[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 76 (Monday, April 21, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19375-19443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-5615]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2003-0003: FRL-7461-7]
RIN 2060-AE79


National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emissions standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing reinforced 
plastic composites production facilities. The NESHAP regulate 
production and ancillary processes used to manufacture products with 
thermoset resins and gel coats. Reinforced plastic composites 
production facilities emit hazardous air pollutants (HAP), such as 
styrene, methyl methacrylate (MMA), and methylene chloride 
(dichloromethane). These HAP have adverse health effects including 
headache, fatigue, depression, irritation of skin, eyes, and mucous 
membranes. Methylene chloride has been classified as a probable human 
carcinogen. The NESHAP will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources in this category to meet HAP 
emissions standards reflecting the application of the maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT). We estimate the final NESHAP will 
reduce nationwide emissions of HAP from these facilities by 
approximately 7,682 tons per year (tpy) (43 percent).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 21, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0003 (formerly Docket No. A-
94-52) contains supporting information used in developing the 
standards. The docket is available for public viewing at the Office of 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket) in the EPA 
Docket Center, EPA West, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning 
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or 
local agency representative. For information concerning the analyses 
performed in developing the NESHAP, contact Keith Barnett, U.S. EPA, 
Emission Standards Division, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, 
C504-05, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5605, 
barnett.keith@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. We have established an official 
public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0003 
(formerly Docket No. A-94-52). The docket is an organized and complete 
file of the information considered by the EPA in the development of 
this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added 
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to 
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify 
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the 
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards 
and their preambles, the contents of the docket, excluding interagency 
review materials, will serve as the record in the case of judicial 
review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and 
other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in 
the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by 
calling (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
docket materials.
    Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, 
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, 
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available 
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available 
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available 
docket materials through the docket facility in the above paragraph 
entitled ``Docket.'' Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in 
the appropriate docket identification number.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's final NESHAP will also be available on 
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 
Administrator's signature, a copy of the NESHAP will be posted on the 
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules 
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more 
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at 
(919) 541-5384.

[[Page 19376]]

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                      NAICS code    SIC code       Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................       325211         2821  Reinforced plastic composites
                                                     326122         3084   production facilities that
                                                     325991         3087   manufacture intermediate and/or final
                                                     326191         3088   products using styrene containing
                                                ...........         3089   thermoset resins and gel coats.
                                                     327991         3281
                                                     327993         3296
                                                     332998         3431
                                                      33312         3531
                                                      33651         3531
                                                     335311         3612
                                                     335313         3613
                                                     335312         3621
                                                      33422         3663
                                                     336211         3711
                                                     336112         3711
                                                     336211         3713
                                                      33651  ...........
                                                      33653         3714
                                                     336399         3714
                                                      33612         3716
                                                     336213         3728
                                                     336413         3743
                                                     336214         3792
                                                ...........         3999
Federal Government............................  ...........  ...........  Federally owned facilities that
                                                                           manufacture intermediate and/or final
                                                                           products using styrene containing
                                                                           thermoset resins and gel coats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. Sec.  63.5785 and 
63.5787 of the final NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Judicial Review. The NESHAP for Reinforced Plastic Composites 
Manufacturing were proposed on August 2, 2001 (66 FR 40324). This 
action announces EPA's final decisions on the NESHAP. Under section 
307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the final NESHAP is available 
only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit by June 20, 2003. Under section 
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to a rule or procedure 
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 the final rule may not be 
challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceeding brought to 
enforce these requirements.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Introduction
    A. What is the purpose of NESHAP?
    B. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
    C. What processes and operations are included in the Reinforced 
Plastic Composites Production source category?
II. Summary of the Final NESHAP
    A. What source categories and subcategories are affected by the 
final NESHAP?
    B. What are the primary sources of HAP emissions and what are 
the emissions?
    C. What is the affected source?
    D. What are the HAP emissions limits, operating limits, and 
other standards?
    E. What are the HAP emissions factor equations in Table 1 to 
subpart WWWW of part 63, and how are they used in the final NESHAP?
    F. When would I need to comply with the final NESHAP?
    G. What are the options for demonstrating compliance?
    H. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
    I. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
    J. What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What facilities are affected by the final NESHAP?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the water quality impacts?
    D. What are the solid and hazardous waste impacts?
    E. What are the energy impacts?
    F. What are the cost impacts?
    G. What are the economic impacts?
IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
    A. Above-the-Floor Capture and Control Requirements for Existing 
Sources
    B. Replacing the Point Value Equations with HAP Emissions Factor 
Equations Based on the Unified Emissions Factors, and Changes to 
Centrifugal Casting HAP Emissions Factors
    C. MACT Floors for Existing Sources
    D. Cleaning
    E. Compression/Injection Molding
    F. Averaging Provisions
    G. Pultrusion Compliance Options
    H. Applicability
    I. Potential Overlap with the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR 
Part 63, Subpart VVVV)
    J. Determination of Resin and Gel Coat HAP Content
    K. New Source MACT Floors
V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
VI. Relationship of the Final NESHAP to Other NESHAP and the CAA 
Operating Permits Program
    A. National Emissions Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control 
Devices, Recovery Devices, and Routing to a Fuel Gas System of a 
Process (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS)
    B. NESHAP for Boat Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart VVVV)
    C. NESHAP for Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating)
    D. Operating Permit Program
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 19377]]

    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    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 Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Introduction

A. What Is the Purpose of NESHAP?

    The purpose of the final NESHAP is to protect the public health by 
reducing emissions of HAP from Reinforced Plastic Composite 
Manufacturing facilities.

B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Reinforced 
Plastic Composites Production was included on the initial list of 
source categories published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major 
sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit 10 tpy or more 
of any one HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
    The CAA requires NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction 
in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is 
commonly referred to as the MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP. 
This concept appears in section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. For new sources, 
the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the HAP emissions control 
that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The 
MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than 
standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the 
average HAP emissions limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 
percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the 
best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer 
than 30 sources).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the HAP 
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Processes and Operations Are Included in the Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production Source Category?

    The Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category 
involves the production of plastic products from cross-linking resins, 
usually in combination with reinforcing materials and inorganic 
fillers. These products may have an outer surface produced with a 
styrene-containing gel coat. The production of products that do not 
contain reinforcing materials is also included in this category, as 
well as the production of intermediate compounds that are later used to 
make the final plastic products. These non-reinforced products were 
included because they are produced using the same types of resins, have 
similar HAP emissions characteristics, and would use similar HAP 
emissions controls. This source category is limited to those resins and 
gel coats which contain styrene, either by itself or with a combination 
of other monomers or solvents.
    There are a wide variety of operations that use styrene-containing 
resins to make thermoset plastics. Such manufacturing operations 
include manual resin application, mechanical resin application, 
filament application, gel coat application, compression/injection 
molding, resin transfer molding, centrifugal casting, continuous 
lamination/casting, polymer casting, pultrusion, bulk molding compound 
(BMC) manufacturing, and sheet molding compound (SMC) manufacturing. 
There are also ancillary operations such as cleaning, mixing, repair, 
and HAP-containing materials storage, that occur in conjunction with 
these manufacturing operations. Many facilities will use multiple 
operations in manufacturing their products.
    This source category also includes some repair operations that take 
place at a manufacturing facility, such as repairs of parts or products 
that are manufactured at the same facility that must be repaired due to 
defects or damage that occur during manufacturing, or repairs of parts 
that were originally manufactured at that location and have been 
returned for repair due to defects in the original manufacture or 
damage in shipment. No other types of repair operations are included in 
this source category. Facilities that perform non-routine manufacture 
of reinforced plastic composites parts solely to replace parts of a 
reinforced plastic composite product that has been in use are not 
considered to be manufacturing facilities, and repair operations at 
these types of facilities are not part of this source category. See 
Sec.  63.5935 of the final rule for the definition of non-routine 
manufacture. We believe that repair operations that are collocated with 
manufacturing operations that originally produce the reinforced plastic 
composites being repaired use the same materials as the manufacturing 
processes. Repair operations that are not collocated may use different 
materials and application techniques.

II. Summary of the Final NESHAP

A. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by the Final 
NESHAP?

    Today's final rule applies to the Reinforced Plastic Composites 
Production source category. We developed subcategories based on size 
(i.e., tpy of HAP emitted) in defining the new source MACT floors. 
These subcategories are sources that emit 100 tpy or more from open 
molding, pultrusion, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/
casting, SMC and BMC manufacturing, and mixing operations; and all 
other new sources. The new source MACT floors incorporate add-on 
controls for sources in the first subcategory, except for facilities 
producing large parts, and pollution prevention for other new sources.
    The floors for existing sources are mainly based on pollution 
prevention, not add-on controls. Where floors are based mainly on 
pollution-prevention control techniques, we did not subcategorize by 
size. However, we did segregate existing sources by resin application 
technique, resin type, and final products, and developed separate 
floors for each process/product grouping.

B. What Are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What Are the 
Emissions?

    The primary source of HAP emissions from the Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production source category is the evaporation of styrene and 
other organic liquid HAP contained in the resin during the application 
and/or curing of the resin. Since styrene participates in the curing 
reaction, not all of it is emitted. Organic HAP emissions also occur 
during ancillary operations such as cleaning, mixing, repair, and HAP 
containing materials storage. Although some gel coats or resins may 
contain inorganic HAP, such as lead, in resin solids or pigments, we 
have no data to

[[Page 19378]]

indicate the inorganic HAP are emitted from the production process. 
Therefore, only organic HAP are addressed by the final NESHAP.
    Total baseline HAP emissions from the Reinforced Plastic Composites 
Production source category are approximately 18,000 tpy. The HAP 
emissions from spray lay-up and gel coating constitute approximately 52 
percent and 23 percent of the total baseline HAP emissions, 
respectively. The remaining HAP emissions are primarily from hand lay-
up/bucket and tool application, compression molding/injection molding, 
filament application, SMC manufacturing, and centrifugal casting.

C. What Is the Affected Source?

    The affected source is the combination of all operations regulated 
under these standards at a reinforced plastic composites production 
facility. The following regulated operations are typically performed at 
reinforced plastic composites production facilities and are part of the 
affected source: open molding, closed molding, centrifugal casting, 
continuous lamination/casting, polymer casting, pultrusion, SMC 
manufacturing, equipment cleaning, mixing, BMC manufacturing, repair, 
and storage of HAP-containing materials. Repair operations are also 
included as part of the affected source if the repair is made to a part 
manufactured at that location.

D. What Are the HAP Emissions Limits, Operating Limits, and Other 
Standards?

    We are promulgating the requirements of the final NESHAP in the 
form of HAP emissions limits (i.e., HAP emissions factors, mass rate, 
or percent reduction), operating limits, and work practice standards. 
Work practice standards include design, equipment, work practices, and 
operational standards.
    The final NESHAP contain a HAP emissions threshold that 
distinguishes between sources that typically can meet the HAP emissions 
limits using pollution prevention, and those that must use add-on 
controls. This threshold is called the ``100 tpy threshold.'' For 
existing sources, you determine if you are below, above, or equal to 
the 100 tpy threshold by summing all HAP emissions from centrifugal 
casting and continuous lamination/casting operations at the source. In 
determining HAP emissions from centrifugal casting operations, only HAP 
emissions from venting of the centrifugal casting mold during spinning 
and/or curing are considered. The HAP emissions that occur from 
application of resin or gel coat to an open centrifugal casting mold 
are considered to be open molding HAP emissions. The HAP emissions from 
other operations or processes are not included because the 100 tpy 
threshold does not apply to other operations or processes.
    For new sources, you determine if you are below, above, or equal to 
the 100 tpy threshold by summing all HAP emissions from open molding, 
pultrusion, SMC and BMC manufacturing, centrifugal casting, continuous 
lamination/casting, and mixing operations at the source. The HAP 
emissions from closed molding, cleaning, repair and HAP-containing 
materials storage are not used in threshold determinations. In 
determining HAP emissions from centrifugal casting operations, only HAP 
emissions from venting of the centrifugal casting mold are included. 
The HAP emissions that occur from application of resin or gel coat to 
an open centrifugal casting mold are considered to be open molding HAP 
emissions.
    The requirements for new and existing sources that are below the 
100 tpy threshold are based on the MACT floor level of control. These 
requirements are summarized in the following table:

  Table 1.--Summary for Existing Sources, and New Sources Below the 100
                       tpy HAP Emissions Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      MACT for existing
                                                     facilities and new
 If your operation type is .    And you use . . .    facilities that are
             . .                                      below the 100 tpy
                                                     threshold is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Open molding--corrosion-   a. mechanical resin   112 lb/ton.
 resistant and/or high         application.
 strength (CR/HS).
                              b. filament           171 lb/ton.
                               application.
                              c. manual resin       123 lb/ton.
                               application.
2. Open molding--non-CR/HS..  a. mechanical resin   87 lb/ton.
                               application.
                              b. filament           188 lb/ton.
                               application.
                              c. manual resin       87 lb/ton.
                               application.
3. Open molding--tooling....  a. mechanical resin   254 lb/ton.
                               application.
                              b. manual resin       157 lb/ton.
                               application.
4. Open molding--low-flame    a. mechanical resin   497 lb/ton.
 spread/low-smoke products.    application.
                              b. filament           270 lb/ton.
                               application.
                              c. manual resin       238 lb/ton.
                               application.
5. Open molding--shrinkage    a. mechanical resin   354 lb/ton.
 controlled resin.             application.
                              b. filament           215 lb/ton.
                               application.
                              c. manual resin       180 lb/ton.
                               application.
6. Open molding--gel coat     a. tooling gel        437 lb/ton.
 \b\.                          coating.
                              b. white/off white    267 lb/ton.
                               pigmented gel
                               coating.
                              c. all other          377 lb/ton.
                               pigmented gel
                               coating.
                              d. CR/HS or high      605 lb/ton.
                               performance gel
                               coat.
                              e. fire retardant     854 lb/ton.
                               gel coat.
                              f. clear production   522 lb/ton.
                               gel coat.
7. Centrifugal casting--CR/   N/A.................  25 lb/ton.
 HS \c\.
8. Centrifugal casting--non-  N/A.................  20 lb/ton.
 CR/HS \c\.
9. Pultrusion \d\...........  N/A.................  Reduce total HAP
                                                     emissions by at
                                                     least 60 weight
                                                     percent.
10. Continuous lamination/    N/A.................  Reduce total HAP
 casting.                                            emissions by at
                                                     least 58.5 weight
                                                     percent or not
                                                     exceed a HAP
                                                     emissions limit of
                                                     15.7 lbs of HAP per
                                                     ton of neat resin
                                                     plus and neat gel
                                                     coat plus.

[[Page 19379]]

 
11. A closed molding                                Uncover, unwrap or
 operation using compression/                        expose only one
 injection molding.                                  charge per mold
                                                     cycle per
                                                     compression/
                                                     injection molding
                                                     machine. For
                                                     machines with
                                                     multiple molds, one
                                                     charge means
                                                     sufficient material
                                                     to fill all molds
                                                     for one cycle. For
                                                     machines with
                                                     robotic loaders, no
                                                     more than one
                                                     charge may be
                                                     exposed prior to
                                                     the loader. For
                                                     machines fed by
                                                     hoppers, sufficient
                                                     material may be
                                                     uncovered to fill
                                                     the hopper. Hoppers
                                                     must be closed when
                                                     not adding
                                                     materials.
                                                     Materials may be
                                                     uncovered to feed
                                                     to slitting
                                                     machines. Materials
                                                     must be recovered
                                                     after slitting.
12. A cleaning operation....                        Do not use cleaning
                                                     solvents that
                                                     contain HAP, except
                                                     that HAP containing
                                                     materials may be
                                                     used in closed
                                                     systems, and to
                                                     clean cured resin
                                                     from application
                                                     equipment.
                                                     Application
                                                     equipment includes
                                                     any equipment that
                                                     directly contacts
                                                     resin between
                                                     storage and
                                                     applying resin to
                                                     the mold or
                                                     reinforcement.
13. A HAP-containing                                Keep containers that
 materials storage operation.                        store HAP-
                                                     containing
                                                     materials closed or
                                                     covered except
                                                     during the addition
                                                     or removal of
                                                     materials. Bulk HAP-
                                                     containing
                                                     materials storage
                                                     tanks may be vented
                                                     as necessary for
                                                     safety.
14. A SMC manufacturing                             Close or cover the
 operation.                                          resin delivery
                                                     system to the
                                                     doctor box on each
                                                     SMC manufacturing
                                                     machine. The doctor
                                                     box itself may be
                                                     open.
15. A SMC manufacturing                             Use a nylon
 operation.                                          containing film or
                                                     a film with an
                                                     equal or lower
                                                     permeability to
                                                     styrene compared to
                                                     a nylon containing
                                                     film to enclose
                                                     SMC.
16. A mixing or BMC                                 Use mixer covers
 manufacturing operation d.                          with no visible
                                                     gaps present in the
                                                     mixer covers. Gaps
                                                     of up to 1 inch are
                                                     permissible around
                                                     mixer shafts and
                                                     any required
                                                     instrumentation.
17. A mixing or BMC                                 Do not actively vent
 manufacturing operation e.                          mixers to the
                                                     atmosphere while
                                                     the mixing agitator
                                                     is turning.
18. A mixing or BMC                                 Keep the mixer
 manufacturing operation e.                          covers closed
                                                     during mixing
                                                     except when adding
                                                     materials to the
                                                     mixing vessels.
19. A new or existing                               i. not allow vents
 pultrusion operation                                from the building
 manufacturing parts with                            ventilation system,
 1000 or more reinforcements                         or local or
 and a cross section area of                         portable fans to
 60 square inches or more                            blow directly on or
 that is not subject to the                          across the wet-out
 95 percent HAP emissions                            area(s).
 requirement.                                       ii. not permit point
                                                     suction of ambient
                                                     air in the wet-out
                                                     area(s) unless that
                                                     air is directed to
                                                     a control device.
                                                    iii. use devices
                                                     such as deflectors,
                                                     baffles, and
                                                     curtains when
                                                     practical to reduce
                                                     air flow velocity
                                                     across the wet-out
                                                     area(s).
                                                    iv. direct any
                                                     compressed air
                                                     exhausts away from
                                                     resin and wet-out
                                                     area(s).
                                                    v. convey resin
                                                     collected from drip-
                                                     off pans or other
                                                     devices to
                                                     reservoirs, tanks,
                                                     or sumps via
                                                     covered troughs,
                                                     pipes, or other
                                                     covered conveyance
                                                     that shields the
                                                     resin from the
                                                     ambient air.
                                                    vi. cover all
                                                     reservoirs, tanks,
                                                     sumps, or HAP-
                                                     containing
                                                     materials storage
                                                     vessels except when
                                                     they are being
                                                     charged or filled.
                                                    vii. cover or shield
                                                     from ambient air
                                                     resin delivery
                                                     systems to the wet-
                                                     out area(s) from
                                                     reservoirs, tanks,
                                                     or sumps where
                                                     practical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ HAP emissions limits for open molding and centrifugal casting
  expressed as lb/ton are calculated using the equations shown in Table
  1 to subpart WWWW of part 63. You must be at or below these values
  based on a 12-month rolling average.
\b\ These limits are for spray application of gel coat. Manual gel coat
  application may be included as part of spray gel coat application for
  compliance purposes using the same HAP emissions factor equation and
  HAP emissions limit.

[[Page 19380]]

 
\c\ Centrifugal casting operations where the resin is injected into the
  mold and the mold is completely closed during spinning and curing may
  be treated as closed molding operations.
\d\ Pultrusion machines that produce parts with 1000 or more
  reinforcements and a cross sectional area of 60 inches or more are not
  subject to this requirement. Their requirement is the work practice of
  air flow management reduction.
\e\ Containers of 5 gallons or less may be open when active mixing is
  taking place, or during periods when they are in process (i.e., they
  are actively being used to apply resin). For polymer casting mixing
  operations, containers with a surface area of 500 square inches or
  less may be open while active mixing is taking place.

    For existing sources that are equal to or above the 100 tpy HAP 
emissions threshold, centrifugal casting and continuous lamination/
casting operations meet an above-the-floor requirement based on 95 
percent control of HAP emissions.
    The requirements for new sources that are equal to or above the 100 
tpy HAP emissions threshold are also based on the floor level of 
control. The floor level of control for these sources is a 95 percent 
reduction of HAP emissions for open molding, pultrusion, SMC and BMC 
manufacturing, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/casting, and 
mixing operations with one exception. For open molding and pultrusion 
operations at new sources that produce large parts, the floor level of 
control is the same as existing sources shown in the previous table. 
All other operations meet the requirements shown in the previous table.
    In developing final requirements for reinforced plastic composites 
affected sources, we have provided an alternative format where 
possible. For example, a facility meeting a 95 percent HAP emissions 
reduction requirement for open molding processes can alternatively meet 
a HAP emissions limit. We have also provided alternatives for meeting 
the limits for continuous lamination/casting and SMC manufacturing 
operations.

E. What Are the HAP Emissions Factor Equations in Table 1 to Subpart 
WWWW of Part 63, and How Are They Used in the Final NESHAP?

    Table 1 to subpart WWWW of part 63 presents a series of HAP 
emissions factor equations for open molding and centrifugal casting 
operations. These equations are specific to the type of resin and gel 
application and HAP emissions reduction technique used. These equations 
allow you to calculate HAP emissions factors based on HAP content and 
application method for each material that you use. These HAP emissions 
factors are then averaged and compared to limits in the final standards 
to determine if your open molding and centrifugal casting operations 
are in compliance.
    The HAP emissions factor equations for open molding are identical 
to HAP emissions equations developed by the composites industry called 
the Unified Emissions Factors (UEF) as they existed at the time of 
final rule development. These equations can also be combined with resin 
and gel coat use to determine HAP emissions rates. It should be noted 
that although the equations are identical to the UEF at the time the 
rule is finalized, for purposes of compliance, only the equations 
actually contained in Table 1 to subpart WWWW of part 63 may be used.

