October
24,
2003
Mr.
Jeffrey
Holmstead
Assistant
Administrator,
US
EPA
Ariel
Rios
Building
(
6101A)
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
RE:
Changes
to
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants:
Miscellaneous
Coating
Manufacturing;
Final
Rule
Dear
Mr.
Holmstead:

The
National
Paint
&
Coatings
Association
(
NPCA)
is
writing
to
request
your
intervention
in
the
above
referenced
rulemaking.
NPCA
has
identified
a
number
of
issues
with
the
signed
version
of
the
final
rule
and
communicated
such
to
the
project
lead,
Randy
McDonald.
NPCA
believes
that
most
of
these
changes
must
be
addressed
in
the
final
regulations
itself
in
order
for
facilities
to
comply
with
the
rule.
We
would
like
to
recognize
the
project
lead
on
this
rulemaking,
Randy
McDonald,
and
to
express
our
appreciation
to
Mr.
McDonald
for
his
assistance
in
addressing
these
issues
thus
far.
Through
our
conversations
and
communications
with
Mr.
McDonald,
we
believe
that
these
issues
will
be
appropriately
addressed,
however,
the
timing
of
EPA's
actions
in
this
regard
is
still
of
great
concern.

It
is
our
understanding
that
changes
to
the
final
version
will
not
be
made
prior
to
publication
in
the
Federal
Register,
but
thereafter
through
amendments.
In
addition,
it
is
also
our
understanding
that
EPA
intends
to
propose
these
amendments,
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking,
and
not
before
the
60
day
time
period
with
which
to
file
for
judicial
appeal
of
the
final
rule
has
expired.
For
the
reasons
outlined
below,
NPCA
reiterates
our
request
that
EPA
make
most
of
these
changes
prior
to
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register,
as
the
majority
of
the
changes
are
typographical
and
clarifying
in
nature
and
do
not
substantively
change
the
regulations.
In
the
alternative,
for
the
same
reasons,
EPA
should
issue
notice
of
correction
or
amendment
for
these
changes
at
the
same
time
or
as
soon
as
possible
after
the
final
rule's
publication
in
the
Federal
Register.
While
we
recognize
and
appreciate
EPA's
good
faith
attempt
at
resolving
these
issues,
to
wait
until
the
judicial
review
period
for
the
final
rule
has
passed
unfairly
deprives
stakeholders
of
a
statutorily
mandated
remedy
should
the
issues
not
be
adequately
addressed
thereafter.
Section
553(
b)
of
title
5
of
the
United
States
Code
(
U.
S.
C.)
and
Section
307
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
permit
EPA
to
forego
notice
and
comment
when
"
the
Agency
for
good
cause
finds
(
and
incorporates
the
finding
and
brief
statement
of
reasons
therefore
in
the
rule
issues)
that
notice
and
public
procedure
thereon
are
impracticable,
unnecessary,
or
contrary
to
the
public
interest."
NPCA
believes
that
the
majority
of
the
following
errors/
omissions/
clarifications
are
minor
technical
corrections
and
notice
and
comment
regarding
such
is
unnecessary
as
the
corrections
are
not
controversial
and
do
not
substantively
change
the
requirements
under
the
rule.

The
following
is
an
outline
of
the
corrections/
clarifications
that
need
to
be
made;
a
statement
of
basis
for
good
cause
under
5
U.
S.
C.
553(
b)
and
CAA
307
for
a
determination
that
the
issuance
of
a
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
is
unnecessary;
and
a
summary
of
our
conversations
with
EPA
on
adequate
resolutions
of
such.
Lastly,
we
have
included
two
issues
that
NPCA
believes
appropriate
for
notice
and
comment
rulemaking.
Thus,
NCPA
respectfully
requests
your
assistance
in
ensuring
the
following
technical
amendments/
corrections
be
promulgated
in,
along
with,
or
as
soon
as
possible
thereafter
(
and
before
the
expiration
of
the
60
day
judicial
review
period),
as
the
final
rule's
publication
in
the
Federal
Register
in
order
to
fully
facilitate
our
good
faith
efforts
to
promulgate
a
clear
and
accurate
final
rule.
NPCA
believes
the
last
two
issues
are
appropriate
for
and
can
be
fully
addressed
in
a
subsequent
notice
and
comment
amendment.

