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

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

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

F. Other Reports

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

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

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

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

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

Most of the organic HAPs are VOC. Capture and control of HAP that are presently emitted will result in a decrease in VOC emissions. In addition, the proposed emission control systems used to reduce HAP emissions will reduce nonHAP VOC emissions as well. We do not have information on nonHAP VOC emissions from metal coil coating operations; consequently,
[[Page 44621]]
we cannot quantify the reduction of VOC emissions. However, the percent reduction should be similar to the percent reduction in HAP emissions (i.e., about 55 percent). Emissions of VOC have been associated with a variety of health and welfare impacts. The VOC emissions, together with nitrogen oxides, are precursors to the formation of ground level ozone, or smog. Exposure to ambient ozone is responsible for a series of public health impacts, such as alterations in lung capacity and aggravation of existing respiratory disease. Ozone exposure can also damage forests and crops.

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

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

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

C. Energy Impacts

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

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

D. Cost Impacts

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

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

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

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

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

The Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) (included in the BID, EPA 453/P 00001) shows that the expected price increase for coated metal coils would be approximately 0.2 percent as a result of the proposed standards. Therefore, no adverse impact is expected to occur for those industries that consume coated metal coils such as building and construction, appliances, automotive parts, and other consumer products.

The distribution of costs across metal coil coating facilities is slanted toward the lower impact levels with many
[[Page 44622]]
facilities incurring no costs or only those related to initial performance testing and annually recurring monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The EIA indicates that these regulatory costs are expected to represent less than 1 percent of the value of coating services, which should not cause producers to cease or alter their current operations. Hence, no firms or facilities are at risk of closure because of the proposed standards. For more information, consult the docket for this project.
VIII. What Is the Basis for Selecting the Level of the Proposed Standards?

A. Source of Authority for Standards Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 44623]]

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

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

Data from the surveyed facilities were used to calculate an alternative facility emission rate limit. This rate was calculated by applying the 98 percent OCE to a precontrolled facility HAP emission rate representative for this industry. This calculation process, described in the BID (EPA 453/P0001), resulted in a facility HAP emission rate of 0.029 kg/l (0.24 lb/gal) of solids applied. IX. What Is the Basis for Selecting the Format of the Proposed Standards?

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

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

X. Why Did We Select the Proposed Monitoring Requirements?

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

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

XI. Why Did We Select the Proposed Test Methods?

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

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

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

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

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that
[[Page 44624]]
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule, the EPA did consult with State and local officials to enable them to provide timely input in the development of this proposed rule.
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

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

Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments own or operate metal coil coating operations. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposed rule.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

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

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks and because it is not ``economically significant.''

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 1044, 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 costbenefit 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 costeffective, or leastburdensome 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 costeffective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

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

In addition, the EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), As Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
[[Page 44625]]
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Ms. Rhea Jones, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 5412940, facsimile number (919) 5415689; electronic mail address: jones.rhea@epa.gov.