F. When Would I Need To Comply With the Final NESHAP?

    We are requiring that all existing sources comply by April 21, 
2006. Any source that commenced construction after August 2, 2001, at a 
site where there were no existing reinforced plastic composite 
operations is a new source. New affected sources that are now in 
operation must be in compliance on April 21, 2003. New affected sources 
that startup after April 21, 2003 must comply upon startup. Existing 
area sources that increase their HAP emissions or their potential to 
emit such that they become a major source of HAP must be in compliance 
within 3 years of the date they become a major source. New area sources 
that become major sources of HAP must comply upon becoming a major 
source. All open molding and centrifugal casting operations that comply 
by meeting a specified HAP emissions limit on a 12-month rolling 
average will have 1 year from the compliance date to demonstrate 
compliance.
    We are allowing new and existing facilities 3 years to comply from 
the time their HAP emissions reach or exceed the applicability 
thresholds which require the installation of add-on controls, if these 
HAP emissions increases occur after their initial compliance date.
    In addition, we have added a one-time exemption for facilities that 
exceed the 100 tpy threshold due to unusual circumstances. Facilities 
that apply for this exemption and subsequently exceed the threshold the 
next year, must comply within 3 years from the time their HAP emissions 
first exceeded the threshold. Because this is a one-time exemption, an 
exceedance in any future years would result in a requirement for 
compliance within 3 years of the subsequent exceedance.

G. What Are the Options for Demonstrating Compliance?

    Today's final NESHAP provide several options for compliance for 
certain operations. We are providing these options to afford industry 
the flexibility to decide which method is best suited for each 
particular situation. Operations not listed in this section have only 
one option for demonstrating compliance.
    For open molding and centrifugal casting operations, you determine 
compliance with the HAP emissions limits by determining HAP emissions 
factors for the operations at your facility, and comparing your HAP 
emissions factors to the appropriate HAP emission limits for each open 
molding and centrifugal casting operation. To determine your HAP 
emissions factor you may use the HAP emissions factor equations in 
Table 1 to subpart WWWW, or HAP emissions factors based on facility HAP 
emissions testing. For open molding operations at existing and new 
sources, the final rule allows you to choose to comply by meeting the 
individual HAP emissions limits shown in Table 3 to subpart WWWW of 
part 63 for each operation at your affected source, or by meeting the 
weighted average HAP emissions limit for all open molding operations at 
your affected source. In addition, if you produce parts with any 
combination of manual resin application, mechanical resin application, 
filament application, or centrifugal casting operations at your 
affected source, you can comply using the an alternative method shown 
in Table 7 to subpart WWWW of part 63. You determine the highest 
allowable HAP resin for each individual operation from Table 3 to 
subpart WWWW of part 63. This same resin can then be used in all open 
molding and centrifugal casting operations as shown in Table 7 to 
subpart WWWW of part 63.
    For open molding and centrifugal casting operations where the rule 
would require you to meet a percent reduction, you could use an add-on 
control device to achieve the required reduction, or you may choose to 
meet a HAP emissions limit that corresponds to that particular 
operation's percent reduction.
    For continuous lamination/casting operations at existing and new 
sources, we are allowing you to demonstrate that each continuous 
casting line and each

[[Page 19381]]

continuous lamination line meets the appropriate standard in Table 3 to 
subpart WWWW of part 63, or Sec.  63.5805(b) or (d) of the final rule. 
Alternatively, you can average all your continuous casting and 
continuous lamination lines together and demonstrate that they meet the 
appropriate standard. An additional alternative for sources that emit 
less than the 100 tpy threshold would be to capture your HAP emissions 
from your wet-out area in a permanent total enclosure that meets EPA's 
criteria, as specified in Method 204 of appendix M of 40 CFR part 51, 
and vent the captured wet-out HAP emissions through a closed vent 
system to a control device achieving 95 percent reduction of HAP 
emissions. Under the final rule, these alternatives can be used in 
combination to demonstrate compliance.
    The standards for continuous lamination/casting operations are 
expressed as a percent reduction of HAP emissions. As an alternative, 
facilities can elect to meet a HAP emissions limit.
    For existing and new pultrusion operations, you can capture and 
vent your HAP emissions to a control device that achieves the required 
percent reduction of HAP emissions. For all existing sources and for 
new sources that emit less than the 100 tpy threshold, you may use a 
wet-area enclosure with a resin drip collection system, direct die 
injection or preform injection systems that meet the criteria specified 
in Sec.  63.5830 of the final rule to meet the 60 percent HAP emissions 
reduction requirement. For pultrusion machines that produce parts with 
1000 or more reinforcements and a cross sectional area of 60 inches or 
more, you must implement the work practice standards in Table 4 to 
subpart WWWW of part 63.
    For SMC manufacturing operations at new sources that exceed the 100 
tpy threshold, we allow facilities to meet a 95 percent HAP emissions 
reduction requirement, or the HAP emissions limit specified in Table 5 
to subpart WWWW of part 63.

H. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

    We are requiring you to conduct an initial performance test using 
specified EPA test methods on all affected sources which use a control 
device to achieve compliance. You must test at the inlet and outlet of 
the control device and using these results, calculate a percent 
reduction.
    We are also requiring you to conduct a design evaluation, as 
specified by EPA Method 204 of appendix M of 40 CFR part 51, if you use 
permanent total enclosures to capture HAP emissions. If your enclosure 
does not meet the requirements for a permanent total enclosure, you 
must test the enclosure to determine the capture efficiency by EPA 
Methods 204B through E of appendix M of 40 CFR part 51 or an 
alternative method that meets the data quality objectives and lower 
confidence limit approaches contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK. 
Test runs for EPA Methods 204B through E or alternative test methods 
must be at least 3 hours.
    Prior to the initial performance test, owners and operators of 
affected sources would be required to install the parameter monitoring 
equipment to be used to demonstrate compliance with the operating 
limits. During the initial performance test, the owners and operators 
would use the parameter monitoring equipment to establish operating 
parameter limits.

I. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    If you use an add-on control device, we are requiring that you 
monitor and record the operating parameters established during the 
initial performance test, and calculate average operating parameter 
values averaged over the period of time specified in the final NESHAP 
to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits.
    If you use the HAP emissions equations in Table 1 to subpart WWWW 
of part 63 to demonstrate that you are maintaining a HAP emissions 
factor less than or equal to the appropriate HAP emissions limit listed 
in the final NESHAP, we are requiring that you calculate the HAP 
emissions factor one time if the resins or gel coats used in the 
operation remain the same, or if all the resins and gel coats used 
individually meet the applicable HAP emissions limit. You are required 
to calculate HAP emissions factors on a 12-month rolling average each 
month if the resin or gel coat varies between operations or varies over 
time, and not all resins or gel coats taken individually meet the 
required HAP emissions limit.
    If you are complying with work practice standards, we are requiring 
that you demonstrate compliance with the work practice standards in the 
final NESHAP by performing the necessary work practices and by keeping 
a record certifying that you are in compliance with the work practices.

J. What Are the Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping 
Requirements?

    We are requiring that you submit Initial Notification, Notification 
of Performance Tests, and Notification of Compliance Status reports by 
the specified dates in the final NESHAP, which may vary depending on 
whether the affected source is new or existing.
    You are also required to submit semiannual compliance reports. If 
you take action that is inconsistent with your approved startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan, then you would need to submit SSM 
reports within 2 days of starting such action, and within 7 days of 
ending such action.
    We are requiring that you keep a copy of each notification and 
report, along with supporting documentation for 5 years. Of this time, 
the 2 most recent years must be on-site. You must keep records related 
to SSM, records of performance tests, and records for each continuous 
parameter monitoring system. Under the final rule, if you must comply 
with the work practice standards, you also need to keep records 
certifying that you are in compliance with the work practices for 5 
years. If you use the HAP emissions factor equations to demonstrate 
compliance, you must keep all data, assumptions, and calculations used 
to determine your HAP emissions factors. For new and existing 
continuous lamination/casting operations, you also must keep the 
following records when complying with the percent reduction or pound 
per ton requirements: All data, assumptions, and calculations used to 
determine the percent reduction or pounds per ton, as applicable; a 
brief description of the rationale for the assignment of an equation or 
factor to each formula; all data, assumptions, and calculations used to 
derive facility-specific HAP emissions estimations and factors; 
identification and rationale for the worst-case scenario; and 
documentation that the appropriate regulatory agency has approved all 
HAP emissions estimation equations and factors.

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Facilities Are Affected by the Final NESHAP?

    There are approximately 435 existing facilities manufacturing 
reinforced plastic composites that are major sources and subject to the 
final NESHAP. The rate of growth for the reinforced plastic composites 
industry is estimated to be 84 new facilities over the next 5 years.

B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    The 1997 baseline HAP emissions from the reinforced plastic 
composites industry are approximately 18,000 tpy. The final NESHAP will 
reduce HAP

[[Page 19382]]

from existing sources by 7,682 tpy, a reduction of 43 percent.
    The final NESHAP will result in small increases in other air 
pollution emissions from combustion devices that will be installed in 
the next 5 years to comply with today's final rule. These increases 
result both from the combustion device directly, and from the 
electrical generating plants used to generate the electricity necessary 
to operate the add-on controls and associated air handling equipment. 
These emissions are estimated to be 2.3 tpy of sulfur oxides (SOx), 3.0 
tpy of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 4.9 tpy of carbon monoxide 
(CO), and 0.1 tpy of particulate matter (PM) emissions.

C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?

    We estimate that the final NESHAP will have no adverse water 
quality impacts. We do not expect anyone to comply by using add-on 
control devices or process modifications that would generate 
wastewater.

D. What Are the Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts?

    We estimate that the final NESHAP will decrease the amount of solid 
waste generated by the reinforced plastic composites industry by 
approximately 2,650 tpy. The decrease in solid waste is directly 
related to switching to nonatomized resin application equipment (i.e., 
flowcoaters and resin rollers). Switching to nonatomized resin 
application equipment results in a decrease in overspray because of a 
greater transfer efficiency of resin to the part being manufactured. A 
decrease in resin overspray consequently reduces the amount of waste 
from disposable floor coverings, cured resin waste, and personal 
protective equipment (PPE) for workers. Disposable floor coverings are 
replaced on a periodic basis to prevent resin buildup on the floor. We 
estimate that solid waste generation of floor coverings will decrease 
by approximately 620 tpy, and that cured resin solid waste will 
decrease by approximately 2,030 tpy.
    We project that the decreased overspray from nonatomized resin 
application equipment will result in a decreased usage of PPE, which 
also consequently reduces the amount of solid waste. When using 
nonatomized resin application equipment, workers typically wear less 
PPE than when using atomized spray guns because of the reduced presence 
of resin aerosols and lower styrene levels in the workplace. Because we 
did not have information on the many different types of PPE currently 
used, we did not estimate this decrease in solid waste.
    Some facilities that switch from atomized to nonatomized spray guns 
may have a small increase of hazardous waste from the used nonatomized 
spray gun cleaning solvents. However, most facilities would not see an 
increase under the final rule, and the overall impact on the industry 
will be small relative to the solid waste reductions. Nearly all 
nonatomized spray guns require resin and catalyst to be mixed inside 
the gun (internal-mix) and must be flushed when work is stopped for 
more than a few minutes. External-mix spray guns do not need to be 
flushed because resin is mixed with catalyst outside the gun. 
Facilities that switch from external-mix to nonatomized spray guns will 
use more solvent. Solvent usage should not change at facilities 
switching from internal-mix spray guns to nonatomized spray guns. The 
most common flushing solvents are acetone and water-based emulsifiers. 
Only a couple of ounces of solvent are typically needed to flush the 
mixing chamber and nozzle of internal-mix spray guns.
    We do not have adequate data to predict the potential solvent waste 
impact from switching to nonatomized spray guns. The magnitude of the 
impact depends on the type of gun currently used (internal- or 
external-mix), the frequency of flushing, and the type of solvent used. 
However, because of the small amount of solvent used, and since most is 
allowed to evaporate, we believe the overall solvent waste increase 
will be small compared to the solid waste reductions.

E. What Are the Energy Impacts?

    Energy impacts result from the final NESHAP because some facilities 
will be required to install add-on controls to meet certain HAP 
emissions limits or percent reduction requirements. We anticipate that 
these controls will be concentrator/oxidizer systems or thermal 
oxidizers. These controls increase energy requirements in two ways. 
First, all reinforced plastic composites facilities must ventilate work 
areas to maintain worker styrene exposure within acceptable limits. The 
ventilation systems typically exhaust air directly to the atmosphere. 
When an add-on control device is added to control HAP emissions, it 
creates an additional pressure drop for the ventilation system which, 
in turn, means that more electricity is required to operate system fans 
and to operate the control device itself. Second, fuel (usually natural 
gas) is required to supplement the oxidizer combustion process.
    We determined that the overall energy demand for operations in the 
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category could increase 
by 10 million standard cubic feet per year of natural gas, and 0.6 
million kilowatt hours of electricity per year as a result of the final 
rule. We determined this net increase based on the additional energy 
demand for control devices installed to meet the final standards. No 
information for comparison is available on the baseline energy 
consumption for this source category.

F. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    We have estimated the industrywide capital costs for HAP emissions 
control equipment, including equipment such as open container covers, 
resin bath enclosures, capture systems, and control devices as $12.6 
million for the 435 existing sources and $22.8 million for the 84 new 
sources. The capital costs include the costs to purchase and install 
the control equipment.
    We have estimated the industrywide annual costs of the final rule 
are $21.5 million per year for the 435 existing sources and $7.7 
million for the 84 new sources. Annual costs include fixed annual 
costs, such as reporting, recordkeeping and capital amortization, and 
variable annual costs such as natural gas. The estimated average cost 
of the final rule is $2,800 per ton of HAP emissions reductions for 
existing sources and $5,560 per ton of HAP emissions reductions for new 
sources.

G. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    We conducted a detailed economic impact analysis to determine the 
market- and industry-level impacts associated with the final rule. We 
expect the aggregate price increase for reinforced plastic composites 
would be only 0.7 percent, or $0.03 per pound, as a result of the final 
rule. We project that directly affected producers would reduce total 
production by 1.7 percent, while producers not directly affected would 
increase their production by 0.7 percent. Markets for reinforced 
plastic composites used in corrosion-resistant products are expected to 
be more heavily impacted with price increases of roughly 1.6 percent 
and reductions in directly affected domestic production of almost 5 
percent. The reason for more significant impacts in the corrosion-
resistant market is that facilities in this market have higher average 
per-unit variable compliance costs. Corrosion-resistant product 
variable compliance costs are $0.13 per pound of product versus an 
industry average of $0.06 per pound.
    In terms of industry impacts, we analyzed impacts for captive 
producers and merchant producers. Captive

[[Page 19383]]

producers make composites for use by another part of their company in a 
larger product. Merchant producers sell their products on the open 
market, either to consumers or other businesses.
    In our analysis, captive producers of reinforced plastic composites 
are expected to fully absorb their compliance costs, which is a 
conservative approach. We assess impacts as if captive producers are 
viewed as a profit center like a merchant producer but unable to pass 
on costs. This is done in lieu of an analysis attempting to estimate 
cost-pass through for the myriad of final products that use reinforced 
plastics. We assume merchant producers will attempt to pass through 
costs to their customers.
    Through the market impacts described above, the final NESHAP create 
both gainers and losers within the merchant segment. Some merchant 
facilities are projected to experience profit increases with the final 
rule; however, the majority that continue operating are projected to 
lose profits. The economic impact analysis indicates that 36 out of 301 
merchant facilities (12 percent) and 89 out of 466 product lines (19 
percent) at these facilities are at risk of closure because of the 
final NESHAP. These facilities are believed to be small businesses. 
Note that this number is slightly higher than the estimate of facility 
closure at proposal, which was 10 percent. This change is not due to 
any change in stringency of the final rule as applied to small 
businesses. It is due the reduction in stringency of the final rule for 
large sources. More information on the measures we have taken to 
minimize the small business impacts may be found in the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act discussion in this preamble. Furthermore, the analysis 
indicates that ten of the 133 captive facilities (7.5 percent) may be 
at risk of closure if unable to pass on costs to their customers.
    Based on the market analysis, the annual social costs of the final 
rule are projected to be $19.9 million. The social costs are slightly 
less than the engineering cost estimate of $21.5 million because 
producers pass on a portion of these costs to consumers through price 
increases in an effort to reduce their regulatory burden. These costs 
are distributed across the many consumers and producers of reinforced 
plastic composites. Directly affected producers, in aggregate, are 
expected to lose $6.2 million annually in profits, with those not 
subject to the final NESHAP gaining $18 million. The consumers of 
reinforced plastic composites are expected to lose $31.7 million due to 
higher prices and lower consumption levels associated with the final 
NESHAP. For more information on the economic analysis, consult the 
final economic impacts analysis document in the docket for this 
project.

IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

A. Above-the-Floor Capture and Control Requirements for Existing 
Sources

    In the proposed rule, existing facilities that are a small business 
as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201, and that emitted 250 tpy or more of HAP, or existing 
facilities that are not a small business and emitted 100 tpy or more of 
HAP, from the combination of all open molding, centrifugal casting, 
continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, mixing, 
and BMC manufacturing operations, were required to reduce the total HAP 
emissions from these operations by at least 95 percent by weight. In 
the final rule, this requirement now only applies to centrifugal 
casting and continuous lamination/casting operations, and the threshold 
has been changed to 100 tpy for both large and small businesses. This 
reduced the number of facilities we estimated would have to meet an 
above-the-floor requirement from 34 to 3, reduced the industry 
annualized costs of the final NESHAP from $26.0 million per year to 
$21.5 million per year, and reduced the HAP emissions reduction 
estimate from 14,500 to 7,700 tpy. In addition, for centrifugal 
casting, the percent reduction requirement only applies to HAP 
emissions that are vented from the closed centrifugal casting mold. It 
does not apply to HAP emissions that occur from other operations such 
as pouring or spraying resin into a centrifugal casting mold while it 
is open.

B. Replacing the Point Value Equations With HAP Emissions Factor 
Equations Based on the Unified Emissions Factors, and Changes to 
Centrifugal Casting HAP Emissions Factors

    In the proposed rule, we used a group of equations called point 
value equations to determine surrogate HAP emissions factors. These 
factors were then used to rank existing facilities to determine 
existing source MACT floors for open molding operations. However, we 
specified that the point value equations were not considered HAP 
emissions factors and, therefore, should not be used for HAP emissions 
reporting. This resulted in the potential for facilities to have to use 
two different sets of equations for HAP emissions reporting and MACT 
compliance determinations.
    In the final rule, we have eliminated the point value equations and 
replaced them with HAP emissions factor equations that are identical to 
HAP emissions factor equations that are being used in this industry for 
HAP emissions calculations, called the Unified Emissions Factors. 
Therefore, facilities now will have the same equations for MACT 
compliance determinations and HAP emissions calculations for HAP 
emissions reports.
    For centrifugal casting, we have retained the HAP emissions factor 
equation in the proposed rule for sources that blow heated air through 
the mold during spinning and curing. For other centrifugal casters, we 
have created a new HAP emissions factor equation based on more recent 
information. This new HAP emissions factor significantly changes the 
numerical value of the floor (pounds of HAP emissions per ton of resin 
used) from the value in the proposed rule. However, it did not change 
the floor facility or the level of control a facility would need to 
meet the floor.
    These new HAP emissions factor equations were also used to re-rank 
existing facilities to establish the floor level of control for 
existing sources. Though this change did result in different floor 
values in lb/ton, it did not change the level of control actually 
required to meet the floor. However, as discussed below, our reanalysis 
did result in changes to some floors for other reasons.

C. MACT Floors for Existing Sources

    There are several changes to the MACT floors for existing sources, 
and for new sources that emit less than 100 tpy for the combination of 
all open molding, centrifugal casting, pultrusion, SMC and BMC 
manufacturing, mixing, and continuous lamination/casting operations. 
These changes were a result of facilities submitting additional data 
that indicated our original analysis of their facility HAP emissions 
factors were in error, or out of date.
    For noncorrosion-resistant resins applied using mechanical 
application, the proposed rule had different floors for filled and 
unfilled resins. The reason for separating filled and unfilled resins 
was that at the time of proposal, nonatomized resin application 
techniques were not available for filled resins. Since proposal, filled 
resins now can be applied using nonatomized spray. Therefore, we now 
have combined the two process/product groupings into one. Also, several 
facilities in this process/product

[[Page 19384]]

grouping provided revised data. As a result, the floor level of control 
for noncorrosion-resistant resins using mechanical application is a HAP 
emissions limit of 87 lb/ton. This limit requires a resin with no more 
than 38.4 percent HAP applied using nonatomized mechanical resin 
application techniques. At proposal, facilities could use a 42.8 
percent resin (filled) or a 38 percent HAP (unfilled) resin and 
nonatomized mechanical resin application.
    For mechanical corrosion-resistant resin application, the revised 
floor is a HAP emissions limit of 112 lb/ton. This limit requires a 
resin with no more that 46.2 percent HAP and nonatomized mechanical 
resin application. At proposal, a resin HAP content of up to 48.3 
percent was allowed if nonatomized mechanical resin application was 
used.
    For manual application of tooling resin, the revised floor is 157 
lb/ton. This allows a resin HAP content of 45.9 percent or less. At 
proposal, the maximum allowable HAP content was 39.9 percent.
    For tooling gel coat the revised floor is 437 lb/ton. This limits 
gel coat HAP content to 40 percent of less. At proposal, the limit was 
38 percent or less.
    For SMC manufacturing, the work practices required in the proposed 
rule were use of nylon film, folding the edges of the film, and 
covering the doctor box. In the final rule, the requirements are a 
covered resin transport system to the doctor box and the use of nylon-
containing film.
    For pultrusion operations producing parts with 1000 or more 
reinforcements and a cross sectional area of 60 inches or more, we have 
changed the floor from 60 percent HAP emissions reduction to a work 
practice of air flow management.
    In addition, we established three new floors for speciality resins 
and gel coats. These are shrinkage-controlled resins, fire retardant 
gel coats, and high performance gel coats. These speciality products 
were identified from comments received on the proposed rule. The new 
floors are shown in Table 3 to subpart WWWW of part 63.

D. Cleaning

    In the proposed rule, we required that cleaning materials contain 
no HAP unless cleaning cured resin from application equipment. In the 
final rule, we have modified that requirement to allow HAP-containing 
cleaners to be used in closed systems such as closed tanks, and resin 
and gel coat delivery systems.