The
following
are
believed
to
be
errors/
omissions/
contradictions
in
the
signed
MCM
final
rule
that
need
to
be
addressed
in
the
final
rule
itself
or
shortly
thereafter
through
technical
corrections/
amendments.

1.
In
the
regulation
at
Table
1
­
1a.,
2.
a.,
2.
b.
and
3.
a.
(
process
tanks)
the
wording
is
very
problematic.
The
language
states
that
the
vessel
must
either
be
equipped
with
"
a
cover
or
lid
that
must
be
in
place
at
all
times
when
the
vessel
contains
a
HAP
(
1.
a.
and
2.
a.);
or
"
with
a
tightly
fitting
vented
cover
or
lid
that
must
be
closed
at
all
times
when
the
vessel
contains
a
HAP"(
2.
b.
and
3.
a.)
(
emphasis
added).
This
appears
to
suggest
that
there
is
no
allowance
for
any
opening
of
lids/
covers
during
processing
or
cleaning,
which
would
effectively
make
the
rule
impossible
for
any
coating
manufacturer
to
comply
with.
This
also
contradicts
the
preamble
and
regulation
itself
which
specifically
exempts
manual
cleaning
operations
and
systems
used
with
closed
vent
systems
to
"
draw
ambient
air
away
from
operators
when
vessels
are
opened..."
(
emphasis
added).
See
§
63.8105(
g)
and
Part
IV
Summary
of
Responses
to
Major
Comments
under
C.
Standards
for
Process
Vessels.
*
This
concept
is
fully
explored
in
the
proposed
regulation
and
response
to
comments
of
the
final
rule.
The
change
merely
corrects
a
contradiction
in
the
regulation
itself
(
between
the
regulatory
language
itself
and
language
used
subsequently
in
a
summary
Table).
*
EPA
proposed
changing
the
language
to
read:
"
with
a
tightly
fitting
vented
cover
or
lid
that
must
be
closed
at
all
times
when
the
vessel
contains
a
HAP,
except
for
material
additions
and
sampling."
NPCA
agreed
this
would
clarify
the
actual
intent
of
the
regulation
and
keep
the
terminology
consistent
throughout
the
process
tanks
sections.

2.
§
63.7995(
c)
­
"
If
you
add
equipment
to
your
existing
affected
source
after
[
INSERT
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THIS
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER]
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
for
existing
sources
in
this
subpart
upon
start­
up
of
the
added
equipment"
(
emphasis
added).
This
appears
to
be
in
error
as
there
is
no
precedent
either
in
the
proposal
or
in
the
general
provisions
applicable
to
the
subpart
under
the
regulation
at
§
63.8095
(
listed
at
Table
10)
for
eliminating
the
three­
year
compliance
timeline
for
existing
sources
that
add
equipment
after
the
date
the
final
rule
is
published.
Instead
this
language
should
be
deleted
in
favor
of
the
reference
to
the
General
Provisions
(
§
63.6(
c)(
1)­(
2))
already
provided
for
at
Table
10
or
the
bracketed
language
must
be
replaced
with
the
date
3
years
after
the
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
*
This
is
clearly
a
mistake
in
the
boilerplate
language
used
in
the
standards
as
well
as
the
general
provisions
to
identify
when
an
existing
source
or
new
source
must
comply
with
the
regulations.
*
EPA
proposed
changing
the
language
to
address
new
sources
and/
or
when
an
existing
source
adds
a
modification
after
the
compliance
date
of
the
rule.
NPCA
agreed
this
correction
would
be
appropriate.

