 2-Phenoxyethanol; Ethylene Glycol Phenyl Ether 3.61 1-Phenoxy-2-Propanol 1.73 Nitrobenzene 0.07 Para Toluene Isocyanate 0.93 Toluene Diisocyanate (Mixed Isomers) 0.00 Methylene Diphenylene Diisocyanate 0.79 N-Methyl Acetamide 19.70 Dimethyl Amine 9.37 Ethyl Amine 7.80 Trimethyl Amine 7.06 Triethyl Amine 16.60 Diethylenetriamine 13.03 Ethanolamine 5.97 Dimethylaminoethanol 4.76 Monoisopropanol Amine (1-Amino-2-Propanol) 13.42 2-Amino-2-Methyl-1-Propanol 15.08 Diethanol Amine 4.05 Triethanolamine 2.76 Methyl Pyrrolidone (N-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone) 2.56 Morpholine 15.43 Nitroethane 12.79 Nitromethane 7.86 1-Nitropropane 16.16 2-Nitropropane 16.16 Dexpanthenol (Pantothenylol) 9.35 Methyl Ethyl Ketoxime (Ethyl Methyl Ketone Oxime) 22.04 Hydroxyethylethylene Urea 14.75 Methyl Chloride 0.03 Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane) 0.07 Methyl Bromide 0.02 Chloroform 0.03 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.00 Methylene Bromide 0.00 Vinyl Chloride 2.92 Ethyl Chloride 0.25 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.10 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.10 Ethyl Bromide 0.11 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.00 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.06 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.05 n-Propyl Bromide 0.35 n-Butyl Bromide 0.60 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.81 Trichloroethylene 0.60 Perchloroethylene 0.04 2-(Chloro-Methyl)-3-Chloro Propene 1.13 Monochlorobenzene 0.36 p-Dichlorobenzene 0.20 Benzotrifluoride 0.26 PCBTF (p-Trifluoromethyl-Cl-Benzene) 0.11 HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane) 0.00 HFC-152a (1,1-Difluoroethane) 0.00 Dimethyl Sulfoxide 6.90 Unspeciated C6 Alkanes 1.48 Unspeciated C7 Alkanes 1.79 Unspeciated C8 Alkanes 1.64 Unspeciated C9 Alkanes 2.13 Unspeciated C10 Alkanes 1.16 Unspeciated C11 Alkanes 0.90 Unspeciated C12 Alkanes 0.81 Unspeciated C13 Alkanes 0.73 Unspeciated C14 Alkanes 0.67 Unspeciated C15 Alkanes 0.61 Unspeciated C16 Alkanes 0.55 Unspeciated C17 Alkanes 0.52 Unspeciated C18 Alkanes 0.49 Unspeciated C10 Aromatics 5.48 Unspeciated C11 Aromatics 4.96 Unspeciated C12 Aromatics 4.53 Base ROG Mixture 3.71 Alkane, Mixed—Predominantly (Minimally 94%) C13-14 0.67 Oxo-Hexyl Acetate 1.03 Oxo-Heptyl Acetate 0.97 Oxo-Octyl Acetate 0.96 Oxo-Nonyl Acetate 0.85 Oxo-Decyl Acetate 0.83 Oxo-Dodecyl Acetate 0.72 Oxo-Tridecyl Acetate 0.67 Table 2B To Subpart E of Part 59.—Reactivity Factors for Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Solvent Mixtures Bin Average Boiling Point* (degrees F) Criteria Reactivity factor 1 80-205 Alkanes (<2% Aromatics) 2.08 2 80-205 N- & Iso-Alkanes (≥90% and <2% Aromatics) 1.59 3 80-205 Cyclo-Alkanes (≥90% and <2% Aromatics) 2.52 4 80-205 Alkanes (2 to <8% Aromatics) 2.24 5 80-205 Alkanes (8 to 22% Aromatics) 2.56 6 >205-340 Alkanes (<2% Aromatics) 1.41 7 >205-340 N- & Iso-Alkanes (≥90% and <2% Aromatics) 1.17 8 >205-340 Cyclo-Alkanes (≥90% and <2% Aromatics) 1.65 9 >205-340 Alkanes (2 to <8% Aromatics) 1.62 10 >205-340 Alkanes (8 to 22% Aromatics) 2.03 11 >340-460 Alkanes (<2% Aromatics) 0.91 12 >340-460 N- & Iso-Alkanes (≥90% and <2% Aromatics) 0.81 13 >340-460 Cyclo-Alkanes (≥90% and <2% Aromatics) 1.01 14 >340-460 Alkanes (2 to <8% Aromatics) 1.21 15 >340-460 Alkanes (8 to 22% Aromatics) 1.82 16 >460-580 Alkanes (<2% Aromatics) 0.57 17 >460-580 N- & Iso-Alkanes (≥90% and <2% Aromatics) 0.51 18 >460-580 Cyclo-Alkanes (>90% and <2% Aromatics) 0.63 19 >460-580 Alkanes (2 to <8% Aromatics) 0.88 20 >460-580 Alkanes (8 to 22% Aromatics) 1.49 * Average Boiling Point = (Initial Boiling Point + Dry Point)/2(b) Aromatic Hydrocarbon Solvents Table 2C To Subpart E of Part 63.—Reactivity Factors for Aromatic Hydrocarbon Solvent Mixtures Bin Boiling range (degrees F) Criteria Reactivity factor 21 280-290 Aromatic Content (≥98%) 7.37 22 320-350 Aromatic Content (≥98%) 7.51 23 355-420 Aromatic Content (≥98%) 8.07 24 450-535 Aromatic Content (≥98%) 5.00 [FR Doc. E7-13108 Filed 7-13-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 135 Monday, July 16, 2007 Presidential Documents Part V The President Proclamation 8161—Parents' Day, 2007 Title 3— The President Proclamation 8161 of July 12, 2007 Parents' Day, 2007 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation On Parents' Day, America honors our mothers and fathers for their extraordinary devotion and for the great sacrifices they make to provide a hopeful and promising future for their children. The guidance and unconditional love of parents help create a nurturing environment so children can grow and reach their full potential. Parents work to impart to their children the strength and determination to follow their dreams and the courage to do what is right. They shape the character of their children by sharing their wisdom and setting a positive example. As role models, parents also instill the values and principles that help prepare children to be responsible adults and good citizens. My Administration is committed to strengthening American families by supporting Federal, State, and faith-based and community programs that promote healthy marriages and responsible parenting. Parents are a child's first teachers, and we recognize their critical role in helping children do well in school. My Administration is committed to helping parents and schools ensure that every child has the best opportunity to learn and succeed. On Parents' Day, we pay tribute to mothers and fathers and celebrate the special bonds of love between parents and their children. We also express our deep gratitude to parents who serve in the Armed Forces and those whose sons and daughters have answered the call to defend our country. Our Nation is grateful for their honorable service and for the sacrifices family members make as their loved ones work to advance the cause of freedom. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States and consistent with Public Law 103-362, as amended, do hereby proclaim Sunday, July 22, 2007, as Parents' Day. I call upon citizens, private organizations, and governmental bodies at all levels to engage in activities and educational efforts that recognize, support, and honor parents, and I encourage American sons and daughters to convey their love, respect, and appreciation to their parents. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second. GWBOLD.EPS [FR Doc. 07-3485 Filed 7-13-07; 11:07 am]

Connectionstraces to 39

Traces to 39 documents