E. Compression/Injection Molding

    In the proposed rule, we required that only one resin charge be 
uncovered at a time. We have clarified this requirement for the final 
rule to reflect that one charge may actually have to fill multiple 
molds. Also, we added a provision to allow the use of automated loaders 
and slitters. We also clarified that paste added to the mold and in-
mold surface coatings are considered part of the closed molding 
operation.

F. Averaging Provisions

    In the proposed rule, we allowed facilities to average across all 
open molding operations and all centrifugal casting operations. The 
average was based on a 12-month rolling average calculated monthly. In 
determining compliance, the average for each month was calculated and 
then the monthly averages were averaged over a 12-month period. In the 
final rule, the 12-month average is based on a weighted HAP emissions 
factor calculated from total resin and gel coat use over the 12-month 
period. This method will provide a more accurate value for the actual 
HAP emissions, in lb/ton, that the facility produced in the previous 12 
months.
    In the proposed rule, we did not allow pultrusion lines to average; 
each pultrusion machine had to meet the 60 percent reduction 
requirement for existing sources. In the final rule, we allow 
facilities to over control some lines, and under control (or leave 
uncontrolled) others, as long as the average reduction for all lines 
combined is 60 percent weighted by resin use. Also, we are allowing 
facilities to average the time that wet area enclosure covers are open 
across lines.

G. Pultrusion Compliance Options

    In the proposed rule, we allowed pultrusion operations to use 
direct die injection as a compliance alternative to meet the 95 percent 
capture and control requirement. In the final rule, we are removing 
direct die injection as a compliance alternative because, based on 
industry data, it does not achieve 95 percent HAP emissions reduction. 
We still allow direct die injection as a compliance option to meet the 
60 percent HAP emissions reduction requirement. We have also added 
another compliance option, preform injection, to meet a 60 percent HAP 
emissions reduction. We have also added another compliance option, 
airflow management work practices, for pultrusion machines that produce 
large parts as set forth in Table 4 to subpart WWWW of part 63.

H. Applicability

    We made a number of changes dealing with rule applicability. First, 
we expanded the list of specific operations that are part of the source 
category, but are not subject to any control, reporting, or 
recordkeeping requirements. These operations include application of 
mold sealing and release agents, mold stripping and cleaning, repair of 
previously manufactured parts that is unrelated to collocated 
manufacturing operations, personal activities that are not part of the 
manufacturing operations (such as hobby shops on military bases), 
prepreg materials as defined in Sec.  63.5935 of the final rule, non-
gel coat surface coatings, repair or production materials that do not 
contain resin or gel coat, and research and development (R&D) 
operations as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA. In addition, we 
exempted any facility that uses less than 1.2 tpy of resin and gel 
coat, and R&D facilities and operations at manufacturing facilities. 
The rationale for these changes is discussed in the responses to major 
comments section.

I. Potential Overlap With the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR Part 
63, Subpart VVVV)

    In the proposed rule, we were silent concerning situations where a 
facility could be subject to both the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart VVVV, and the Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP. In 
today's final rule, we have added Sec.  63.5787 to clarify which 
subpart applies. In general, if your facility makes boat hulls and 
decks, or molds for boat hulls and decks, then 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
VVVV, applies to you. If 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, does not apply 
to you, and you meet the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.5785 of the 
final rule, then the Reinforced Plastics Composites NESHAP apply. If 
you are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, and also make 
reinforced plastic composite parts that are not used in boat 
manufacture, then both 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, and the Reinforced 
Plastic Composites NESHAP may apply. See Sec.  63.5787 in the final 
NESHAP for more detail.

J. Determination of Resin and Gel Coat HAP Content

    In the proposed rule, we stated that facilities could determine 
resin and gel coat HAP content using material safety data sheets (MSDS) 
or resin specification sheets. In the final rule, we have included 
Sec.  63.5797, which describes in more detail how to determine resin 
and gel coat HAP

[[Page 19385]]

content. This new section also clarifies that only organic HAP are 
included in determining HAP content. The reason is that we have no data 
to indicate that any other HAP, such as inorganic HAP potentially 
present in pigments or resin solids, are emitted from the production 
process. We also now include a provision to account for normal 
manufacturing tolerances that occur in resin and gel coat manufacture.

K. New Source MACT Floors

    In the proposed rule, the MACT floor for all open molding and 
pultrusion operations located at new sources above a 100 tpy HAP 
emission threshold was a 95 percent weight reduction in HAP emissions. 
In the final rule, we have subcategorized open molding and pultrusion 
operations by part size. For open molding and pultrusion operations 
that produce large parts the floor level of control is now the same as 
for existing sources. Large parts are defined in Sec.  63.5805 (d)(2). 
All other new source MACT floors are unchanged.

V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

    This section presents a summary of significant public comments and 
responses. A summary of all the public comments that were received and 
our responses to those comments can be found in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0003 (formerly Docket No. A-94-52).
    Comment: We received numerous comments on the above-the-floor 
requirements for existing sources. First, commenters stated that EPA 
had significantly underestimated the costs of add-on controls. They 
stated that industry estimates were, in some cases, ten times higher 
than our estimates. They stated that we had overestimated the HAP 
concentrations in the exhaust streams, underestimated the exhaust 
flows, and omitted costs for continuous monitors.
    Second, the commenters claimed that we had not established that 95 
percent capture and control was technically feasible for this diverse 
industry, and that only two facilities out of 433 actually had achieved 
the 100 percent capture that is required to meet an overall capture and 
control level of 95 percent. They also stated that these two facilities 
were atypical of the industry as a whole because they also had 
collocated coating operations that were also routed to the same control 
device. They further stated that the criteria of EPA Method 204 of 
appendix M of 40 CFR part 51 are not feasible for most facilities in 
this industry. For these reasons, the commenters recommended that the 
above-the-floor requirement be removed.
    Response: As a result of these comments, we reviewed the costing 
methodology for the above-the-floor requirements in the proposed rule 
and made changes to our costing methodology for add-on controls. Some 
of the major changes were lowering the default inlet concentration to 
the control device from 100 parts per million volume (ppmv) to 50 ppmv, 
revising the fan power equation, and using 2,000 operating hours per 
year, rather than 6,000 hours per year, as a default value in the 
absence of actual yearly operating information.
    Based on these new costs, the cost per ton of HAP emissions 
reduction of the above-the-floor requirement significantly increased 
for most process/product groupings. As a result, we have removed the 
above-the-floor control requirements for all process/product groupings 
except centrifugal casting and continuous lamination/casting. It should 
be noted that the comments discussed above were based on open molding 
operations. We received no comments specifically on the above-the-floor 
requirements as applied to centrifugal casting and continuous 
lamination/casting.
    Comment: One commenter opposed allowing control requirements for 
new sources emitting less than 100 tpy to be the same as those for 
existing sources because a new site has the opportunity to design and 
incorporate pollution prevention and control strategies that would be 
cost-prohibitive for existing sources to implement. The commenter 
recommended that EPA consider more stringent requirements for new 
sources, including smaller sources, through generally available control 
technology or other approaches that would not be overly burdensome.
    Another commenter adds that EPA's analysis indicates that the best 
controlled facilities have reduced HAP by only 95 percent, and 95 
percent is most likely the maximum extent of historic regulatory 
requirements. The commenter notes that EPA looked at the experience of 
existing facilities to achieve greater than 95 percent control through 
add-on control in conjunction with pollution prevention and did not 
find facilities achieving greater control than that. While the 
assessment may be correct for what EPA looked at, the commenter states 
that examining past experience that lacks regulatory drivers for 
greater control is not the same as examining the present and future 
potential for control opportunities. The commenter believes that the 
proposal dismisses the potential for these two control techniques (add-
on control and pollution prevention) to be applied to new sources.
    Response: We agree that new facilities can more easily incorporate 
pollution prevention and add-on controls. This is the reason we set the 
new source floor at 95 percent control for most new sources that emit 
over 100 tpy, and not at the same level as existing source floors.
    Facilities that have incorporated add-on controls tend to be larger 
facilities. New facilities in this industry can be small operations 
that operate a limited number of hours and still be major sources. 
These small sources cannot reliably meet 95 percent capture and control 
given their limited operating schedules and their potential lack of on-
site technical expertise. Therefore, we are not requiring a source 
emitting less than 100 tpy to meet the 95 percent capture and control 
level.
    We examined whether or not we could specify some other level of 
control for small sources, but we could not determine what would be an 
appropriate level of capture and control below 95 percent. We also 
considered basing new source MACT floors for facilities that emit less 
then 100 tpy on the single best facility that incorporated pollution 
prevention. However, as discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule, 
we believed that using one facility that had the lowest HAP content 
resins and gel coats was unworkable, unless we could show that all new 
plants would build the same products as the plants that had the lowest 
HAP content resins and gel coats.
    Given this, we had to determine a threshold value above which 95 
percent capture and control is feasible for all new plants, given the 
diversity of this industry. We selected 100 tpy of actual HAP emissions 
because above this level facilities tend to operate more hours per year 
and are better equipped to maintain capture and control systems. Also, 
at the time we proposed the rule, the smallest facility in the open 
molding process/product grouping that was permitted at 95 percent 
capture and control emitted approximately 100 tpy. Therefore, we chose 
this number as the threshold at which 95 percent capture and control is 
required.
    This was not the only approach we could have taken to subcategorize 
new sources, nor is 100 tpy the only threshold we could have chosen. 
For example, we could have subcategorized by annual hours of operation. 
However, depending on the threshold we set, this could result in large, 
new HAP emissions sources avoiding the 95 percent capture and control

[[Page 19386]]

requirements simply by building a larger facility and reducing hours of 
operation. By tying the requirement directly to HAP emissions, we 
believe we have taken the most logical approach from an environmental 
standpoint and an enforcement standpoint. Also, the 100 tpy threshold 
is a reasonable choice that means that all new large facilities in most 
of the process/product groupings will have to meet the most stringent 
HAP emissions control levels.
    Comment: We received numerous comments on the new source MACT floor 
for facilities with open molding, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, 
mixing, and BMC manufacturing that emit 100 tpy or more of HAP from 
these operations. The commenters stated that the 95 percent capture and 
control requirements of the floor were technically infeasible and too 
costly. They also stated that 95 percent capture and control does not 
represent the best HAP emissions control approach when all 
environmental impacts, such as increases in emissions of criteria 
pollutant and greenhouse gases, are considered. The commenters note 
that the CAA states that the best controlled similar source must be the 
basis of the new source MACT floor; therefore, EPA is only authorized 
to apply the 95 percent capture and control requirements to facilities 
that are similar. The sources cited by EPA make uniformly-sized parts 
in high volume, employ mechanical resin application, and operate three 
shifts a day. However, they differ from other facilities in the 
industry. One of the sources is primarily a metal fabrication operation 
and sends significant amounts of emissions from a painting operation to 
the control device, making an unusually rich combustion stream. They 
also claimed that the facility had not been proven to meet the 
requirements of EPA Method 204 of appendix M of 40 CFR part 51. The 
other facility employs an unusual molding operation, and the ability of 
this facility to actually meet the 95 percent capture and control 
requirement is open to question. Neither of these sources are similar 
to any other composites open molding operation.
    Response: Our available information continues to support that the 
appropriate new source floor for facilities that emit 100 tpy or more 
of combined HAP from their open molding, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, 
BMC manufacturing, mixing, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination, 
and continuous casting operations is 95 percent capture and control for 
several reasons. First, the term ``best control'' means best control of 
HAP emissions. The only other control techniques mentioned by the 
commenters were the pollution-prevention techniques that make up the 
existing source floors. The commenters claim that when other 
environmental impacts of add-on controls are considered, pollution-
prevention control techniques are actually superior. They provided 
examples that showed HAP emissions reductions from pollution-prevention 
techniques for some facilities of up to approximately 70 percent; 
however, the actual HAP emissions reductions a facility will achieve 
based on pollution-prevention techniques will be highly site specific. 
Also, the highest pollution-prevention HAP emissions reduction examples 
assume facilities could reduce HAP emissions by enhanced process 
monitoring, which would reduce materials used. The HAP emissions 
reductions based on materials-use reductions assumes facilities are not 
currently using materials as efficiently as they could. There are no 
data to support this assumption, and the potential for HAP emissions 
reduction of this type could vary widely. The second example presented 
by one commenter assumes facilities would use nonatomized gel coat 
application. However, the same commenter has stated emphatically that 
nonatomized gel coat application cannot be used at every facility. 
Therefore, this example cannot be considered to fairly represent the 
HAP emissions reductions achievable for the industry as a whole.
    Our overall estimate of the HAP emissions reduction that would 
occur with only pollution-prevention techniques is approximately 41 
percent for open molding, compared to the significantly higher 95 
percent HAP emissions reductions possible with capture and control. The 
CAA indicates that ``best control'' in the context of setting floors is 
the control that achieves the best HAP emissions reduction. Based on 
this, 95 percent capture and control represents best control for this 
industry.
    Even if we were to consider other environmental impacts of capture 
and control, 95 percent control would still be considered best control. 
Calculations provided by one commenter indicates that a total of only 
0.15 tons of criteria pollutants are generated per ton of styrene 
reduction; however, this number appears to be based on one of the three 
actual operating facilities using add-on controls shown in the 
commenter's example. Data from another facility using a concentrator/
oxidizer system in the same report showed criteria pollutant emissions 
of 0.06 tons per ton of styrene emissions reduction. Our estimate at 
proposal was that, on average, this figure is closer to 0.04 tons of 
criteria pollutants per ton of HAP emissions reduction. Regardless of 
which number is used, the amount of HAP emissions reduction is 
significantly higher than any resulting criteria pollutant emissions. 
The commenters also cite greenhouse gas effects. They state that 30 
tons of greenhouse gases are produced for every ton of styrene 
emissions reduction.
    We reviewed the information that formed the basis of the estimate 
of greenhouse gas estimates. Based on our analysis, we believe that the 
estimate of 30 tons of greenhouse gases are produced for every ton of 
styrene emissions reduction is an overestimate because it is based on 
examples where the HAP emissions reduction varies between 77 to 84 
percent. The final rule will require 95 percent HAP emissions 
reduction. Also, we believe the air flows used in the examples provided 
by the commenter are higher than will be required for new facilities. 
Higher air flows result in increased use of natural gas and higher 
greenhouse gas emissions. We believe a more accurate number would be 
approximately 20 tons of greenhouse gases produced for every ton of 
styrene emissions reduction.
    Second, regardless of which number is the most accurate, any 
contribution of the final rule to global greenhouse gas emissions is 
insignificant. The total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States 
exceed 6 trillion tons from fossil fuel combustion alone. However, the 
difference between emissions of styrene from a facility controlled to 
the 95 percent level and one controlled using only pollution prevention 
is significant to the populations living near an affected facility.
    The commenters also stated that the facilities that formed the 
basis of the new source floor are not ``similar sources.'' We disagree 
because there are actually three sources within this source category 
that meet the criteria to set a 95 percent capture and control floor. 
The commenters point out that three is a small number compared to the 
433 facilities in the database at proposal. However, the CAA requires 
the new source floor to be based on the single best performing similar 
source. Therefore, only one source is sufficient to set a new source 
floor as long as we determine it is similar. The commenters stated that 
the source setting the floors operates three shifts (they shut down on 
weekends). However, we subcategorized new sources by annual HAP 
emissions. The reason was that larger sources are more likely to 
operate more than one shift. Also, since this floor only applies

[[Page 19387]]

to new sources, the facility can be designed to meet the necessary 
production rate with three shift operation if the operator desires to 
minimize control device startups and shutdowns.
    The commenters stated that in two cases, the floor facilities have 
collocated surface coating operations. Our evaluation of these 
facilities was based only on the reinforced plastic composites portion 
of the facility. During site visits to these facilities, we determined 
that these facilities were required to apply 95 percent capture and 
control to all major processes due to State regulations. That 
requirement would apply regardless of whether or not the facility had 
collocated surface coating operations. Also, the presence of the 
surface coating operations does not result in a more concentrated 
exhaust stream compared to facilities without surface coating 
operations. Thus, there is no technical basis to say these facilities 
are not similar based on the presence of surface coating operations.
    We also reviewed the commenters claim that the facilities that set 
the new source floor do not actually meet the requirements of EPA 
Method 204 of appendix M of 40 CFR part 51. Part of that claim was 
based on the fact that the floor facilities had doors in the PTE that 
were opened to move parts and materials in and out of the PTE.
    One criteria of EPA Method 204 of appendix M of 40 CFR part 51 is 
as follows: ``All access doors and windows that are not treated as 
natural draft openings shall be closed during routine operation of the 
process''. This criteria is not intended to require that these doors be 
closed at all times. It means that doors must be closed any time that 
you are not actually moving parts or equipment through them. Therefore, 
the fact that the floor facilities open doors to move parts in and out 
of the PTE does not mean they do not meet the requirements of EPA 
Method 204.
    In addition, we reviewed the compliance determinations for two of 
the floor facilities. Our review did not reveal any conditions that 
would indicate that the requirements of EPA Method 204 of appendix M of 
40 CFR part 51 are not being met.
    Comment: The commenters stated that the facilities that manufacture 
large parts using open molding or pultrusion are not similar to the 
floor facilities that are the basis of the capture and control 
requirements for the new source floors. They stated that the facilities 
used to set the 95 percent capture and control requirement only 
manufacture small parts and, therefore, should not be used to set a 
capture and control floor requirement for facilities making large 
parts. They also stated that achieving 100 percent capture is not 
feasible for large parts sources in these process groups. Though EPA 
had cited facilities that coated large parts in permanent total 
enclosures (PTE), coating operations cannot be considered similar to 
the manufacture of reinforced plastic composites. They suggested that 
any part with any dimension that exceeds 12 feet be considered a large 
part and be exempt from capture and control requirements.
    Response: After reviewing the comments and available data, we have 
determined that the facilities currently achieving 95 percent capture 
and control are not similar to sources producing large parts. At 
proposal, we noted that we had not identified any facilities in the 
reinforced plastic composites industry where processes producing large 
parts, such as storage tanks and swimming pools, have applied 100 
percent efficient capture systems, but stated our belief that such PTE 
were technically feasible based on large PTE in other industries. We 
reviewed available data on the facilities in our database and found 
that facilities producing parts over a certain size presented different 
technical issues from facilities that have successfully incorporated 95 
percent capture and control. As noted in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, one of these facilities has a PTE large enough to produce large 
parts. However, the air flows and HAP concentrations exiting the PTE at 
this facility are not the same as would be expected from a facility 
using a similar sized PTE to capture and control emissions from large 
parts production.
    We also noted in the preamble to the proposed rule that surface 
coating operations for very large parts (as large as ocean going ships) 
had successfully applied PTE. However, we agree that coating operations 
and reinforced plastic composites operations are not similar sources. 
Reinforced plastic composites production typically requires more 
workers per part due to the necessity to both apply and roll-out the 
resin. Also, large parts are continuously laminated until completion 
rather than coated in sections.
    This difference in sources, while applicable to evaluating floors 
based on capture and control, does not exist in the case of floors 
based on pollution-prevention technologies such as the use of low-HAP 
materials and nonatomized resin application. For that reason, we did 
not differentiate between large and small parts when setting floors 
based on pollution-prevention control techniques for either new or 
existing sources.
    Because we determined that capture and control was not the 
appropriate floor for large parts manufacture, the floors for these 
specific operations are now the same as the floors for existing 
operation, which are emission limits based on the use of low-HAP 
materials and nonatomized resin application.
    However, we do not agree with the commenter's suggested definition 
of large parts, because it would exempt parts from capture and control 
requirements where those requirements have already been demonstrated. 
The largest part produced at a facility where 95 percent capture and 
control is demonstrated has a volume of 250 cubic feet. If this part 
were placed in a rectangular six-sided box, the largest side of the box 
would be 50 square feet. Therefore we chose these criteria as the 
definition of a large part for open molding. For pultrusion, the 
largest part produced by a facility with 95 percent capture and control 
was 2 inches high, 10 inches wide, and had approximately 350 
reinforcements. Therefore, we choose these criteria as the definition 
for large pultruded parts.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that capture and control 
requirements would make it difficult for facilities to meet 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) worker health and 
safety requirements. Process enclosures at current facilities are 
designed and operated to provide safe and efficient production of 
composite products. The primary purpose of enclosures in this industry 
is to remove contaminated air from the workplace to achieve OSHA 
requirements for limiting occupational exposures. Enclosures must also 
allow enough cool air to enter the workplace so that workers are not 
subject to excessive heat stress. One commenter provided a study that 
stated that if process enclosure exhaust flows were reduced to increase 
exhaust concentrations being routed to the control device, worker 
exposure to contaminants and heat would be increased to unacceptable 
levels.
    Response: The use of PTE for capture of HAP emissions should not 
result in increased worker exposure to contaminants or heat stress if 
appropriate precautions are taken. As previously noted, one solution is 
to design the spray enclosures based on meeting worker exposure 
requirements, and then enclosing the entire lamination area in a PTE. 
The facilities currently using PTE do not exceed OSHA exposure 
guidelines. Experience in the printing and publishing industry shows 
that use of PTE, in many cases, results