3.
Part
IV
Summary
of
Responses
to
Major
Comments
under
C.
Standards
for
Process
Vessels
­
"
Finally,
we
have
not
required
control
of
cleaning
that
is
accomplished
manually.
However,
emissions
resulting
from
automatic
wash
systems
are
required
to
be
considered
and
controlled."
This
is
not
carried
forward
into
the
regulations
­
the
regulation
itself
makes
no
mention
of
manual
vs.
automatic
cleaning
operations,
only
stating
at
§
63.7985(
b)
that
"
Miscellaneous
coating
manufacturing
operations
also
include
cleaning
operations."
This
statement
appears
to
mandate
all
cleaning
operations
have
to
be
controlled,
contrary
to
the
preamble
language.
*
This
concept
is
fully
explored
in
the
proposed
regulation
and
response
to
comments
of
the
final
rule.
The
change
merely
corrects
an
inadvertent
omission
in
the
regulation
and
current
contradiction
between
the
preamble
of
the
final
rule
and
the
regulation
itself.
*
EPA
initially
stated
that
this
would
be
corrected
through
implementation
guidance,
however,
upon
further
review
agreed
that
it
needed
to
be
addressed
in
the
regulation
itself
and
proposed
changing
the
language
to
read:
"
Miscellaneous
coating
manufacturing
operations
also
include
automatic
cleaning
operations."
NPCA
agreed
this
would
clarify
the
actual
intent
of
the
regulation,
stating
that
since
facilities
would
be
held
to
the
strict
language
of
the
regulation
they
could
not
merely
rely
on
the
preamble
language
or
implementation
tools
in
order
to
understand
and
implement
the
rule's
standards
and
prove
compliance.

4.
In
the
regulation
at
Table
1
­
2.
a.
i.
and
2.
b.
i.
(
process
tanks)
the
wording
is
problematic.
Instead
of
using
the
"
reduce
emissions
of
total
organic
HAP
...
75%
by
weight
for
process
vessels
with
a
vapor
pressure
of
...,
and
60%
by
weight
for
process
vessels
with
a
vapor
pressure
of...,"
that
is
used
for
the
rest
of
the
standards
in
Table
1,
the
terminology
is
changed
and
states
"...
reduce
emissions
by
75%
by
weight
"
for
each
HAP"
with
a
vapor
pressure...
(
emphasis
added)."
This
appears
to
suggests
that
the
standard
mandates
a
75%
reduction
on
each
speciated
HAP,
instead
of
a
total
75%
reduction
in
total
HAP
emissions
from
the
process
vessel
or,
depending
on
the
vapor
pressure
of
HAPs
contained
in
the
vessel,
a
60%
reduction
in
total
HAP
emissions.
*
This
is
clearly
a
mistake
in
wording
­
there
is
no
precedence
for
such
in
the
proposed
rule,
nor
mention
of
such
in
the
final
rule.
*
EPA
initially
stated
that
this
would
be
corrected
through
implementation
guidance,
however,
upon
further
review
agreed
that
it
needed
to
be
addressed
in
the
regulation
itself
and
proposed
changing
the
language
to
read:
"...
reduce
emissions
by
75%
by
weight
"
for
HAPs"
with
a
vapor
pressure..."
NPCA
agreed
this
would
clarify
the
actual
intent
of
the
regulation
and
keep
the
terminology
consistent
throughout
the
process
tanks
sections,
again
stating
that
since
facilities
would
be
held
to
the
strict
language
of
the
regulation
the
final
rule
must
be
absolutely
clear.

Lastly,
two
issues
have
been
raised
that
NPCA
feels
would
be
appropriate
to
propose
through
notice
and
comment
amendments.