[[Page 19388]]

in reduced worker exposure to both contaminants and heat stress. In 
high heat and humidity areas, it is likely that some type of air 
cooling will be required during summer. However, this issue is present 
even without the requirement for capture and control.
    Comment: Five commenters stated that the limit of tooling gel coats 
(38 percent HAP) is not achievable. One commenter claimed that we set 
this limit based on one infrequently used product that is not 
representative of the industry as a whole. The commenter's products 
represent 70 percent of the tooling gel coat market and the maximum HAP 
contents range from 42 to 50 percent HAP. Their lower HAP gel coat has 
not gained a significant market acceptance. They have performed 2 years 
of research and development efforts aimed at developing a lower-HAP gel 
coat that would meet the requirements of the proposed rule and have 
been unsuccessful. They stated we had not independently tested the 
product on which the standard is based, so there has been no 
demonstration of the product's quality or suitability for broad use in 
the industry. The commenter also stated that setting the standard at 38 
percent would have the effect of encouraging manufacturers of tooling 
gel coats to use para methyl styrene, which is not regulated as a HAP, 
as a substitute. Also, lower-HAP gel coats may be less durable than 
products currently on the market, which would result in reduced mold 
life. Therefore, more molds would have to be built to produce the same 
amount of product. This would result in the standard actually causing a 
HAP emissions increase. This commenter requested a tooling gel coat HAP 
limit of 52 percent HAP for clear gel coats and 49 percent for 
pigmented gel coats.
    A second commenter asked that EPA consider tooling gel coats as 
speciality gel coats exempt from HAP limits similar to the speciality 
coating exemption contained in the Aerospace Coating MACT standards (40 
CFR part 63, subpart GG). This commenter stated there is a strong 
possibility they will discontinue manufacturing tooling gel coats if 
the standard is not changed.
    Another commenter stated that we must allow higher HAP limits for 
tooling applications in vacuum resin infusion, compression, and resin 
transfer molding composite tool applications, where high exotherms and 
heated tools are required. Durability of the mold surface is essential 
to the longevity of the mold. Thermal stability is a key element that 
requires higher-HAP content. Repeated high exotherms during the cure 
cycles can greatly reduce the life of low-HAP gel coats. Greater 
porosity found in the low-HAP materials can also create mold surface 
problems. Ironically, these are closed molding processes, which result 
in much lower HAP emissions and employee exposures than open molding 
processes. Closed molding facilities will not be able to offset the 
small amounts of high-HAP tooling gel coat used in tool production with 
large amounts of low-HAP general purpose open molding resins using 
facility averaging. The commenter recommends that the final MACT 
standards allow up to 48 percent HAP content for pigmented tooling gel 
coats.
    Response: We have received additional data since proposal. Based on 
these data, we increased the floor for tooling gel coats to 40 percent. 
We obtained very little data from industry on tooling gel coats in the 
original data requests and in additional efforts to obtain additional 
tooling gel coat data. To supplement the limited data, we looked at the 
tooling gel coat data used in developing the Boat Manufacturing MACT 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV). This is a reasonable approach because 
gel coat manufacturers stated that they sold the same tooling gel coats 
in both the reinforced plastic composites and boat manufacturing 
industries. The revised HAP content limit of 40 percent is the same as 
the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP HAP content limit for tooling gel coats.
    We considered the issue raised by the commenters that a low limit 
in tooling gel coats would actually increase HAP emissions. While we 
agree that more frequent replacement of inferior molds would lead to 
increased HAP emissions, the factual data do not indicate that a 40 
percent HAP content limit results in inferior molds. Facilities in the 
field (both reinforced plastic composite manufacturers and boat 
manufacturers) are building molds with 40 percent HAP tooling gel coat. 
We have no data to indicate that these facilities are producing lower 
quality molds than average, and none of the commenters has been able to 
provide objective data to substantiate that reduced mold life is 
inevitable with low-HAP gel coats. The information provided was based 
on assumed reduction in mold life. Also, the fact that one of the 
commenters covers 70 percent of the market is irrelevant, because MACT 
floors are set based on best control, not market share. In the absence 
of objective data that the facilities that use low-HAP tooling gel 
coats produce inferior molds with shorter mold lives compared to the 
rest of the industry, the MACT floor must be set based on the best 
performing facilities. In this case, that results in a floor of 40 
percent HAP.
    Comment: One commenter stated that although clear cultured marble 
gel coats have been formulated with HAP levels as low as 40 percent, 
the tolerance for thermal shock and water resistance are lowered with 
lower-HAP levels. According to the commenter, 48 percent HAP clear coat 
is required for manufacturers to maintain current warranties and many 
have switched back to the high-HAP clear gel coats due to the poor 
performance of the lower-HAP clear gel coats. The commenter suggests 
that ``clear gel coats for cultured marble'' should be defined as 
``those used for products subject to ANSI Z124 testing'' and the rule 
should limit the HAP content of these materials to 48 percent. A second 
commenter also stated that a 48 percent HAP content is necessary to 
meet desired gel coat performance. The commenter claims that the 
proposed limit of 44 percent does not take into account the entire 
spectrum of uses and does not satisfy the requirements of their 
applications.
    Response: We are bound by the statutory requirements of the CAA to 
set MACT floors based on the average of the best performing sources as 
illustrated in the available data. In the absence of specific data to 
support the request, we have no basis to change the floor.
    In developing different process product grouping for gel coats, we 
did consider the different performance characteristics of different 
types of gel coat. These types were tooling gel coat, clear gel coat, 
pigmented gel coat (white/off white), pigmented gel coat (all colors 
except white/off white), fire retardant gel coat, and corrosion 
resistant/high strength gel coat. Based on information provided by 
industry, we determined that these different gel coat types had 
sufficiently different characteristics that they should be considered 
separately for floor determinations. However, we do not have data to 
demonstrate that it would be appropriate to further subcategorize clear 
gel coats based on each gel coat's performance characteristics.
    Comment: One commenter states that only the white/off-white and 
some pastels can meet a floor of 30 percent HAP because of the titanium 
dioxide and inert filler loading. Most solid colors require a HAP 
content of 38 to 40 percent. Higher performance pigmented gel coats 
that require high molecular weights would, therefore, need a higher 
monomer content to achieve workable viscosities and would probably no 
longer be available to the market place.
    Response: White/off-white gel coats will be defined as those 
containing 10

[[Page 19389]]

percent or more by weight titanium dioxide. As proposed, these gel 
coats will be subject to a HAP limit of 30 percent by weight, and all 
other pigmented gel coats will be subject to a HAP limit of 37 percent 
by weight.
    At the time we developed the proposed rule, we had no data on 
pigmented gel coats other than white/off-white and some reds. Based on 
industry comments, we split pigmented gel coat into two groupings, 
white/off-white and other colors due to the fact that white/off-white 
gel coats contain titanium dioxide, which is a heavy pigment, while 
other colors do not. At the time we created this new grouping, we 
requested data from the industry concerning the HAP contents of 
pigmented gel coats. The industry representatives indicated that these 
gel coats typically have 37 percent HAP. Because non-white pigmented 
gel coats comprise a very small part of the total industry, we elected 
to accept the 37 percent number rather than attempt to gather 
additional data. The commenter provided no data to support their 
request. In the absence of new data, we have no basis to change this 
floor.
    Comment: Two commenters request that the category of fire retardant 
gel coats be exempt from HAP limits. Both commenters note that fire 
retardant gel coats are used in manufacturing transportation parts, 
building products, trains, airplane parts, and theaters. One commenter 
stated that these are all critical areas of applications and require 
various Underwriter Laboratory (UL), American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM), and Fire Rating Certifications. It was suggested that 
fire retardant gel coats be defined as ``those used for products for 
which low-flame/low-smoke resin is used.''
    Response: We have added a process/product grouping for fire 
retardant gel coats. These gel coats are defined as gel coats used in 
low-flame spread/low-smoke product applications. We have established a 
HAP emissions limit of 854 lb/ton which is equivalent to gel coats with 
a maximum HAP content of 60 percent using atomized application.
    Comment: Four commenters stated that we need to establish a 
separate process/product grouping for corrosion-resistant gel coats. 
The commenters stated that gel coats used in specific corrosion 
protection applications must meet the same requirements as corrosion-
resistant resin. One commenter added that gel coats requiring chemical 
resistance to a wide range of chemicals including acids, bases, and 
solvents are often based on the resins similar to those that make up 
the structural part of the composite and provide the necessary 
corrosion resistance. For this reason, the commenters believe that the 
HAP limitation for corrosion-resistant gel coats should be 48 percent, 
the same as it was in the proposed rule for lamination resins used to 
make corrosion-resistant composites. It was suggested that ``corrosion-
resistant gel coats'' be defined as ``those used for products made with 
corrosion-resistant resin'' and that the rule limit the HAP content of 
these materials to 48 percent.
    Response: We agree that there are technical limitations for 
corrosion-resistant applications that warrant a separate limit for 
corrosion-resistant gel coats, similar to the separate limits 
established for other specialty resins and coatings.
    In the final rule, we established a separate HAP content limit of 
48 percent for corrosion-resistant gel coats and defined them as 
``those gel coats used to manufacture products made from corrosion-
resistant resin.'' We believe 48 percent HAP is the appropriate number 
because the highest HAP content level allowed in all the corrosion-
resistant resin process/product groupings is 48 percent.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that we need an additional 
process/product grouping for low-shrink resins. These resins have 
special shrinkage control properties that are unique and cannot be 
obtained in any other way. These resins were not identified when EPA 
surveyed the industry. One commenter stated that a specialty process 
group is needed for high molecular weight, low-shrink resins used in 
wind turbine blade manufacturing. The resin currently in use is 42 
percent HAP unfilled. The facility would be unable to gain any relief 
by facility averaging because the facility predominantly uses zero-HAP 
epoxy resin, rather than a low-HAP production resin. Commenters 
requested that EPA create a subcategory for these resins with a maximum 
HAP level of 48 to 52 percent.
    Response: Our understanding is that these low-shrink resins are 
highly filled resins with special chemistry that allows them to cure at 
room temperature with significantly less shrinkage than a typical 
resin. Given the unique properties of this resin, we agree that a 
separate process/product grouping is appropriate. The resin 
manufacturer indicated that the maximum HAP content of the resin is 50 
percent. Therefore, we have set HAP emissions limits for shrinkage-
controlled resins that allow up to 50 percent HAP. This specialty resin 
costs significantly more than other resins, which provides a deterrent 
for facilities using the resin where its special properties are not 
necessary.
    Comment: One commenter believes higher HAP limits are needed for 
the filament application of corrosion-resistant products. The commenter 
claims that the rule, as proposed, will eliminate use of certain types 
of corrosion-resistant resins that impart required properties to 
certain applications. The commenter noted that the proposed limit for 
corrosion-resistant filament application resins was lower than for 
noncorrosion-resistant filament application resins. The commenter 
believes that the HAP emissions limit for all categories of filament 
application should be 178 lb/ton, and stated that this change will have 
insignificant impact on EPA's total HAP emissions reductions target, 
with the difference in HAP emissions reductions being 3 tpy.
    Another commenter states that the proposed MACT of 42 percent HAP 
cannot be met with an isophthalic resin without some compromise to the 
physical properties of the cured resin. The commenter requested EPA to 
consider the 48 percent HAP limit found in South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1162.
    Response: While we acknowledge the commenters concerns, we 
developed the floor for this process/product grouping in the same 
manner as floors for other process/product groupings in open molding. 
We gathered data from industry and ranked the performance of the 
facilities in the corrosion-resistant process group and set the MACT 
floor based on the average of the best 12 percent, as required by law.
    Though we are not changing the floor for filament application, we 
are retaining a provision included in the proposed rule that allows 
facilities to use the same resin in multiple processes. The rationale 
for this provision is, while our floor development ranking procedure is 
correct, we also realize it does not account for the fact that some 
facilities use multiple operations to produce components of the final 
product, and the resins used in the subcomponents must be compatible. 
This provision will allow most facilities the flexibility to use the 
necessary level of HAP in corrosion-resistant applications because 
mechanical operations have a higher-HAP content limit.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the model point value for 
corrosion-resistant manual resin application be changed from 124 to 190 
to reflect the use of the same

[[Page 19390]]

percent HAP used in mechanical resin application. The commenter notes 
that the facility that sets the floor using a 40 percent HAP resin is 
not typical of a true corrosion-resistant (CR) company because that 
facility uses only manual application, while true CR companies use both 
manual and mechanical application techniques. A second commenter 
requested that the MACT floor for manual corrosion-resistant resin be 
changed so that it is the same as the floor for mechanical corrosion-
resistant resin.
    Response: As discussed in the previous response, the floor is based 
on the data available for this process/product grouping. However, as 
with filament application, the provision allowing facilities to use the 
same resin in multiple operations should allow enough flexibility for 
facilities to meet rule requirements, but still produce products with 
the necessary properties. Therefore, facilities that produce corrosion-
resistant and noncorrosion-resistant products using both manual and 
mechanical resin application will be able to use the same resin in both 
operations.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed MACT of 35.5 
percent HAP for noncorrosion-resistant centrifugal casting would result 
in a resin too high in viscosity, which may create air release 
problems. The commenter states that lower molecular weight resins would 
cause some limitations in physical property requirements.
    Response: We received new data that changed the floor for 
centrifugal casting to 37.5 percent HAP. With less than 30 facilities 
in the process group for which we have data, the MACT floor must 
represent the average performance of the top five facilities. We have 
no data to support raising the floor any further.
    Comment: One commenter stated that they believe that new operations 
should be subject to new source MACT even if they are added to an 
existing source. The commenter understands that there are cases in 
which the new equipment may be incorporated within an existing 
manufacturing line, making it difficult to employ separate controls 
(e.g., if all the equipment is controlled at a later end point). The 
commenter suggests, however, that separate and more specific provisions 
can be included in the rule to govern such cases.
    Response: This comment is only applicable to new source MACT for 
specified processes that emit over 100 tpy, because below that level, 
new source and existing source MACT are the same. We believe that, for 
this particular industry, the ability of a facility to incorporate the 
capture and control requirements of new source MACT for larger 
facilities is closely related to the structure housing the process, 
because the size and shape of the existing building affects the layout 
of the production line. Even if there are significant process changes, 
this by itself would not indicate that the building housing the process 
has been changed, thereby making retrofit of capture and control 
systems unfairly difficult compared to a new greenfield facility. We 
believe that attempting to develop a detailed set of requirements that 
could cover every situation would be unrealistic.
    We agree that this provision may result in small facilities being 
able to grow significantly without becoming new sources. However, it 
should be noted that in the final rule, we have overridden the portion 
of the general provisions in 40 CFR part 63 which states that 
facilities that move are still considered existing. Because we believe 
the cost and technical feasibility of capture and control are closely 
related to the building housing the process, we believe that a facility 
that moves should be considered a new source because they can plan for 
capture and control prior to erecting or selecting a new building. 
Therefore, facilities that would be considered existing sources under 
the general provisions will be considered to be new sources under the 
final rule. Therefore, in this aspect, the final NESHAP are more 
stringent.
    Comment: Several commenters requested clarification in this rule on 
which operations at a reinforced plastics composites facility and which 
operations at a boat building facility will be covered by this rule and 
which will be covered by 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV (Boat 
Manufacturing NESHAP).
    It was noted that neither the preamble nor the proposed rule 
explicitly states whether this rule applies to manufacturing of boats 
or boat components and requested that language be added to the final 
rule clarifying that this rule does not apply to any processes or 
operations subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV. One commenter 
stated that boat building plants routinely produce non-boat parts and 
presumed that such facilities will be required to meet the composites 
rule when producing composite parts that are not associated with the 
manufacture of boats. The commenter also points out that some composite 
plants produce boat parts that are then used to build boats, such as 
when producing barge covers that are related to the manufacture of 
river barges.
    Response: We have added Sec.  63.5787 to the final rule to 
specifically address this issue. A facility must produce boat hulls and 
decks, or molds for boat hulls and decks, to be covered by the Boat 
Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV). If it produces 
reinforced plastic composites, as defined in the final rule, and is not 
covered by the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP, then it is covered by the 
Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP, regardless of the final use of 
the parts.
    In the case where a facility is subject to the Boat Manufacturing 
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV), but the facility also makes 
parts that are not a component of their boats, then the non-boat parts 
are covered by the Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP. However, only 
resins and gel coats actually used to make parts covered by the 
Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP are considered in determining 
compliance.
    In addition, in order to simplify compliance, we are allowing 
facilities that are subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart VVVV) and that also make parts subject to the 
Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP, to elect to make all their 
manufacturing operations subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP if 
they can demonstrate, through the appropriate HAP emissions 
calculations, that this will not result in any HAP emissions increases 
over what would occur if they complied with the Reinforced Plastic 
Composites NESHAP for non-boat part production. We also clarify that 
HAP emissions from activities covered by the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP 
are not considered when calculating HAP emissions thresholds to 
determine the applicability of add-on controls.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the rule explain what happens 
in instances where the 100 tpy threshold is exceeded even by a little, 
temporarily. Does this require that add-on controls be installed?
    Response: It is our intent that unusual circumstances result in a 
facility having to add and operate add-on controls. We have included 
clarifying language in the final rule that allows a one-time exemption 
to the 95 percent capture and control requirements for facilities that 
were below the 100 tpy threshold and exceed the threshold due to 
unusual circumstances. This exemption allows facilities to average 
annual HAP emissions over 3 years to determine if they exceed the 
threshold. However, facilities are also required to document the 
unusual circumstances that caused the exceedance, and why they expect 
to remain below the threshold in the

[[Page 19391]]

future. If they exceed the threshold a second time, then the exemption 
is immediately withdrawn and they must comply with the 95 percent 
capture and control requirements within 3 years from when they 
originally exceeded the threshold.
    Comment: Two commenters requested clarification of several issues 
related to repair work. They are assuming the proposed rule is intended 
to cover manufacturing operations only. Repair processes conducted in a 
manufacturing facility are also covered because they are likely to use 
the same materials. If the processes conducted are re-manufacturing, 
refurbishment, repair, or maintenance, it will be considered repair for 
the final NESHAP. The exception would be if the repair is a part which 
frequently needs replacement and is made in an assembly-line type 
process. They also asked that since there is no de-minimums level, if 
any manufacturing is done, would it be covered? They noted that at some 
of the commenter's facilities, some minor manufacturing may occur. The 
repair work that may also be done at the same facility is not related 
to the manufacturing processes (and would be using different resin and 
reinforcing materials.) The commenter believes that as the rule is 
currently written, both the manufacturing and repair operations would 
be covered. The commenter does not believe that is EPA's intent and 
asked if we could develop language to correct that.
    One commenter stated that definitions of repair and manufacturing 
should be added to clarify the types of repair and manufacturing 
covered by the rule. The preamble and rule should be consistent in 
stating that the facilities that only repair composites are not 
affected. The commenter also feels that repair operations collocated 
with unrelated manufacturing operations should not be covered either. 
In a related comment, several commenters asked that a low-use cutoff be 
established so that facilities that use small amounts of resin and gel 
coat are not subject to the rule, especially since those uses may be 
incidental to a completely different manufacturing operation.
    Response: The final rule has been written to make explicit what 
repair operations are and are not covered. Specifically, facilities at 
which only repair occurs are not covered by the final rule. In 
addition, repair of previously manufactured reinforced plastic 
composites unrelated to the reinforced plastic composites manufactured 
at the facility are also not covered by the final rule. Repair 
processes on parts that are manufactured at the same location are 
covered by the final rule. In addition, we have added a low-use cutoff 
exemption to the final rule. We reviewed our entire database and 
determined that we had no data for facilities that use less than 1.2 
tpy of resin and gel coat combined. Therefore, we believe that, in the 
absence of any available data, facilities that use less than 1.2 tpy of 
resin and gel coat to produce reinforced plastic composite products or 
components should be exempt from the final rule.
    Comment: Many commenters requested that the rule incorporate an 
exemption for R&D facilities, and for R&D operations collocated with 
manufacturing operations. The materials used in R&D operation may be 
significantly different from those used in manufacturing.
    Response: We have written the final rule to exempt R&D facilities 
and R&D operations. The definition of R&D is the same as contained in 
section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that they believe the EPA cannot 
set different standards for small and large businesses based on the 
size of the business, rather than the size of the source. They believe 
that because the CAA clearly identifies ``major source'' by the level 
of HAP emissions, MACT floors must depend on the average HAP emissions 
reductions by the best sources without regard to cost factors of 
business size. They stated that this distinction was unfair because two 
facilities that emit the same amount of HAP would potentially have 
different requirements solely on the basis of their ownership. The 
commenter also believes that EPA did not adequately support the 
determination that large businesses have better access to capital than 
small businesses. They stated that this is not necessarily true.
    Response: Based on the revised cost analysis, we have determined 
that it is no longer necessary to distinguish between small and large 
businesses. However, we still believe the use of different thresholds 
in the proposed rule was appropriate because this distinction only 
applied to the above-the-floor regulatory option. The CAA specifically 
states that when we go above the floor, we must consider costs.
    Comment: One commenter states that the small business threshold of 
250 tpy should apply to both existing and new sources. New capital 
funding to build a new facility would require due diligence on the part 
of the lending institution. The new facility would have to generate 
enough cash flow to meet the added debt load. Adding a capture and 
control system to the debt load would significantly reduce the cash 
flow available to pay back the lender's note on a new facility because 
the capture and control system is a non-value added asset. The lending 
institution would discern this and deny the loan.
    Response: For new sources, the proposed (and final standard) is the 
MACT floor, not an above-the-floor option. We do not have the 
flexibility to create small and large business distinctions when the 
standard is set at the MACT floor. Therefore, the final rule for new 
sources does not incorporate a small and large business distinction.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that a method to establish 
percent reduction and HAP emissions factors is needed to foster the 
development of new products and equipment to serve the affected 
industry. They recommended that EPA establish a protocol to allow the 
smooth introduction of equipment, products, and other technologies into 
the final rule.
    Response: Allowing facilities to use site-specific HAP emissions 
factors, and the procedure in the general provisions in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A, that allows facilities to demonstrate equivalent HAP 
emissions reductions, adequately address the incorporation of new HAP 
emissions reduction technologies. However, we have added Sec.  63.5798 
to the final rule that discusses how to obtain approval for new 
technologies.
    Comment: Two commenters requested that EPA change the averaging 
provisions to allow a facility that changes some processes to non-
styrene containing resins to average these resins with the styrene-
containing resins to demonstrate compliance.
    Response: We do not believe it would be appropriate to allow the 
use of non-styrene containing resins and gel coats to be included in 
the calculation of compliance. The MACT floors were developed only 
considering resins and gel coats that contain styrene (and other 
organic HAP, such as MMA) used at the facilities in our database. We 
did not consider non-styrene resins and gel coats used at our database 
facilities. Given the basis for developing the standards, it is 
inconsistent to allow non-styrene containing resins and gel coats to be 
used in the compliance calculations. Therefore, we have not added this 
request to the final rule.
    Comment: Numerous commenters recommended replacing the point value 
system with the Composite Manufacturers Association (CFA) UEF

[[Page 19392]]

table. The composites industry is already using these HAP emissions 
factors to calculate annual HAP emissions. It would simplify reporting 
and recordkeeping if one set of HAP emissions factor equations were 
used. Another commenter stated that if EPA uses the UEF, all HAP should 
be treated as styrene because this is how EPA developed the MACT 
floors. They noted that these factors are used by industry for toxic 
release inventory reporting and obtaining permits. According to the 
commenters, use of these factors for MACT will reduce the paperwork 
burden for small manufacturers.
    Response: We reviewed the UEF and the basis for their development. 
Based on this review, we believe that these equations are acceptable 
for estimating both HAP emissions factors for compliance purposes and 
HAP emissions.
    As a result, in the final rule we have written the HAP emissions 
factor equations in Table 1 to subpart WWWW of part 63 to be identical 
to their equivalent UEF equations. Therefore, facilities will have one 
set of identical factors for both compliance and HAP emissions 
estimation purposes.
    Because of this change, it was necessary to recalculate the floor 
values by recalculating HAP emissions factors using the new HAP 
emissions factor equations for the facilities in our database and 
reranking the facilities based on the new calculations. Therefore, both 
the numerical values of the floors (lb/ton) and the equations used to 
calculate compliance changed. Note the floors themselves did not change 
significantly because when we reranked facilities using the new HAP 
emissions factors, the ranking order did not change with two 
exceptions. In those cases, the new equations caused two facilities to 
switch places and changed the floor slightly. However, these changes 
were minor compared to the changes that resulted from other comments we 
received and additional data we gathered.
    In addition, we have added to the final rule equations for the 
nonatomized gel coat application and for the mechanical atomized 
controlled spraying of resins. We have incorporated the latter UEF 
equation in the final rule so that it is applicable only where the 
controlled spray is achieved through automated or robotic, not manual, 
spraying.
    Finally, we are incorporating only the UEF equations developed for 
styrene and not those developed for MMA. We are doing this because the 
data analysis forming the basis of the standards assumed all organic 
HAP to be styrene. This is a reasonable assumption as the amount of MMA 
used is a very small percentage of the total HAP monomer used.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed rule does not 
provide for manual application of gel coats. Many gel coats are applied 
manually as exterior coatings when the major component part is made. 
The rule should require that for HAP emissions calculations from manual 
application, gel coat should be considered as a resin with the stated 
HAP content and the appropriate point value equation should be used. 
Companies where manual gel coat application is less than 2 percent of 
the total gel coat usage should be exempt from maintaining records of 
manual application.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the proposed rule did 
not provide an equation to estimate HAP emissions from the manual 
application of gel coats and that the rule needs to address this. In 
the final rule, we have addressed this issue by allowing two options. 
First, the facility may elect to simply include manually-applied gel 
coat with spray gel coat application for compliance and HAP emissions 
estimation purposes. Alternatively, they can elect to treat the gel 
coat as spray for compliance purposes, but use the manual resin 
application HAP emissions factor to estimate HAP emissions.
    We believe the changes discussed above are sufficient to simplify 
reporting and recordkeeping for manual gel coat application. Therefore, 
we have not added an exemption for maintaining records for manual gel 
coat application.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that sources be allowed to 
use HAP emissions factors in approved title V permits to estimate HAP 
emissions. It was noted that the use of such factors will reduce the 
administrative burden for sources and regulators and will likely 
improve HAP emissions estimates. One commenter suggested that such 
factors also be allowed to be used for compliance determinations.
    Response: We agree with this comment and believe that Sec.  
63.5798(a)(1) and (2) of the final rule already allow for the use of 
facility-specific HAP emissions factors. Section 63.5798(a)(1) states, 
in part, that ``you may use any organic HAP emissions factor approved 
by us such as factors from the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions 
Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP-42).'' Section 
63.5798(a)(1) was not intended to limit organic HAP emissions factors 
only to the AP-42. Paragraph (a)(2) of Sec.  63.5789 allows the 
development of facility-specific organic HAP emissions factors through 
performance testing. If a facility has facility-specific factors that 
have been approved for use in title V operating permits, then those 
factors can be used to determine whether or not the facility is a major 
source under section 112 of the CAA. In addition, a facility can use 
facility-specific factors for comparison against applicable HAP 
emissions limits. We have written the language in Sec.  63.5798 of the 
final rule to clarify the use of such facility-specific factors and 
have added the provision that such factors must be supported by test 
data.
    Comment: One commenter notes that the alternative point values in 
Table 5 to subpart WWWW of part 63 do not provide a realistic 
alternative to 95 percent capture and control. In an example 
calculation for 35 percent styrene resin in open molding, the point 
value calculation is equivalent to 96 percent control, which is more 
stringent than the add-on control requirement.
    Response: While the values may not appear realistic for some 
facilities, Table 5 to subpart WWWW of part 63 does present the 
opportunity to meet the final standards using alternative means. We 
believe that the values in Table 5 to subpart WWWW of part 63 provide 
incentive to continue to pursue lower-HAP resins and gel coats and 
other pollution-prevention opportunities and that even if only one 
facility can use the values, then their inclusion is worthwhile. For 
these reasons, we have retained Table 5 to subpart WWWW of part 63. 
However, we have made minor modifications to this table. For process/
product groupings where there is an operating facility that currently 
meets the 95 percent control requirement, we changed the value in Table 
5 to subpart WWWW of part 63 to reflect the highest actual calculated 
HAP emissions factors for operating facilities.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the weighted average point 
values should be calculated as a weighted average of resin used. The 
commenter pointed out that the equation in the current proposal gives 
equal weight to each month instead of each quantity of resin or gel 
coat processed. Another commenter asked for clarification on how the 
``weighted average floor'' is calculated.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that 12-month rolling average 
point values should be calculated using a weighted average based on the 
amount of resins, rather than using an average based on monthly values, 
as was proposed. Therefore, the final rule incorporates the commenters' 
suggestion. Also, we have changed the

[[Page 19393]]

terminology for the averaging calculations. We now use the term 
``emissions factor'' when discussing values calculated using actual 
resin and gel coat HAP contents, and ``emissions limit'' when 
discussing average values calculated from the required floor limits. 
This change should clarify how to calculate the weighted average floor.
    Comment: Several commenters asked that EPA include a test method to 
determine the effectiveness of vapor suppressants. They suggested that 
the CFA-developed vapor suppressant test method be used.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the final rule should 
incorporate a test method applicable to vapor suppressants, which are 
effective at reducing HAP emissions for many resin applications. The 
effectiveness of vapor suppressants varies depending on the resin and 
the application technique used. Thus, a single effectiveness value 
cannot be assigned. The final rule, therefore, incorporates a test 
method to determine the effectiveness of vapor suppressants for 
facility-specific applications. This test method is being published as 
appendix A to subpart WWWW of 40 CFR part 63.
    Comment: One commenter states that the proposed rule is vague or 
silent on key issues including continuous monitoring of the 
preconcentrator control performance. The commenter states that the 
question of the practical long-term efficiency of the preconcentrator 
system is particularly disturbing because the proposed rule is silent 
on the issue of compliance assurance. Unfortunately, compliance 
assurance will present three problems: no available parametric measure 
will work to monitor absorber efficiency; continuous or semi-continuous 
flame ionization detectors (FID) are the only practical alternative, 
but are unreliable; and automated FID equipment is very expensive and 
prone to periods of malfunction.
    The commenter also states that the only feasible available 
continuous emissions monitor (CEM) system that can measure styrene is 
an automated sampling device based on an equivalent FID sensor as 
described in EPA Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 that has 
an annual cost of $78,200 per year. The additional cost of this 
necessary compliance monitoring equipment was not included in the EPA 
cost analysis.
    Response: We have reviewed the information on those facilities 
using add-on control devices with carbon adsorbers within the 
reinforced plastic composites industry and have found none that are 
using FID. These facilities are able to demonstrate compliance with 95 
percent reduction. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to 
require use of FID under the final rule and have not included the cost 
of such devices in our cost analysis.
    Comment: One commenter notes that the requirements for sources to 
determine the HAP content should be the same as those in the Boat 
Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV). The commenter 
points out that the boat rule allows sources to use information from 
the supplier or manufacturer and requires the use of the upper limit of 
a range if a range is provided and allows use of supplier information 
as long as a measured value does not exceed the provided value by more 
than 2 percentage points. The commenter notes that suppliers provide 
many of the same resins and gel coats to boat manufacturers and 
composites manufacturers.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and the final rule has been 
written in line with the HAP content determination provisions found in 
the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP, which in part allow up to a plus or 
minus 2 percent allowance.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the rule should allow composites 
manufacturers to change compliance options and should provide guidance 
on notification and record keeping requirements if affected sources 
need to switch compliance options.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and have included language in 
the final rule making it clear that changes in the selected compliance 
option are allowed.
    Comment: One commenter opposed capture and control for pultrusion 
sources based on worker safety. The commenter notes that the EPA 
analysis assumes an inlet concentration of 100 ppmv, but their measured 
concentrations are about 12 ppmv. At that concentration, according to 
the commenter, capture and control is not viable. The commenter claims 
that efforts to increase the inlet concentration lead to OSHA and 
industrial hygiene concerns and that any changes increasing the 
concentration to over 20 ppmv would exceed American Congress of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists recommended maximums. Further, the 
commenter states that levels approaching 50 ppmv require installation 
of engineering controls (ventilation or HAP prevention) and exposure to 
these levels would meet with serious union objections. The commenter 
notes that these considerations result in higher capture and control 
costs. The commenter requests that health related issues be fully 
addressed before the proposed above-the-floor capture and control is 
implemented. Another commenter stated that pultrusion products 
requiring constant attention would have to have an enclosure large 
enough for the operator to be inside, and this would increase health 
risks due to styrene exposures.
    Response: As noted in previous responses, the above-the-floor 
requirement for 95 percent HAP emissions reduction is no longer 
required for pultrusion operations at existing sources and, therefore, 
capture and control is no longer an issue for existing facilities. We 
also note that our revised cost analysis now uses a target maximum 
inlet concentration of 50 ppmv rather than 100 ppmv. The 50 ppmv target 
is the same as the current OSHA 8-hour time weighted average limit for 
styrene.
    We have not changed our position on capture and control for new 
sources, except, as discussed above, with respect to large parts made 
by pultrusion (and open molding) sources. New facilities can be 
designed with the appropriate measures in place to avoid worker 
exposure in excess of OSHA requirements. As previously discussed, 
facilities that have incorporated capture and control meet current OSHA 
requirements for worker safety.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that preform injection, a 
technique that applies resin to the reinforcements in a closed box, be 
an allowed control technology because it is a more viable and readily 
attainable control technology than either add-on control or direct-die 
injection. One commenter stated that preform injection should qualify 
for a 90 percent HAP emissions reduction, and the CFA proposed 
definition and requirements should be used as the criteria for preform 
injection. A second commenter stated that although it falls short of 95 
percent reduction, reduction rates of 90 percent are attainable and an 
excellent trade off given the applicability, capital requirements, and 
operating costs associated with preform injection.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that preform injection is a 
viable control technology for reducing HAP emissions from pultrusion 
operations. Preform injection is included in the final rule as an 
option for meeting the 60 percent HAP emissions reduction requirement 
for existing pultrusion sources. However, as stated by the commenters, 
preform injection (and direct die injection) do

[[Page 19394]]

not meet the 95 percent HAP emissions reduction requirement, which is 
the new source MACT floor. The CAA does not allow us to be less 
stringent than the floor. Therefore, we cannot allow preform injection, 
or direct die injection, to be a compliance option to meet the 95 
percent HAP emissions reduction requirement. We also included a 
definition for preform injection in the final rule that is based on the 
commenter's suggested language.
    Comment: Several commenters requested a 12-month averaging period 
for compliance for pultrusion. The commenters stated that pultruders 
should be able to use a combination of preform injection, wet area 
enclosures, direct die injection, and ``no control'' to meet the 60 
percent HAP emissions reduction requirement for existing sources. The 
commenters pointed out that HAP emissions credits could be earned to 
offset the processing of products with an open bath and ``no control.'' 
According to the commenters, without averaging, facilities will be 
forced to discontinue manufacturing products that require constant open 
access (for example, certain complex profiles) or to shut down any 
processing line when there is an extended period of processing 
adjustments (which require open access to the line).
    Response: We agree that averaging will add some flexibility for you 
to comply with the final rule without increasing HAP emissions. 
Therefore, for existing sources we have included an averaging option. 
For purposes of averaging, we have assigned wet area enclosures a 60 
percent HAP emissions reduction, and direct die injection and preform 
injection a 90 percent HAP emissions reduction.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that the 60 percent emission 
reduction requirement for existing sources, which is based in the use 
of a wet area enclosure, be replaced with a work practice standard of 
air flow management. They stated it was impossible to apply wet area 
enclosures to these large parts because of accessibility concerns. 
Large parts require almost constant access because they are extremely 
complex. The other control options for existing sources, preform 
injection and direct die injection, have also not been demonstrated on 
these large parts. They suggested a definition for large parts, which 
was parts with 1,000 or more reinforcements and at least a 60 square 
inch cross sectional area.
    Response: We agree that wet area enclosures, which form the basis 
of the existing source floor, are not feasible for large parts as 
defined in the comment. Therefore, we developed a separate existing 
source MACT floor for large pultruded parts. A review of the available 
data indicates air flow management (as described in more detail in 
Table 4 to subpart WWWW of part 63) has been used to control emissions 
from this process group. Therefore, the existing source MACT floor is 
air flow management. The final rule has been written to reflect the new 
floor.
    Comment: Many commenters requested that the limit on wet enclosure 
open times of 30 minutes per shift be changed to 90 minutes per day to 
allow for necessary repairs, start-ups, and shutdowns.
    Response: We evaluated the commenters' request. The facilities that 
actually set the floor for pultrusion are limited to 30 minutes per 8 
hour shift or 45 minutes per 12 hour shift. In addition, the facility 
may average over all pultrusion lines. We have included averaging 
provisions across lines in the final rule. We have also allowed a 
facility to have the doors and covers open 90 minutes per day providing 
the machine is operated three 8-hour shifts or two 12-hour shifts.
    Comment: Three commenters claimed that the height restriction on 
wet area enclosures is not practical because it does not allow room 
above the highest part to make adjustments to the process or equipment. 
According to the commenters, the actual height of the wet area 
enclosure has no impact on HAP emissions because the puller window is 
the controlling factor, and styrene emissions will remain near the bath 
without air flow. The commenters, therefore, requested that the 
restriction be removed.
    Response: We have no data to suggest that limiting the height of 
the enclosure affects the amount of HAP emissions reduction. Therefore, 
we did not include the height restrictions on the wet area enclosures 
in the final rule.
    Comment: Commenters requested that capture and control not be 
required for sources engaged in SMC manufacturing. The commenter stated 
that EPA's proposal for control is based on one source and, according 
to the commenter, that source has found that they cannot operate the 
SMC operation and comply with EPA Method 204 of appendix M of 40 CFR 
part 51.
    A second commenter stated that their SMC operation is permitted by 
Ohio EPA as a PTE with all HAP emissions vented to a thermal oxidizer. 
They have found it expensive to maintain the PTE and control device and 
may be required to install additional monitors at great expense.
    Response: For existing sources, the final rule does not require 
capture and control for SMC manufacturing. For new sources, however, 
the floor is 95 percent reduction and we do not have the flexibility to 
change the floor. Most of the comments raised by the commenters relate 
to the cost of PTE and thermal oxidizers. However, costs may not be 
considered in setting the floor. Additionally, the problems with 
compliance noted by one commenter do not, in themselves, indicate that 
new sources cannot be designed and operated to meet the 95 percent 
control requirement. For example, the facility states that they must 
open a large overhead door to operate their second SMC machine. In a 
new facility, the plant layout can be designed where large doors are 
not required to be continually open. Therefore, the final rule retains 
the requirement of 95 percent capture and control for SMC manufacturing 
at new sources that exceed the 100 tpy of HAP emissions threshold.
    Comment: One commenter noted that an alternative to meeting the 95 
percent HAP emissions reduction requirement is provided for some 
operations and requests that an alternate HAP emissions limit be 
provided for SMC manufacturing. An alternative HAP emissions limit 
allows SMC manufacturers to utilize pollution-prevention efforts that 
have already been implemented and encourages the use of future 
pollution-prevention efforts.
    Response: For SMC manufacturing, we have incorporated a HAP 
emissions limit of 2.4 lb/ton as a compliance alternative to the 95 
percent control requirement in the final rule.
    Comment: A number of commenters expressed concerns about the floor 
level of control for SMC manufacturing that is based on several work 
practices. They stated that the requirement to cover doctor boxes 
should be deleted because the boxes have to be open for machine 
operators to monitor paste levels. They also mentioned that folding the 
edges of the SMC had proved to create problems for some facilities that 
had tried the practice. Finally, they stated that the requirement to 
enclose the SMC in nylon film should actually say nylon-containing 
film.
    Response: We evaluated the basis for the MACT floor by reviewing 
all of the data available prior to proposal and contained in the public 
comment letters. On the basis of this review, we discovered that the 
MACT floor at proposal did not accurately reflect the actual work 
practices currently being used. Therefore, we changed the floor to

[[Page 19395]]

for both new and existing sources to cover or enclose the resin 
transport system up to the doctor box and use nylon-containing film to 
enclose the SMC. Based on the practices at the best controlled similar 
source, these work practices also apply to new sources that are above 
the 100 tpy threshold.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that the requirement for ``no 
visible gaps in mixer covers'' be revised to allow reasonable and 
necessary openings. In general, they stated that mixing vessels must 
have some opening or vents to allow air to enter or leave the vessel 
when materials are added or removed, or when the contained material 
expands or contracts due to changes in temperature. Commenters also 
noted necessary clearance for mixing shafts and other instrumentation 
are essential and suggested allowing a gap of one inch. An additional 
commenter stated that they have several holding tanks that are 
continuously agitated to prevent settling. They requested that we add 
clarifying language to the definition of mixers to exclude tanks that 
are only agitated to prevent settling.
    Response: Based on our review of the available data on the current 
industry control on mixing tanks, we found that the proposed rule is 
more stringent than the floor and that to allow some visible gaps 
around shafts, etc., is consistent with the data available to set the 
floor. Therefore, we have written the final rule to allow no more than 
one inch of visible gap around mixing shafts and any required 
instrumentation.
    With regard to the request to exempt tanks that are agitated only 
to prevent settling, concern was that the mixing shafts required 
clearance. Because we have added a provision to allow up to a one inch 
clearance around the agitator shafts, this concern has been addressed 
and the suggested exemption for these specific types of mixers is not 
warranted. Therefore, the final rule does not include an exemption for 
tanks that agitate only to prevent settling.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that the rule allow active 
venting under three conditions: when adding filler; when using nitrogen 
blanketing; and prior to opening a mixer. Several commenters stated 
that when powders are added to mixing tanks, vent gases are directed to 
a dust collector to protect employees. One commenter stated that you 
cannot capture dust without actively venting. The commenter suggests 
that the proposed rule allow active venting as part of the material 
addition process. Two commenters actively vent covered mixers at very 
low flow through a dust collector. The active flow results from 
nitrogen flowing through the air space for safety reasons (to prevent 
vapor buildup). Based on stack test results, HAP emissions under these 
conditions were found to be very low (0.000292 lb styrene/lb styrene 
available). For these reasons, active venting for safety reasons, using 
an inert gas purge, and at low flow, should be allowed for covered 
mixers. Another commenter stated that some mixing operations use 
nitrogen blanketing for safety (to prevent formation of flammable 
atmospheres). These sources have an incentive to limit use of nitrogen 
blanketing because of cost; so, HAP emissions will be negligible. Two 
commenters also requested that the rule allow venting just before 
adding materials to clear out vapors prior to opening covers and to 
allow venting just after adding powders to capture residual dust in the 
vapor space. One commenter also asked that the term ``active venting'' 
be defined in the rule.
    Response: We believe that most HAP emissions that result from 
mixing operations occur when active mixing is taking place. Also, based 
on the data used to set the MACT floor, the facilities that responded 
that mixers have no active venting meant that the mixer was covered and 
not vented during mixing. As a result, we have written the rule 
requirement to read ``close any mixer vents when actual mixing is 
occurring, except that venting is allowed during addition of materials, 
or as necessary prior to adding materials or opening the cover for 
safety.'' Because we have removed the term ``active venting,'' no 
definition of this term is required.
    Comment: One commenter believes that covers should be required 
instead of add-on control for larger mixing operations. According to 
the commenter, covers can reduce HAP emissions by 84.8 percent to 96 
percent. The commenter then maintains that the incremental HAP 
emissions reduction from oxidation cannot justify the cost and energy 
use of control when compared to covers. The commenter notes that there 
are some facilities in EPA's database that use add-on controls for 
mixing. However, according to the commenter, the control in all cases 
is incidental to the use of the add-on control for other operations in 
the facility. Therefore, the commenter believes that add-on control is 
not the best control for mixing, and the final rule should require 
covers instead of add-on controls for all mixing operations.
    Response: The reasons for why HAP emissions are being controlled is 
usually not considered in the setting of MACT standards. Further, we 
disagree with the commenter's characterization of the control of mixing 
HAP emissions as ``incidental.'' We do not agree that the data provided 
support the claim of 85 to 96 percent control using covers. Therefore, 
we have not written the rule as requested by the commenter. New sources 
that exceed the 100 tpy HAP emissions threshold will still have to 
cover the mixing tanks and control their HAP emissions from mixing by 
95 percent, which is the new source floor level of control.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested that the definition of 
compression molding be changed to include a process where resin paste 
is added to the reinforcement at the press and to include the use of 
in-mold coating (IMC). According to the commenters, the resin paste 
process is similar to the use of SMC and BMC because there is no 
exposure of HAP-containing material, except where the charge is being 
prepared and placed in the mold. The controls for this process are the 
same as those available for SMC and BMC (i.e. limiting the quantity of 
exposed materials to that which is required for one press cycle). In-
mold coating is a process where HAP-containing materials are mixed with 
catalyst and then injected into the mold cavity after the molding cycle 
has started. The IMC reduces the need for post-mold coating (painting) 
operations. The controls available for IMC are the same as those 
generally available for mixing operations.
    Response: We have modified the definition of closed molding to 
include these processes.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that the work practice 
standard requiring closed molding operations to uncover, unwrap, or 
expose only one charge per mold cycle per machine be revised so that a 
charge is defined as the amount of materials required to charge the 
mold(s) for each machine cycle. Some machines have more than one mold, 
and limiting the amount of material would cause a bottleneck in 
production capacity. One commenter added that the rule should allow 
multiple charges to be loaded into the hopper, provided the hopper is 
kept covered between loading operations and that the unlimited use of 
slitting machines to unwrap, cut, and prepare charges should be 
permitted, provided that the charges are then covered or placed in a 
closed container prior to use at the press.
    Response: We agree that where multiple charges are required for a 
single mold cycle, the rule should allow them to be prepared at the 
same time