5.
§
63.8055(
b)
only
allows
the
use
of
the
alternative
"
weight
percent
HAP
limit"
if
the
5
weight
percent
HAP
is
determined
through
testing
or
through
an
alternative
"
test"
method
approved
by
the
administrator.
There
is
no
rationale
or
precedence
in
the
final
rule
for
only
allowing
test
methods
to
be
used
to
determine
the
HAP
weight
percent,
nor
was
it
proposed.
In
fact,
the
regulation
allows
the
use
of
process
knowledge
in
lieu
of
testing
to
determine
whether
or
not
undiluted
and
uncontrolled
emissions
streams
contain
less
than
the
50
ppmv
HAP
threshold
for
process
vessel
vents.
See
§
63.8105(
g)
­
definition
of
process
vessel
vent.
In
addition,
the
same
issue
has
been
resolved
by
EPA
in
many
of
the
surface
coating
regulations.
Process
knowledge
and
formulation
data
may
be
used
in
lieu
of
testing.
If
there
is
a
discrepancy
between
the
two
for
compliance
purposes,
the
test
method
results
prevail,
unless,
after
consultation
a
demonstration
is
made
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
enforcement
agency
that
the
formulation
data
are
correct.
See
Miscellaneous
Metal
Parts
and
Products,
Metal
Can,
and
Plastic
Parts
and
Products
signed
final
rules.
*
NPCA
agrees
this
issue,
since
it
was
not
adequately
addressed
by
the
proposed
rule
or
in
the
response
to
comments
of
the
final
rule,
is
appropriate
for
notice
and
comment
amendment.

6.
§
63.8000(
d)(
v)
eliminates
the
option
of
using
total
organic
carbon
measurements
to
demonstrate
compliance.
There
is
no
rationale
or
precedence
given
in
the
final
rule
for
removing
this
option
between
proposal
and
final
rule,
nor
was
the
action
proposed.
*
NPCA
agrees
this
issue,
since
it
was
not
adequately
addressed
by
the
proposed
rule
or
in
the
response
to
comments
of
the
final
rule,
is
appropriate
for
notice
and
comment
amendment.

In
conclusion,
NPCA
greatly
appreciates
the
good
faith
attempts
Mr.
McDonald
has
made
to
address
these
corrections.
We
believe
that
if
addressed
as
per
our
discussions
as
outlined
above,
the
final
rule
would
be
sound.
However,
if
it
is
still
EPA's
impression
that
the
changes
can
not
be
facilitated
through
changes
before
the
publication
of
the
final
rule,
NPCA
requests
that
with
the
exception
of
the
last
two
issues,
the
above
corrections
be
issued
at
the
same
time
as
the
final
rule
or
as
close
as
possible
thereafter
and
before
the
time
for
petition
for
judicial
review
has
expired.
EPA
has
good
cause
to
issue
such
without
notice
and
comment.
To
do
so
after
the
time
for
judicial
review
of
the
final
rule
has
expired
unjustly
deprives
stakeholders
of
their
right
of
appeal
should
the
changes
not
be
appropriately
made.
And
to
do
so
with
notice
and
comment
proposal
unnecessarily
hinders
clarification
that
facilities
and
states
need
to
implement
this
regulation.

NPCA
has
worked
closely
with
the
other
industry
stakeholders
for
this
rulemaking,
the
Adhesive
and
Sealants
Council
(
ASC)
and
the
National
Association
of
Printing
Ink
Manufacturers
(
NAPIM),
who
support
our
requests
in
this
regard.
We
continue
to
explore
ways
of
resolving
these
issues
to
the
satisfaction
of
all
parties
and
would
be
happy
to
meet
with
you
to
discuss
such.
We
look
forward
to
your
prompt
response,
and
thank
you
in
advance
for
your
consideration.
Please
do
not
hesitate
to
contact
me
or
Dave
Darling
at
202.462.6272
should
you
have
any
questions
or
need
additional
information.

Sincerely,

/
s/
/
s/

Alison
Keane,
Counsel
David
Darling,
Director
Government
Affairs
Environmental
Affairs
cc:
Sally
Shaver,
EPA
Randy
Waite,
EPA
Kerry
Rodgers,
EPA
Barry
Elman,
EPA
Randy
McDonald,
EPA
Marcia
Mia,
EPA
Kevin
Bromberg,
SBA
Keith
Holman,
SBA
Edmond
Toy,
OMB
Docket#
A­
96­
04