[[Page 19396]]

and held in a closed container prior to use. Therefore, we have written 
the final rule to define ``charge'' per the commenter's suggestion and 
to require that multiple charges be kept covered, as for single 
charges, until used. We have also written the final rule to allow the 
use of hoppers, robotic loaders, and slitters.
    Comment: Many commenters noted in the proposed rule that polymer 
casting mixing operations in containers of 21 gallons or less may be 
open while active mixing occurs and requested that this exemption be 
increased. The commenters note that many are using 350 lb containers, 
which is equivalent to 21.6 gallons. According to the commenters, the 
mixing process uses an electric mixer and requires frequent manual 
scraping of the sides, and a requirement to cover the mixer would 
present a productivity disadvantage.
    Response: Changing the volume exemption from 21 to 21.6 gallons 
would be consistent with the intent of the proposed exemption. The 
surface area of exempt mixers is a more important parameter because it 
is directly related to the amount of HAP emissions that would occur. 
Therefore, we have included this exemption in the final rule but have 
changed the exemption parameter to 500 square inches of surface area. 
This change should allow the 21.6 gallon mixers, commonly used in this 
industry, to be exempt from the requirement to cover the mixer.
    Comment: One commenter noted that worker safety, fire prevention, 
and product quality requirements necessitate limited active venting of 
HAP-containing materials storage vessels, covered mixers, and material 
conveyance enclosures. Some facilities store resins in bulk tanks with 
passive atmospheric venting. Problems arise from resin contact with the 
water vapor in the atmosphere. Polymerization occurs on side walls, 
vents, and transfer pipes. Vents, especially conservation vents, can 
plug, threatening the tank's structural integrity. Nitrogen blanketing 
is used by some facilities to solve these problems. Nitrogen blanketing 
is also used to inert the head space in bulk HAP-containing materials 
storage tanks for fire prevention.
    Another commenter requested clarifying language to allow passive 
vents for bulk HAP-containing materials storage tanks. The vents are 
small to allow for breathing of the tanks as they are filled and 
emptied. These vents are required under OSHA to prevent pressure build-
up and to reduce the chances of explosions and major leaks or spills. 
The annual breathing losses from all eight of this commenter's tanks 
are less than 1 tpy. A third commenter suggested that the rule be 
changed to allow venting from HAP-containing materials storage vessels.
    Response: We did not intend to prohibit bulk HAP-containing 
materials storage tanks from venting to the atmosphere for safety. The 
final rule has been written to clarify this. However, it is not our 
intent to allow venting from all HAP-containing materials storage 
vessels because the safety concerns commenters raised are limited to 
bulk HAP-containing materials storage vessels. Thus, the final rule 
prohibits venting from HAP-containing materials storage vessels other 
than bulk storage tanks.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed rule would require 
that HAP-containing materials storage containers be kept closed or 
covered, except when adding or removing materials. The commenter claims 
this provision is not workable.
    Response: We believe that covering HAP-containing materials storage 
containers is a simple and cost-effective way to reduce styrene 
evaporation. We also note that over 200 facilities that reported 
information on storage stated that HAP-containing materials storage 
containers are covered or closed. This provision has been written in 
the final rule.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that HAP cleaners be allowed 
when used in a closed system or covered tank. The reasons were that 
aggressive cleaners were necessary due to the presence of cured resin 
on some surfaces, and that it was important to use a cleaner that would 
not cause contamination problems. They stated that HAP emissions from 
these closed systems were minimal, and in many cases, the styrene used 
for cleaning was recycled to the process as a raw material.
    Response: The proposed rule allowed the use of HAP cleaners to 
remove cured resin from application equipment because of the difficulty 
associated with removing the cured resin. One commenter in particular 
identified other equipment used in the process on which cured resin may 
occur. We note, as the commenters have, that styrene is the main HAP 
used in the reinforced plastic composites industry and can be reused in 
the process without contaminating the end products. Therefore, we 
believe that the commenters' requests are reasonable and have written 
the final rule to expand the definition of ``application equipment'' 
and to allow the use of HAP-containing cleaners in closed systems 
(including covered tanks).

VI. Relationship of the Final NESHAP to Other NESHAP and the CAA 
Operating Permits Program

A. National Emissions Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control 
Devices, Recovery Devices, and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a 
Process (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS)

    If you use an add-on control device(s) to control HAP emissions, 
you will need to comply with certain provisions in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS, for add-on controls. The standards in subpart SS, cited by 
the final Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP, are applicable to most 
sources using an add-on control device. The final Reinforced Plastic 
Composites NESHAP cite these sections in subpart SS rather than 
repeating them in the regulatory text.

B. NESHAP for Boat Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart VVVV)

    The final NESHAP for Boat Manufacturing were published on August 
22, 2001 (66 FR 44218). There is a potential overlap between facilities 
that produce reinforced plastic composites if they also produce boat 
hulls, boat decks, or molds for boat hulls and decks. We have included 
provisions in the Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP to clarify where 
the Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP apply, and where the Boat 
Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV) apply.

C. NESHAP for Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating)

    There are currently NESHAP under development for proposal that will 
regulate coating of plastic parts and products. The Small Business 
Advocacy Review Panel, convened for the Reinforced Plastic Composites 
NESHAP, recommended that we consider the interaction of the Reinforced 
Plastic Composites NESHAP and the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP. 
The Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP may potentially affect facilities 
that produce reinforced plastic parts and then apply a coating to the 
finished parts. We have coordinated with this project and have 
determined that there should be no overlap (i.e., specific operations 
covered by today's final NESHAP should not also be covered in the 
Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP). We have not determined any 
requirements of today's final NESHAP that would overlap, conflict, or 
cause a duplication of effort.

[[Page 19397]]

D. Operating Permit Program

    Under the operating permit program codified at 40 CFR part 70 and 
40 CFR part 71, all major sources subject to standards under section 
111 or 112 of the CAA must obtain an operating permit (See Sec. Sec.  
70.3(a)(1) and 71.3(a)(1)). Therefore, all major sources subject to the 
final NESHAP must obtain an operating permit.
    Some reinforced plastic composites production facilities may be 
major sources based solely on their potential to emit, even though 
their actual HAP emissions are below the major source level. These 
facilities may choose to obtain a federally enforceable limit on their 
potential to emit so that they are no longer considered major sources 
subject to the final NESHAP. Sources that opt to limit their potential 
to emit (e.g., limits on operating hours or amount of material used) 
are referred to by the EPA as ``synthetic area'' sources. To become a 
synthetic area source, you must contact your local permitting authority 
to obtain an operating permit with the appropriate operating limits. 
These limits must be obtained prior to the compliance date for existing 
sources, which is April 21, 2006. These operating limits will then be 
federally enforceable under 40 CFR 70.6(b).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 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, OMB notified EPA at 
proposal that it considered this rulemaking a ``significant regulatory 
action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA submitted 
the proposed rule to OMB for review. Changes made in response to 
suggestions or recommendations from OMB are documented and included in 
the public record. The OMB has informed EPA that it no longer considers 
this action significant. Therefore, it is not subject to further OMB 
review. The OMB did request a copy of the final regulation and preamble 
prior to publication. However, they did not request any changes in the 
final rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information collection request (ICR) document 
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1976.01) and a copy may be obtained 
from Susan Auby by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, 
Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at ``auby.susan@epa.gov,'' 
or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may also be downloaded from the 
internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are 
not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The final rule contains monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements. These notices and reports are the minimum needed by us to 
determine if you are subject to the NESHAP and whether you are in 
compliance. These recordkeeping requirements are the minimum necessary 
to determine initial and ongoing compliance. Based on reported 
information, we would decide which reinforced plastic composites 
facilities and what records or processes should be inspected. The 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are consistent with the 
General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.
    These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically 
authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information 
submitted to us for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be 
safeguarded according to our policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    We expect the final rule to affect a total of approximately 488 
facilities over the first 3 years. This includes 435 existing 
facilities, and 53 new reinforced plastic composites facilities that 
will become subject to the final NESHAP during the first 3 years.
    The estimated average annual burden for the first 3 years after 
promulgation of the final NESHAP for industry and the implementing 
agency is outlined below. You can find the details of this information 
collection in the ``Standard Form 83 Supporting Statement for ICR No. 
1976.01,'' in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0003 (formerly Docket No. A-94-
52).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Total annual
                 Affected entity                    Total hours     Labor costs      O&M costs      Total costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................................          13,785        $613,623         $15,807        $629,431
Implementing agency.............................          11,120         444,047              NA         444,047
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. When the 
OMB approves the information collection requirements of the final rule, 
the EPA will amend the table in 40 CFR

[[Page 19398]]

part 9 of currently approved ICR control numbers issued by OMB for 
various regulations.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The EPA has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
in connection with the final rule. For purposes of assessing the 
impacts of today's final rule on small entities, small entity is 
defined as: (1) A small business ranging from 500 to 1,000 employees as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's size standards; (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. The table below presents the size threshold for 
small businesses by NAICS Codes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Maximum number of
                                                                                                employees to be
                   Category                                      NAICS codes                      considered a
                                                                                                 small business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing                                   335312                                                      1000
                                                336211
                                                336112
                                                33612
                                                336213
                                                336413
                                                33651
                                               ------------------------------------------------
                                                325211                                                       750
                                                327993
                                                332998
                                                33312
                                                33651
                                                335311
                                                335313
                                                33422
                                                33653
                                                336399
                                               ------------------------------------------------
                                                All other identified NAICS Codes in this                     500
                                                 source category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule and 
convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and 
recommendations of representatives of the regulated small entities in 
accordance with section 609(b) of the RFA (see 66 FR 40324). A detailed 
discussion of the Panel's advice and recommendations is found in Docket 
ID No. OAR-2003-0003 (formerly Docket No. A-94-52). A summary of the 
panel's recommendations is presented below.
    We have also prepared a FRFA for today's rule. The FRFA addresses 
the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA. The FRFA is available 
in the docket and is summarized below.
    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and, in some cases, area sources of HAP 
and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and 
subcategories. The Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source 
category (major sources only) was included on the initial list of 
source categories published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major 
sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 
10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP.
    The objective of the final rule is to apply standards based on MACT 
to all major sources in this source category. The criteria used to 
establish MACT are contained in section 112(d) of the CAA.
    We received several comments on the economic analysis for the 
proposed rule. However, these comments related to the general analysis 
methodology and were mainly focused on the above-the-floor 
requirements. These requirements did not impact any small businesses in 
our analysis. We had no comments specifically in the IRFA.
    Based on SBA size definitions and reported sales and employment 
data, we identified 279 of the 357 companies owning reinforced plastic 
composites facilities as small businesses. Although small businesses 
represent almost 80 percent of the companies within the source 
category, they are expected to incur 53 percent of the total industry 
compliance costs of $21.5 million. The average total annual compliance 
cost is projected to be $40,000 per small company, compared to the 
industry average of $60,000 per company. Under the final standards, the 
mean annual compliance cost, as a share of sales, for small businesses 
is 0.8 percent, and the median is 0.5 percent, with a range of 0.01 to 
9.6 percent. We estimate that 24 percent of small businesses (or 67 
firms) may experience an impact greater than 1 percent of sales, and 5 
percent of small businesses (or 14 firms) may experience an impact 
greater than 3 percent of sales.
    We also performed an economic impact analysis (EIA) that accounted 
for firm behavior to provide an estimate of the facility and market 
impacts of the final rule. This industry is characterized by profit 
margins of 3 to 4 percent. Small businesses were found to have higher 
per-unit production costs under baseline conditions and incur slightly 
higher per-unit compliance costs. As a result of these factors, the 
economic analysis indicates that 12 percent of facilities owned by 
small business are at risk of closure because of the final rule. Note 
that this number is slightly higher then the estimate at proposal, 
which was 10 percent. This change is not due to any change in 
stringency of the rule as applied to small businesses. It is due to the 
reduction in stringency of the rule for large businesses.
    Although any facility closures are cause for concern, the number of 
facilities at risk for closure would be the same if the final rule 
required only the MACT floor level of control for all facilities. The 
MACT floor is the least stringent level allowed by statute.

[[Page 19399]]

    The proposed rule contained significant accommodations for small 
businesses where requirements were more stringent then the MACT floor 
for existing sources. Since these above-the-floor requirements for 
existing sources have been eliminated in the final rule for all 
process/product groupings except centrifugal casting and continuous 
lamination/casting, these accommodations for small business are no 
longer necessary.
    Other accommodations originally included to aid small businesses 
were extended to all businesses at proposal and have been retained in 
the final NESHAP.
    In the proposed rule, there were different HAP emissions thresholds 
above which an existing facility had to comply with more stringent 
above-the-floor requirements of 95 percent capture and control. This 
threshold was 250 tpy of HAP emissions for small businesses and 100 tpy 
for large businesses. In the final rule, we have removed the above-the-
floor capture and control requirements for existing sources, except for 
those with centrifugal casting or continuous lamination/casting, and we 
have established a single threshold of 100 tpy for these existing 
sources, whether they are small or large businesses. Based on our 
analysis, setting the threshold at 100 tpy for these sources, rather 
than retaining the proposed 100 tpy for large businesses and 250 tpy 
for small businesses, does not result in any additional impacts on 
small businesses. This is because we have no facilities that emit over 
100 tpy, but less than 250 tpy, of HAP from centrifugal casting or 
continuous lamination/casting processes, and are small businesses.
    The reporting and recordkeeping requirements for these small 
businesses include initial notifications, startup notifications and 
compliance reports. These requirements were discussed in more detail 
under the discussion of the Paperwork Reduction Act above. We estimate 
that 301 existing facilities owned by small businesses will be impacted 
by these requirements, and 53 new facilities owned by small businesses 
will be impacted in the first 3 years. The professional skills required 
to complete these reports include the ability to calculate HAP 
emissions and resin use and read and follow report format guidance. All 
facilities impacted by the final rule are predicted to have personnel 
with the necessary skills because they would need these skills to 
comply with other regulatory requirements, such as Toxic Release 
Inventory (TRI) reporting.
    Provisions to minimize the reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
on small business have been incorporated into the final rule. These 
provisions include allowing the facility to substantiate resin and gel 
coat HAP contents using MSDS rather than requiring testing of each 
resin and gel coat; use of resin purchase records to determine resin 
use; and exemption of facilities that can demonstrate that all their 
resin and gel coats comply with the required HAP content limits from 
the requirement to keep records of resin use and calculate HAP 
emissions factor averages. These provisions have also been extended to 
all companies subject to today's final NESHAP.
    These facilities may also be subject to the NESHAP being developed 
for plastic parts and products. There should be no duplication of 
effort as a result of the Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP and the 
Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP being developed because the 
Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP will cover different operations. 
Facilities subject to the final rule are also subject to HAP emissions 
estimate reporting under the TRI requirements. In the final rule, we 
could determine no ways to combine TRI and the reporting requirements 
of the NESHAP because the objectives and statutory authorities of these 
requirements are different.
    As indicated above, we have incorporated significant alternatives 
into the final rule to minimize the impact on small businesses but 
still meet the objectives of the CAA.
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, EPA conducted outreach to 
small entities and convened a SBAR panel to review advice and 
recommendations from representatives of the small entities that 
potentially would be subject to the proposed rule requirements.
    Consistent with RFA/SBREFA requirements, the panel evaluated the 
assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to the 
elements of the IRFA. A copy of the panel report is included in the 
docket.
    The panel considered numerous regulatory flexibility options in 
response to concerns raised by the small entity representatives. The 
major concerns included the affordability and technical feasibility of 
add-on controls, the resin and gel coat HAP contents required to meet 
some of the MACT floors, and the regulatory treatment of specialty 
products.
    These are the major panel recommendations and EPA's response in 
today's final rule:
    [sbull] Recommend setting higher thresholds for small businesses 
than EPA had initially considered for requirements to use add-on 
controls.
    Response: In today's action, EPA has removed the requirements for 
add-on controls for open molding, pultrusion, SMC and BMC 
manufacturing, and mixing operations at existing sources. We are 
retaining this above-the-floor requirement for centrifugal casting and 
continuous lamination/casting operations at existing sources and 
setting a single threshold of 100 tpy applicable to both small and 
large businesses. Setting a common threshold at 100 tpy does not 
increase the impacts on any small business because we identified no 
small-business owned sources that are impacted as the result of the 
decision to set a single threshold. Also, the original reason for 
setting different existing source thresholds for small versus large 
businesses were the impacts of the capital cost of add-on controls for 
open molding, pultrusion, SMC and BMC manufacturing, and mixing. 
Because existing sources that have these operations are no longer 
subject to any above-the-floor add-on control requirements, the 
original reason for having the different thresholds no longer exists.
    The following recommendations were developed for small businesses, 
but were extended to both large and small business in the proposed rule 
and in the final rule.
    [sbull] Recommend setting the new source floor for small-owned 
sources at the level of the existing source floor.
    Response: Today's final rule includes this provision.
    [sbull] Recommend establishing separate floors for specialty 
products.
    Response: Today's final rule includes provisions for special 
products.
    [sbull] Explore pollution-prevention alternatives to add-on 
controls.
    Response: The EPA did explore this possibility with industry 
sources. We could not devise a workable pollution-prevention 
alternative to include in the proposed rule and requested comment. The 
only comments received on a pollution-prevention alternative were for 
the pultrusion process/product grouping. In the final rule, we have 
incorporated a new pollution-prevention technology recommended in the 
comments as a compliance alternative for pultrusion operations.
    [sbull] Recommend allowing individual facilities to use the same 
resin in all resin application processes.
    Response: Today's final rule includes this provision.
    [sbull] Reconsider the resin HAP content requirement for tooling 
resins.
    Response: We requested additional information on tooling resins

[[Page 19400]]

subsequent to proposal. Based on information we received, the floor for 
manual application of tooling resins was made less stringent. The 
available data still indicate that the floor for mechanical tooling 
resins in the proposed rule was appropriate.
    [sbull] Recommend separate floors for white/off-white gel coats and 
other pigmented gel coats.
    Response: Today's final rule includes this provision.
    [sbull] Reconsider the Agency's estimates of the cost of add-on 
controls.
    Response: We conducted a thorough review of our costs for add-on 
controls and made significant revisions to the cost estimates. As a 
result, the add-on control requirements have been removed for open 
molding, pultrusion, SMC and BMC manufacturing and mixing operations at 
existing sources.
    [sbull] Recommend grouping high-strength applications with 
corrosion-resistant operations.
    Response: Today's final rule includes this provision.
    As contemplated by Section 212 of SBREFA, EPA is also preparing a 
small entity compliance guide to help small entities comply with this 
rule. This guide will be made available on EPA's air toxics website, 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ by April 21, 2004.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us 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 us to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the final 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 total cost to the private sector is 
approximately $21.5 million per year for existing sources and $7.7 
million per year for new sources. The final rule contains no mandates 
affecting State, local, or Tribal governments. Thus, today's final rule 
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    In adopting the final rule, we have chosen regulatory alternatives 
that are the minimum mandated by the CAA with one exception. For 
existing centrifugal casting and continuous lamination/casting 
operations that emit over 100 tpy from these operations, we have chosen 
a regulatory alternative of 95 percent capture and control, rather than 
the minimum level of control required under the CAA. We choose this 
alternative because it results in additional HAP emissions reductions 
from these processes with a cost per ton of HAP reductions we consider 
to be reasonable.
    We have determined that the final 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.

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 
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.''
    The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. No reinforced plastic composites 
production facilities subject to the final NESHAP are owned by State or 
local governments. Therefore, State and local governments will not have 
any direct compliance costs resulting from the final rule. Furthermore, 
the final NESHAP do not require these governments to take on any new 
responsibilities. Therefore, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 
the final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (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.'' The final rule does not have 
tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 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, because we are not aware of any Indian 
tribal governments or communities affected by the final rule. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.

G. 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 we have reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency 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

[[Page 19401]]

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

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions 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. We 
determined that the overall energy demand for operations in the 
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category could increase 
by 10 million standard cubic feet per year of natural gas, and 0.6 
million kilowatt hours of electricity per year as a result of the final 
rule. These are not significant adverse effects under the Executive 
Order.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA 
to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and 
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when an 
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA cites in this 
rule the EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 
25, 25A, 204, and 204B, C, D, E. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA 
conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in 
addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus 
standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 204, 
204B-E. The search and review results have been documented and are 
placed in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0003 (formerly Docket No. A-94-52).
    Three voluntary consensus standards were identified as acceptable 
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this rule.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASME PTC 19.10-1981-Part 10, 
``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in this rule for its manual 
method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide 
content of exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981-Part 10 is an 
acceptable alternative to Method 3B.
    The voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D6420-99, ``Standard Test 
Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct 
Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' is 
appropriate in the cases described below for inclusion in the final 
rule, in addition to the currently available EPA Method 18, codified at 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    Similar to EPA's performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also 
a performance-based method for measurement of gaseous organic 
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific 
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages 
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less 
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method 
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18 
only where the target compound(s) are those listed in Section 1.1 of 
ASTM D6420-99, and the target concentration is between 150 parts per 
billion volume and 100 ppmv.
    For target compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, 
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies 
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, 
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed, 
met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no 
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water 
soluble. For target compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM 
D6420-99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM 
D6420-99 does not apply.
    As a result, EPA is citing ASTM D6420-99 in subpart WWWW of part 
63. The EPA will also cite Method 18 as a gas chromatography (GC) 
option in addition to ASTM D6420-99. This will allow the continued use 
of GC configurations other than GC/MS.
    The EPA requested comments on proposed compliance demonstration 
requirements in the proposed rule, and specifically invited the public 
to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. The 
only comment we received on voluntary consensus standards was that we 
should allow the use of the vapor suppressant effectiveness test 
protocol developed by the CFA to determine vapor suppressant 
effectiveness. We have reviewed the information supplied by the 
commenter and have incorporated this test method, ``Vapor Suppressant 
Effectiveness Test Protocol,'' into the final rule as appendix A to 
subpart WWWW of 40 CFR part 63.
    The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 13 
additional voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to the 
final rule. The EPA determined that 11 of these 13 standards were 
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this 
rulemaking. Therefore, EPA will not adopt these standards today. The 
reasons for this determination for the 11 methods are in the docket.
    The following two voluntary consensus standards identified in this 
search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the 
purposes of this rulemaking because they are under development by a 
voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by 
Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); and ASME/BSR 
MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot 
Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2.
    Section 63.5850 and Table 6 to subpart WWWW of part 63 list the EPA 
testing methods included in the final rule. Under Sec. Sec.  63.7(f) 
and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply 
to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative 
monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing methods, 
performance specifications, or procedures.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
SBREFA, 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. The EPA will submit a report 
containing the final 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 final rule in the 
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after 
it is

[[Page 19402]]

published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will be effective on 
April 21, 2003.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous air 
pollutants, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 28, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.


0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(29) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (29) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 
Spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.5799 and 63.5850.
* * * * *
0
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart WWWW to read as follows:

Subpart WWWW--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.5780 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.5785 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.5787 What if I also manufacture fiberglass boats or boat parts?
63.5790 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.5795 How do I know if my reinforced plastic composites production 
facility is a new affected source or an existing affected source?

Calculating Organic HAP Emissions Factors for Open Molding and 
Centrifugal Casting

63.5796 What are the organic HAP emissions factor equations in Table 
1 to this subpart and how are they used in this subpart?
63.5797 How do I determine the organic HAP content of my resins and 
gel coats?
63.5798 What if I want to use, or I manufacture, an application 
technology (new or existing) whose organic HAP emissions 
characteristics are not represented by the equations in Table 1 to 
this subpart?
63.5799 How do I calculate my facility's organic HAP emissions on a 
tpy basis for purposes of determining which paragraphs of Sec.  
63.5805 apply?

Compliance Dates and Standards

63.5800 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
63.5805 What standards must I meet to comply with this subpart?

Options for Meeting Standards

63.5810 What are my options for meeting the standards for open 
molding and centrifugal casting operations at new and existing 
sources?
63.5820 What are my options for meeting the standards for continuous 
lamination/casting operations?
63.5830 What are my options for meeting the standards for pultrusion 
operations subject to the 60 weight percent organic HAP emissions 
reductions requirement?

General Compliance Requirements

63.5835 What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.5840 By what date must I conduct a performance test or other 
initial compliance demonstration?
63.5845 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.5850 How do I conduct performance tests, performance evaluations, 
and design evaluations?
63.5855 What are my monitor installation and operation requirements?
63.5860 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the standards?

Emissions Factor, Percent Reduction, and Capture Efficiency Calculation 
Procedures for Continuous Lamination/Casting Operations

63.5865 What data must I generate to demonstrate compliance with the 
standards for continuous lamination/casting operations?
63.5870 How do I calculate annual uncontrolled and controlled 
organic HAP emissions from my wet-out area(s) and from my oven(s) 
for continuous lamination/casting operations?
63.5875 How do I determine the capture efficiency of the enclosure 
on my wet-out area and the capture efficiency of my oven(s) for 
continuous lamination/casting operations?
63.5880 How do I determine how much neat resin plus is applied to 
the line and how much neat gel coat plus is applied to the line for 
continuous lamination/casting operations?
63.5885 How do I calculate percent reduction to demonstrate 
compliance for continuous lamination/casting operations?
63.5890 How do I calculate an organic HAP emissions factor to 
demonstrate compliance for continuous lamination/casting operations?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.5895 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous 
compliance?
63.5900 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
standards?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.5905 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.5910 What reports must I submit and when?
63.5915 What records must I keep?
63.5920 In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.5925 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.5930 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.5935 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart WWWW of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Equations to Calculate Organic 
HAP Emissions Factors for Specific Open Molding and Centrifugal 
Casting Process Streams
Table 2 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Compliance Dates for New and 
Existing Reinforced Plastic Composites Facilities
Table 3 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Organic HAP Emissions Limits for 
Existing Open Molding Sources, New Open Molding Sources Emitting 
Less Than 100 TPY of HAP, and New and Existing Centrifugal Casting 
and Continuous Lamination/Casting Sources That Emit Less Than 100 
TPY of HAP
Table 4 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
Table 5 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Alternative Organic HAPEmissions 
Limits for Open Molding, Centrifugal Casting, and SMC Manufacturing 
Operations Where the Standard is Based on a 95 Percent Reduction 
Requirement
Table 6 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Basic Requirements for 
Performance Tests, Performance Evaluations, and Design Evaluations 
for New and Existing Sources Using Add-On Control Devices
Table 7 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Options Allowing Use of the Same 
Resin Across Different Operations That Use the Same Resin Type
Table 8 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Organic 
HAP Emissions Limits
Table 9 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Work 
Practice Standards.
Table 10 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Data Requirements for New and 
Existing Continuous Lamination Lines and Continuous Casting Lines 
Complying with a Percent Reduction Limit on a Per Line Basis
Table 11 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Data Requirements for New and 
Existing Continuous Lamination and Continuous Casting Lines 
Complying with a Percent

[[Page 19403]]

Reduction Limit or a Lbs/Ton Limit on an Averaging Basis
Table 12 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Data Requirements for New and 
Existing Continuous Lamination Lines and Continuous Casting Lines 
Complying with a Lbs/Ton Organic HAP Emissions Limit on a Per Line 
Basis
Table 13 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Applicability and Timing of 
Notifications
Table 14 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 15 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions (Subpart A) to Subpart WWWW of Part 63
Appendix A to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Test Method for Determining 
Vapor Suppressant Effectiveness

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.5780  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emissions standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for reinforced plastic composites production. 
This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and 
continuous compliance with the hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions 
standards.


Sec.  63.5785  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a 
reinforced plastic composites production facility that is located at a 
major source of HAP emissions. Reinforced plastic composites production 
is limited to operations in which reinforced and/or nonreinforced 
plastic composites or plastic molding compounds are manufactured using 
thermoset resins and/or gel coats that contain styrene to produce 
plastic composites. The resins and gel coats may also contain materials 
designed to enhance the chemical, physical, and/or thermal properties 
of the product. Reinforced plastic composites production also includes 
cleaning, mixing, HAP-containing materials storage, and repair 
operations associated with the production of plastic composites.
    (b) You are not subject to this subpart if your facility only 
repairs reinforced plastic composites. Repair includes the non-routine 
manufacture of individual components or parts intended to repair a 
larger item as defined in Sec.  63.5935
    (c) You are not subject to this subpart if your facility is a 
research and development facility as defined in section 112(c)(7) of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    (d) You are not subject to this subpart if your reinforced plastic 
composites operations use less than 1.2 tons per year (tpy) of 
thermoset resins and gel coats that contain styrene combined.


Sec.  63.5787  What if I also manufacture fiberglass boats or boat 
parts?

    (a) If your source meets the applicability criteria in Sec.  
63.5785, and is not subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart VVVV), you are subject to this subpart regardless of 
the final use of the parts you manufacture.
    (b) If your source is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, and 
all the reinforced plastic composites you manufacture are used in 
manufacturing your boats, you are not subject to this subpart.
    (c) If you are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, and meet 
the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.5785, and produce reinforced 
plastic composites that are not used in fiberglass boat manufacture at 
your facility, all operations associated with the manufacture of the 
reinforced plastic composites parts that are not used in fiberglass 
boat manufacture at your facility are subject to this subpart, except 
as noted in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (d) Facilities potentially subject to both this subpart and 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart VVVV may elect to have the operations in paragraph (c) 
of this section covered by 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, in lieu of 
this subpart, if they can demonstrate that this will not result in any 
organic HAP emissions increase compared to complying with this subpart.


Sec.  63.5790  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source at 
reinforced plastic composites production facilities.
    (b) The affected source consists of all parts of your facility 
engaged in the following operations: Open molding, closed molding, 
centrifugal casting, continuous lamination, continuous casting, polymer 
casting, pultrusion, sheet molding compound (SMC) manufacturing, bulk 
molding compound (BMC) manufacturing, mixing, cleaning of equipment 
used in reinforced plastic composites manufacture, HAP-containing 
materials storage, and repair operations on parts you also manufacture.
    (c) The following operations are specifically excluded from any 
requirements in this subpart: Application of mold sealing and release 
agents, mold stripping and cleaning, repair of parts that you did not 
manufacture, including non-routine manufacturing of parts, personal 
activities that are not part of the manufacturing operations (such as 
hobby shops on military bases), prepreg materials as defined in Sec.  
63.5935, non-gel coat surface coatings, repair or production materials 
that do not contain resin or gel coat, and research and development 
operations as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.
    (d) Production resins that must meet military specifications are 
allowed to meet the organic HAP limit contained in that specification. 
In order for this exemption to be used, you must supply to the 
permitting authority the specifications certified as accurate by the 
military procurement officer, and those specifications must state a 
requirement for a specific resin, or a specific resin HAP content. 
Production resins for which this exemption is used must be applied with 
nonatomizing resin application equipment unless you can demonstrate 
this is infeasible. You must keep a record of the resins for which you 
are using this exemption.


Sec.  63.5795  How do I know if my reinforced plastic composites 
production facility is a new affected source or an existing affected 
source?

    (a) A reinforced plastic composites production facility is a new 
affected source if it meets all the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (1) You commence construction of the affected source after August 
2, 2001.
    (2) You commence construction, and no other reinforced plastic 
composites production affected source exists at that site.
    (b) For the purposes of this subpart, an existing affected source 
is any affected source that is not a new affected source.

Calculating Organic HAP Emissions Factors for Open Molding and 
Centrifugal Casting


Sec.  63.5796  What are the organic HAP emissions factor equations in 
Table 1 to this subpart, and how are they used in this subpart?

    Emissions factors are used in this subpart to determine compliance 
with certain organic HAP emissions limits in Tables 3 and 5 to this 
subpart. You may use the equations in Table 1 to this subpart to 
calculate your emissions factors. Equations are available for each open 
molding operation and centrifugal casting operation and have units of 
pounds of organic HAP emitted per ton (lb/ton) of resin or gel coat 
applied. These equations are intended to provide a method for you to 
demonstrate compliance without the need to conduct for a HAP emissions 
test. In lieu of these equations, you can elect to use site-specific 
organic HAP emissions factors to demonstrate compliance provided your 
site-specific organic HAP

[[Page 19404]]

emissions factors are incorporated in the facility's air emissions 
permit and are based on actual facility HAP emissions test data. You 
may also use the organic HAP emissions factors calculated using the 
equations in Table 1 to this subpart, combined with resin and gel coat 
use data, to calculate your organic HAP emissions.


63.5797  How do I determine the organic HAP content of my resins and 
gel coats?

    In order to determine the organic HAP content of resins and gel 
coats, you may rely on information provided by the material 
manufacturer, such as manufacturer's formulation data and material 
safety data sheets (MSDS), using the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(a) through (c) of this section, as applicable.
    (a) Include in the organic HAP total each organic HAP that is 
present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration-defined carcinogens, as specified in 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4) and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other organic 
HAP compounds.
    (b) If the organic HAP content is provided by the material supplier 
or manufacturer as a range, you must use the upper limit of the range 
for determining compliance. If a separate measurement of the total 
organic HAP content, such as an analysis of the material by EPA Method 
311 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, exceeds the upper limit of the 
range of the total organic HAP content provided by the material 
supplier or manufacturer, then you must use the measured organic HAP 
content to determine compliance.
    (c) If the organic HAP content is provided as a single value, you 
may use that value to determine compliance. If a separate measurement 
of the total organic HAP content is made and is less than 2 percentage 
points higher than the value for total organic HAP content provided by 
the material supplier or manufacturer, then you still may use the 
provided value to demonstrate compliance. If the measured total organic 
HAP content exceeds the provided value by 2 percentage points or more, 
then you must use the measured organic HAP content to determine 
compliance.


Sec.  63.5798  What if I want to use, or I manufacture, an application 
technology (new or existing) whose organic HAP emissions 
characteristics are not represented by the equations in Table 1 to this 
subpart?

    If you wish to use a resin or gel coat application technology (new 
or existing), whose emission characteristics are not represented by the 
equations in Table 1 to this subpart, you may use the procedures in 
paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section to establish an organic HAP 
emissions factor. This organic HAP emissions factor may then be used to 
determine compliance with the emission limits in this subpart, and to 
calculate facility organic HAP emissions.
    (a) Perform a organic HAP emissions test to determine a site-
specific organic HAP emissions factor using the test procedures in 
Sec.  63.5850.
    (b) Submit a petition to the Administrator for administrative 
review of this subpart. This petition must contain a description of the 
resin or gel coat application technology and supporting organic HAP 
emissions test data obtained using EPA test methods or their 
equivalent. The emission test data should be obtained using a range of 
resin or gel coat HAP contents to demonstrate the effectiveness of the 
technology under the different conditions, and to demonstrate that the 
technology will be effective at different sites. We will review the 
submitted data, and, if appropriate, update the equations in Table 1 to 
this subpart.


Sec.  63.5799  How do I calculate my facility's organic HAP emissions 
on a tpy basis for purposes of determining which paragraphs of Sec.  
63.5805 apply?

    To calculate your facility's organic HAP emissions in tpy for 
purposes of determining which paragraphs in Sec.  63.5805 apply to you, 
you must use the procedures in either paragraph (a) of this section for 
new facilities prior to startup, or paragraph (b) of this section for 
existing facilities and new facilities after startup. You are not 
required to calculate or report emissions under this section if you are 
an existing facility that does not have centrifugal casting or 
continuous lamination/casting operations, or a new facility that does 
not have any of the following operations: Open molding, centrifugal 
casting, continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC and BMC 
manufacturing, and mixing. Emissions calculation and emission reporting 
procedures in other sections of this subpart still apply. Calculate 
organic HAP emissions prior to any add-on control device, and do not 
include organic HAP emissions from any resin or gel coat used in 
operations subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart VVVV, or from the manufacture of large parts as defined in 
Sec.  63.5805(d)(2). For centrifugal casting operations at existing 
facilities, do not include any organic HAP emissions where resin or gel 
coat is applied to an open centrifugal mold using open molding 
application techniques. Table 1 and the Table 1 footnotes to this 
subpart present more information on calculating centrifugal casting 
organic HAP emissions. The timing and reporting of these calculations 
is discussed in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (a) For new facilities prior to startup, calculate a weighted 
average organic HAP emissions factor for the operations specified in 
Sec.  63.5805(b) and (d) on a lbs/ton of resin and gel coat basis. Base 
the weighted average on your projected operation for the 12 months 
subsequent to facility startup. Multiply the weighted average organic 
HAP emissions factor by projected resin use over the same period. You 
may calculate your organic HAP emissions factor based on the factors in 
Table 1 to this subpart, or you may use any HAP emissions factor 
approved by us, such as factors from the Compilation of Air Pollutant 
Emissions Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP-42), 
or organic HAP emissions test data from similar facilities.
    (b) For existing facilities and new facilities after startup, you 
may use the procedures in either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this 
section. If the emission factors for an existing facility have changed 
over the period of time prior to their initial compliance date due to 
incorporation of pollution-prevention control techniques, existing 
facilities may base the average emission factor on their operations as 
they exist on the compliance date. If an existing facility has accepted 
an enforceable permit limit of less than 100 tons per year of HAP, and 
can demonstrate that they will operate at that level subsequent to the 
compliance date, the they can be deemed to be below the 100 tpy 
threshold.
    (1) Use a calculated emission factor. Calculate a weighted average 
organic HAP emissions factor on a lbs/ton of resin and gel coat basis. 
Base the weighted average on the prior 12 months of operation. Multiply 
the weighted average organic HAP emissions factor by resin and gel coat 
use over the same period. You may calculate this organic HAP emissions 
factor based on the equations in Table 1 to this subpart, or you may 
use any organic HAP emissions factor approved by us, such as factors 
from AP-42, or site-specific organic HAP emissions factors if they are 
supported by HAP emissions test data.
    (2) Conduct performance testing. Conduct performance testing using 
the test procedures in Sec.  63.5850 to determine a site-specific 
organic HAP emissions factor in units of lbs/ton of resin and gel coat 
used. Conduct the test

[[Page 19405]]

under conditions expected to result in the highest possible organic HAP 
emissions. Multiply this factor by annual resin and gel coat use to 
determine annual organic HAP emissions. This calculation must be 
repeated and reported annually.
    (c) Existing facilities must initially perform this calculation 
based on their 12 months of operation prior to April 21, 2003, and 
include this information with their initial notification report. 
Existing facilities must repeat the calculation based on their resin 
and gel coat use in the 12 months prior to their initial compliance 
date, and submit this information with their initial compliance report. 
After their initial compliance date, existing and new facilities must 
recalculate organic HAP emissions over the 12-month period ending June 
30 or December 31, whichever date is the first date following their 
compliance date specified in Sec.  63.5800. Subsequent calculations 
should cover the periods in the semiannual compliance reports.

Compliance Dates and Standards


Sec.  63.5800  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    You must comply with the standards in this subpart by the dates 
specified in Table 2 to this subpart. Facilities meeting a organic HAP 
emissions standard based on a 12-month rolling average must begin 
collecting data on the compliance date in order to demonstrate 
compliance.


Sec.  63.5805  What standards must I meet to comply with this subpart?

    You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (h) of 
this section that apply to you. You may elect to comply using any 
options to meeting these standards described in Sec. Sec.  63.5810 
through 63.5830. Use the procedures in Sec.  63.5799 to determine if 
you meet or exceed the 100 tpy threshold.
    (a) If you have an existing facility that does not have any 
centrifugal casting or continuous lamination/casting operations, or an 
existing facility that does have centrifugal casting or continuous 
lamination/casting operations, but the combination of all centrifugal 
casting and continuous lamination/casting operations emit less than 100 
tpy of HAP, you must meet the annual average organic HAP emissions 
limits in Table 3 to this subpart and the work practice standards in 
Table 4 to this subpart that apply to you.
    (b) If you have an existing facility that emits 100 tpy or more of 
HAP from the combination of all centrifugal casting and continuous 
lamination/casting operations, you must reduce the total organic HAP 
emissions from these operations by at least 95 percent by weight and 
meet any applicable work practice standards in Table 4 to this subpart 
that apply to you. Operations other than centrifugal casting, and 
continuous lamination/casting, must meet the requirements in Tables 3 
and 4 to this subpart. As an alternative to meeting 95 percent by 
weight, you may meet the organic HAP emissions limits in Table 5 to 
this subpart. If you have a continuous lamination/casting operation, 
that operation may alternatively meet a organic HAP emissions limit of 
1.47 lbs/ton of neat resin plus and neat gel coat plus applied. For 
centrifugal casting, the percent reduction requirement does not apply 
to organic HAP emissions that occur during resin application onto an 
open centrifugal casting mold using open molding application 
techniques.
    (c) If you have a new facility that emits less than 100 tpy of HAP 
from the combination of all open molding, centrifugal casting, 
continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, mixing, 
and BMC manufacturing, you must meet the annual average organic HAP 
emissions limits in Table 3 to this subpart and the work practice 
standards in Table 4 to this subpart that apply to you.
    (d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, if 
you have a new facility that emits 100 tpy or more of HAP from the 
combination of all open molding, centrifugal casting, continuous 
lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, mixing, and BMC 
manufacturing, you must reduce the total organic HAP emissions from 
these operations by at least 95 percent by weight and meet any 
applicable work practice standards in Table 4 to this subpart that 
apply to you. As an alternative to meeting 95 percent by weight, you 
may meet the organic HAP emissions limits in Table 5 to this subpart. 
If you have a continuous lamination/casting operation, that operation 
may alternatively meet a organic HAP emissions limit of 1.47 lbs/ton of 
neat resin plus and neat gel coat plus applied.
    (2)(i) If your new facility manufactures large reinforced plastic 
composites parts using open molding or pultrusion operations, the 
specific open molding and pultrusion operations used to produce large 
parts are not required to reduce HAP emissions by 95 weight percent, 
but must meet the emission limits in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (ii) A large open molding part is defined as a part that, when the 
final finished part is enclosed in the smallest rectangular six-sided 
box into which the part can fit, the total interior volume of the box 
exceeds 250 cubic feet, or any interior sides of the box exceed 50 
square feet.
    (iii) A large pultruded part is a part that exceeds an outside 
perimeter of 24 inches or has more than 350 reinforcements.
    (e) If you have a new or existing facility subject to paragraphs 
(a) or (c) of this section at their initial compliance date, that 
subsequently meets or exceeds the 100 tpy threshold in any calendar 
year, you must notify your permitting authority in your compliance 
report. You may at the same time request a one-time exemption from the 
requirements of paragraphs (b) or (d) of this section in your 
compliance report if you can demonstrate all of the following:
    (1) The exceedance of the threshold was due to circumstances that 
will not to be repeated.
    (2) The average annual organic HAP emissions from the potentially 
affected operations for the last 3 years were below 100 tpy.
    (3) Projected organic HAP emissions for the next calendar year are 
below 100 tpy, based on projected resin and gel coat use and the HAP 
emission factors calculated according to the procedures in Sec.  
63.5799
    (f) If you apply for an exemption in paragraph (e) of this section, 
and subsequently exceed the HAP emission thresholds specified in 
paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section over the next 12-month period, 
you must notify the permitting authority in your semi-annual report, 
the exemption is removed, and your facility must comply with paragraphs 
(b) or (d) of this section within 3 years from the time your organic 
HAP emissions first exceeded the threshold.
    (g) If you have repair operations subject to this subpart as 
defined in Sec.  63.5785, these repair operations must meet the 
requirements in Tables 3 and 4 to this subpart, and are not required to 
meet the 95 percent organic HAP emissions reduction requirements in 
paragraphs (b) or (d) of this section.
    (h) If you use an add-on control device to comply with this 
subpart, you must meet all requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS.

Options for Meeting Standards


Sec.  63.5810  What are my options for meeting the standards for open 
molding and centrifugal casting operations at new and existing sources?

    You must use one of the following methods in paragraphs (a) through 
(d) of this section to meet the standards in Sec.  63.5805. When you 
are complying with an emission limit in Tables 3 or 5

[[Page 19406]]

to this subpart, you may use any control method that reduces organic 
HAP emissions, including reducing resin and gel coat organic HAP 
content, changing to nonatomized mechanical application, covered curing 
techniques, and routing part or all of your emissions to an add-on 
control. The necessary calculations must be completed within 30 days 
after the end of each month. You may switch between the compliance 
options in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. When you change 
to an option based on a 12-month rolling average, you must base the 
average on the previous 12 months of data calculated using the 
compliance option you are currently using unless you were using the 
compliant materials option in paragraph (d) of this section. In this 
case, you must immediately begin collecting resin and gel coat use data 
and demonstrate compliance 12 months after changing options.
    (a) Meet the individual organic HAP emissions limits for each 
operation. Demonstrate that you meet the individual organic HAP 
emissions limits for each open molding operation and for each 
centrifugal casting operation type in Tables 3, or 5 to this subpart 
that apply to you. This is done in two steps. First, determine an 
organic HAP factor for each individual resin and gel coat, application 
method, and control method you use in a particular operation. Second, 
calculate, for each particular operation type, a weighted average of 
those organic HAP emissions factors based on resin and gel coat use. 
Your calculated organic HAP emissions factor must either be at or below 
the applicable organic HAP emissions limit in Tables 3 or 5 to this 
subpart based on a 12-month rolling average. Use the procedures 
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section to calculate 
average organic HAP emissions factors for each of your operations.
    (1) Calculate your actual organic HAP emissions factor for each 
different process stream within each operation type. A process stream 
is defined as each individual combination of resin or gel coat, 
application technique, and control technique. Process streams within 
operations types are considered different from each other if any of the 
following three characteristics vary: The neat resin plus or neat gel 
coat plus organic HAP content, the application technique, or the 
control technique. You must calculate organic HAP emissions factors for 
each different process stream by using the appropriate equations in 
Table 1 to this subpart for open molding and for centrifugal casting, 
or site-specific organic HAP emissions factors discussed in Sec.  
63.5796. If you want to use vapor suppressants to meet the organic HAP 
emissions limit for open molding, you must determine the vapor 
suppressant effectiveness by conducting testing according to the 
procedures specified of appendix A to subpart WWWW of 40 CFR part 63. 
If you want to use an add-on control device to meet the organic HAP 
emissions limit, you must determine the add-on control factor by 
conducting capture and control efficiency testing, using the procedures 
specified in Sec.  63.5850. The organic HAP emissions factor calculated 
from the equations in Table 1 to this subpart, or site-specific 
emissions factors, is multiplied by the add-on control factor to 
calculate the organic HAP emissions factor after control. Use Equation 
1 of this section to calculate the add-on control factor used in the 
organic HAP emissions factor equations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.000


Where:

Percent Control Efficiency=a value calculated from organic HAP 
emissions test measurements made according to the requirements of Sec.  
63.5850 to this subpart

    (2) Calculate your actual operation organic HAP emissions factor 
for the last 12 months for each open molding operation type and for 
each centrifugal casting operation type by calculating the weighted 
average of the individual process stream organic HAP emissions factors 
within each respective operation. To do this, sum the product of each 
individual organic HAP emissions factor calculated in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section and the amount of neat resin plus and neat gel coat 
plus usage that correspond to the individual factors and divide the 
numerator by the total amount of neat resin plus and neat gel coat plus 
used in that operation type. Use Equation 2 of this section to 
calculate your actual organic HAP emissions factor for each open 
molding operation type and each centrifugal casting operation type.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.001


Where:

Actual Process Stream EFi=actual organic HAP emissions 
factor for process stream i, lbs/ton
Materiali=neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus used during 
the last 12 calendar months for process stream i, tons
n=number of process streams where you calculated an organic HAP 
emissions factor

    (3) Compare each organic HAP emissions factor calculated in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section with its corresponding organic HAP 
emissions limit in Tables 3 or 5 to this subpart. If all emissions 
factors are equal to or less than their corresponding emission limits, 
then you are in compliance.
    (b) HAP Emissions factor averaging option. Demonstrate each month 
that you meet each weighted average of the organic HAP emissions limits 
in Tables 3 or 5 to this subpart that apply to you. When using this 
option, you must demonstrate compliance with the weighted average 
organic HAP emissions limit for all your open molding operations, and 
then separately demonstrate compliance with the weighted average 
organic HAP emissions limit for all your centrifugal casting 
operations. Open molding operations and centrifugal casting

[[Page 19407]]

operations may not be averaged with each other.
    (1) Each month calculate the weighted average organic HAP emissions 
limit for all open molding operations and the weighted average organic 
HAP emissions limit for all centrifugal casting operations for your 
facility for the last 12-month period to determine the organic HAP 
emissions limit you must meet. To do this, multiply the individual 
organic HAP emissions limits in Tables 3 or 5 to this subpart for each 
open molding (centrifugal casting) operation type by the amount of neat 
resin plus or neat gel coat plus used in the last 12 months for each 
open molding (centrifugal casting) operation type, sum these results, 
and then divide this sum by the total amount of neat resin plus and 
neat gel coat plus used in open molding (centrifugal casting) over the 
last 12 months. Use Equation 3 of this section to calculate the 
weighted average organic HAP emissions limit for all open molding 
operations and separately for all centrifugal casting operations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.002


Where:

ELi=organic HAP emissions limit for operation type i, lbs/
ton from Tables 3, 5 or 7 to this subpart
Materiali=neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus used during 
the last 12-month period for operation type i, tons
n=number of operations

    (2) Each month calculate your actual weighted average organic HAP 
emissions factor for open molding and centrifugal casting. To do this, 
multiply your actual open molding (centrifugal casting) operation 
organic HAP emissions factors and the amount of neat resin plus and 
neat gel coat plus used in each open molding (centrifugal casting) 
operation type, sum the results, and divide this sum by the total 
amount of neat resin plus and neat gel coat plus used in open molding 
(centrifugal casting) operations. You must calculate your actual 
individual HAP emissions factors for each operation type as described 
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. Use Equation 4 of this 
section to calculate your actual weighted average organic HAP emissions 
factor.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.003


Where:

Actual Individual EFi=Actual organic HAP emissions factor 
for operation type i, lbs/ton
Materiali=neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus used during 
the last 12 calendar months for operation type i, tons
n=number of operations

    (3) Compare the values calculated in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 
this section. If each 12-month rolling average organic HAP emissions 
factor is less than or equal to the corresponding 12-month rolling 
average organic HAP emissions limit, then you are in compliance.
    (c) If you have multiple operation types, meet the organic HAP 
emissions limit for one operation type, and use the same resin(s) for 
all operations of that resin type. If you have more than one operation 
type, you may meet the emission limit for one of those operations, and 
use the same resin(s) in all other open molding and centrifugal casting 
operations.
    (1) This option is limited to resins of the same type. The resin 
types for which this option may be used are noncorrosion-resistant, 
corrosion-resistant and/or high strength, and tooling.
    (2) For any combination of manual resin application, mechanical 
resin application, filament application, or centrifugal casting, you 
may elect to meet the organic HAP emissions limit for any one of these 
operations and use that operation's same resin in all of the resin 
operations listed in this paragraph. Table 7 to this subpart presents 
the possible combinations based on a facility selecting the application 
process that results in the highest allowable organic HAP content 
resin. If your resin organic HAP content is below the applicable values 
shown in Table 7 to this subpart, you are in compliance.
    (3) You may also use a weighted average organic HAP content for 
each operation described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. Calculate 
the weighted average organic HAP content monthly. Use Equation 2 in 
Sec.  63.5810(a)(2) except substitute organic HAP content for organic 
HAP emissions factor. You are in compliance if the weighted average 
organic HAP content based on the last 12 months of resin use is less 
than or equal to the applicable organic HAP contents in Table 7 to this 
subpart.
    (4) You may simultaneously use the averaging provisions in 
paragraph (b) of this section to demonstrate compliance for any 
operations and/or resins you do not include in your compliance 
demonstrations is paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section. However, 
any resins for which you claim compliance under the option in 
paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section may not be included in any of 
the averaging calculations described in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this 
section used for resins for which you are not claiming compliance under 
this option.
    (d) Use resins and gel coats that do not exceed the maximum organic 
HAP contents shown in Table 3 to this subpart.


Sec.  63.5820  What are my options for meeting the standards for 
continuous lamination/casting operations?

    You must use one or more of the options in paragraphs (a) through 
(d) of this section to meet the standards in Sec.  63.5805. Use the 
calculation

[[Page 19408]]

procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.5865 through 63.5890.
    (a) Compliant line option. Demonstrate that each continuous 
lamination line and each continuous casting line complies with the 
applicable standard.
    (b) Averaging option. Demonstrate that all continuous lamination 
and continuous casting lines combined, comply with the applicable 
standard.
    (c) Add-on control device option. If your operation must meet the 
58.5 weight percent organic HAP emissions reduction limit in Table 3 to 
this subpart, you have the option of demonstrating that you achieve 95 
percent reduction of all wet-out area organic HAP emissions.
    (d) Combination option. Use any combination of options in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section or, for affected sources at 
existing facilities, any combination of options in paragraphs (a), (b), 
and (c) of this section (in which one or more lines meet the standards 
on their own, two or more lines averaged together meet the standards, 
and one or more lines have their wet-out areas controlled to a level of 
95 percent).


Sec.  63.5830  What are my options for meeting the standards for 
pultrusion operations subject to the 60 weight percent organic HAP 
emissions reductions requirement?

    You must use one or more of the options in paragraphs (a) through 
(e) of this section to meet the 60 weight percent organic HAP emissions 
limit in Table 3 to this subpart, as required in Sec.  63.5805.
    (a) Achieve an overall reduction in organic HAP emissions of 60 
weight percent by capturing the organic HAP emissions and venting them 
to a control device or any combination of control devices. Conduct 
capture and destruction efficiency testing as specified in 63.5850 to 
this subpart to determine the percent organic HAP emissions reduction.
    (b) Design, install, and operate wet area enclosures and resin drip 
collection systems on pultrusion machines that meet the criteria in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (10) of this section.
    (1) The enclosure must cover and enclose the open resin bath and 
the forming area in which reinforcements are pre-wet or wet-out and 
moving toward the die(s). The surfaces of the enclosure must be closed 
except for openings to allow material to enter and exit the enclosure.
    (2) For open bath pultrusion machines with a radio frequency pre-
heat unit, the enclosure must extend from the beginning of the resin 
bath to within 12.5 inches or less of the entrance of the radio 
frequency pre-heat unit. If the stock that is within 12.5 inches or 
less of the entrance to the radio frequency pre-heat unit has any drip, 
it must be enclosed. The stock exiting the radio frequency pre-heat 
unit is not required to be in an enclosure if the stock has no drip 
between the exit of the radio frequency pre-heat unit to within 0.5 
inches of the entrance of the die.
    (3) For open bath pultrusion machines without a radio frequency 
pre-heat unit, the enclosure must extend from the beginning of the 
resin bath to within 0.5 inches or less of the die entrance.
    (4) For pultrusion lines with a pre-wet area prior to direct die 
injection, the enclosure must extend from the point at which the resin 
is applied to the reinforcement to within 12.5 inches or less of the 
entrance of the die(s). If the stock that is within 12.5 inches or less 
of the entrance to the die has any drip, it must be enclosed.
    (5) The total open area of the enclosure must not exceed two times 
the cross sectional area of the puller window(s) and must comply with 
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) All areas that are open need to be included in the total open 
area calculation with the exception of access panels, doors, and/or 
hatches that are part of the enclosure.
    (ii) The area that is displaced by entering reinforcement or 
exiting product is considered open.
    (iii) Areas that are covered by brush covers are considered closed.
    (6) Open areas for level control devices, monitoring devices, 
agitation shafts, and fill hoses must have no more than 1.0 inch 
clearance.
    (7) The access panels, doors, and/or hatches that are part of the 
enclosure must close tightly. Damaged access panels, doors, and/or 
hatches that do not close tightly must be replaced.
    (8) The enclosure may not be removed from the pultrusion line, and 
access panels, doors, and/or hatches that are part of the enclosure 
must remain closed whenever resin is in the bath, except for the time 
period discussed in paragraph (b)(9) of this section.
    (9) The maximum length of time the enclosure may be removed from 
the pultrusion line or the access panels, doors, and/or hatches and may 
be open, is 30 minutes per 8 hour shift, 45 minutes per 12 hour shift, 
or 90 minutes per day if the machine is operated for 24 hours in a day. 
The time restrictions do not apply if the open doors or panels do not 
cause the limit of two times the puller window area to be exceeded. 
Facilities may average the times that access panels, doors, and/or 
hatches are open across all operating lines. In that case the average 
must not exceed the times shown in this paragraph (b)(9). All lines 
included in the average must have operated the entire time period being 
averaged.
    (10) No fans, blowers, and/or air lines may be allowed within the 
enclosure. The enclosure must not be ventilated.
    (c) Use direct die injection pultrusion machines with resin drip 
collection systems that meet all the criteria specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) All the resin that is applied to the reinforcement is delivered 
directly to the die.
    (2) No exposed resin is present, except at the face of the die.
    (3) Resin drip is captured in closed piping and recycled directly 
to the resin injection chamber.
    (d) Use a preform injection system that meets the definition in 
Sec.  63.5935
    (e) Use any combination of options in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 
this section in which different pultrusion lines comply with different 
options described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, and
    (1) Each individual pultrusion machine meets the 60 percent 
reduction requirement, or
    (2) The weighted average reduction based on resin throughout of all 
machines combined is 60 percent. For purposes of the average percent 
reduction calculation, wet area enclosures reduce organic HAP emissions 
by 60 percent, and direct die injection and preform injection reduce 
organic HAP emissions by 90 percent.

General Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.5835  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance at all times with the work practice 
standards in Table 4 to this subpart, as well as the organic HAP 
emissions limits in Tables 3, or 5, or the organic HAP content limits 
in Table 7 to this subpart, as applicable, that you are meeting without 
the use of add-on controls.
    (b) You must be in compliance with all organic HAP emissions limits 
in this subpart that you meet using add-on controls, except during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (c) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to 
the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i).
    (d) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3) for 
any organic

[[Page 19409]]

HAP emissions limits you meet using an add-on control.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.5840  By what date must I conduct a performance test or other 
initial compliance demonstration?

    You must conduct performance tests, performance evaluations, design 
evaluations, capture efficiency testing, and other initial compliance 
demonstrations by the compliance date specified in Table 2 to this 
subpart, with three exceptions. Open molding and centrifugal casting 
operations that elect to meet a organic HAP emissions limit on a 12-
month rolling average must initiate collection of the required data on 
the compliance date, and demonstrate compliance 1 year after the 
compliance date. New sources that use add-on controls to initially meet 
compliance must demonstrate compliance within 180 days after their 
compliance date.


Sec.  63.5845  When must I conduct subsequentperformance tests?

    You must conduct a performance test every 5 years following the 
initial performance test for any standard you meet with an add-on 
control device.


Sec.  63.5850  How do I conduct performance tests, performance 
evaluations, and design evaluations?

    (a) If you are using any add-on controls to meet a organic HAP 
emissions limit in this subpart, you must conduct each performance 
test, performance evaluation, and design evaluation in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS, that applies to you. The basic requirements for performance 
tests, performance evaluations, and design evaluations are presented in 
Table 6 to this subpart.
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and under the specific conditions that 
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, specifies.
    (c) Each performance evaluation must be conducted according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.8(e) as applicable and under the specific 
conditions that 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, specifies.
    (d) You may not conduct performance tests or performance 
evaluations during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as 
specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(1).
    (e) You must conduct the control device performance test using the 
emission measurement methods specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) 
of this section.
    (1) Use either Method 1 or 1A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as 
appropriate, to select the sampling sites.
    (2) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F or 2G of appendix A to 40 CFR part 
60, as appropriate, to measure gas volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Use Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 to measure 
organic HAP emissions or use Method 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 
to measure total gaseous organic emissions as a surrogate for total 
organic HAP emissions. If you use Method 25A, you must assume that all 
gaseous organic emissions measured as carbon are organic HAP emissions. 
If you use Method 18 and the number of organic HAP in the exhaust 
stream exceeds five, you must take into account the use of multiple 
chromatographic columns and analytical techniques to get an accurate 
measure of at least 90 percent of the total organic HAP mass emissions. 
Do not use Method 18 to measure organic HAP emissions from a combustion 
device; use instead Method 25A and assume that all gaseous organic mass 
emissions measured as carbon are organic HAP emissions.
    (4) You may use American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
D6420-99 (available for purchase from at least one of the following 
addresses: 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; or 
University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 
48106.) in lieu of Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, under the 
conditions specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) If the target compound(s) is listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM 
D6420-99 and the target concentration is between 150 parts per billion 
by volume and 100 parts per million by volume.
    (ii) If the target compound(s) is not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM 
D6420-99, but is potentially detected by mass spectrometry, an 
additional system continuing calibration check after each run, as 
detailed in Section 10.5.3 of ASTM D6420-99, must be followed, met, 
documented, and submitted with the performance test report even if you 
do not use a moisture condenser or the compound is not considered 
soluble.
    (iii) If a minimum of one sample/analysis cycle is completed at 
least every 15 minutes.
    (5) Use the procedures in EPA Method 3B of appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 60 to determine an oxygen correction factor if required by Sec.  
63.997(e)(2)(iii)(C). You may use American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME) PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10 (available for purchase from 
ASME, P.O. Box 2900, 22 Law Drive, Fairfield, New Jersey, 07007-2900, 
or online at www.asme.org/catalog) as an alternative to EPA Method 3B 
of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
    (f) The control device performance test must consist of three runs 
and each run must last at least 1 hour. The production conditions 
during the test runs must represent normal production conditions with 
respect to the types of parts being made and material application 
methods. The production conditions during the test must also represent 
maximum potential emissions with respect to the organic HAP content of 
the materials being applied and the material application rates.
    (g) If you are using a concentrator/oxidizer control device, you 
must test the combined flow upstream of the concentrator, and the 
combined outlet flow from both the oxidizer and the concentrator to 
determine the overall control device efficiency. If the outlet flow 
from the concentrator and oxidizer are exhausted in separate stacks, 
you must test both stacks simultaneously with the inlet to the 
concentrator to determine the overall control device efficiency.
    (h) During the test, you must also monitor and record separately 
the amounts of production resin, tooling resin, pigmented gel coat, 
clear gel coat, and tooling gel coat applied inside the enclosure that 
is vented to the control device.


Sec.  63.5855  What are my monitor installation and operation 
requirements?

    You must monitor and operate all add-on control devices according 
to the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.


Sec.  63.5860  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
standards?

    (a) You demonstrate initial compliance with each organic HAP 
emissions standard in paragraphs (a) through (h) of Sec.  63.5805 that 
applies to you by using the procedures shown in Tables 8 and 9 to this 
subpart.
    (b) If using an add-on control device to demonstrate compliance, 
you must also establish each control device operating limit in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart SS, that applies to you.

Emission Factor, Percent Reduction, and Capture Efficiency Calculation 
Procedures for Continuous Lamination/Casting Operations


Sec.  63.5865  What data must I generate to demonstrate compliance with 
the standards for continuous lamination/casting operations?

    (a) For continuous lamination/casting affected sources complying 
with a percent reduction requirement, you must generate the data 
identified in

[[Page 19410]]

Tables 10 and 11 to this subpart for each data requirement that applies 
to your facility.
    (b) For continuous lamination/casting affected sources complying 
with a lbs/ton limit, you must generate the data identified in Tables 
11 and 12 to this subpart for each data requirement that applies to 
your facility.


Sec.  63.5870  How do I calculate annual uncontrolled and controlled 
organic HAP emissions from my wet-out area(s) and from my oven(s) for 
continuous lamination/casting operations?

    To calculate your annual uncontrolled and controlled organic HAP 
emissions from your wet-out areas and from your ovens, you must develop 
uncontrolled and controlled wet-out area and uncontrolled and 
controlled oven organic HAP emissions estimation equations or factors 
to apply to each formula applied on each line, determine how much of 
each formula for each end product is applied each year on each line, 
and assign uncontrolled and controlled wet-out area and uncontrolled 
and controlled oven organic HAP emissions estimation equations or 
factors to each formula. You must determine the overall capture 
efficiency using the procedures in Sec.  63.5850 to this subpart.
    (a) To develop uncontrolled and controlled organic HAP emissions 
estimation equations and factors, you must, at a minimum, do the 
following, as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 
section:
    (1) Identify each end product and the thickness of each end product 
produced on the line. Separate end products into the following end 
product groupings, as applicable: corrosion-resistant gel coated end 
products, noncorrosion-resistant gel coated end products, corrosion-
resistant nongel coated end products, and noncorrosion-resistant nongel 
coated end products. This step creates end product/thickness 
combinations.
    (2) Identify each formula used on the line to produce each end 
product/thickness combination. Identify the amount of each such formula 
applied per year. Rank each formula used to produce each end product/
thickness combination according to usage within each end product/
thickness combination.
    (3) For each end product/thickness combination being produced, 
select the formula with the highest usage rate for testing.
    (4) If not already selected, also select the worst-case formula 
(likely to be associated with the formula with the highest organic HAP 
content, type of HAP, application of gel coat, thin product, low line 
speed, higher resin table temperature) amongst all formulae. (You may 
use the results of the worst-case formula test for all formulae if 
desired to limit the amount of testing required.)
    (5) For each formula selected for testing, conduct at least one 
test (consisting of three runs). During the test, track information on 
organic HAP content and type of HAP, end product thickness, line speed, 
and resin temperature on the wet-out area table.
    (6) Using the test results, develop uncontrolled and controlled 
organic HAP emissions estimation equations (or factors) or series of 
equations (or factors) that best fit the results for estimating 
uncontrolled and controlled organic HAP emissions, taking into account 
the organic HAP content and type of HAP, end product thickness, line 
speed, and resin temperature on the wet-out area table.
    (b) In lieu of using the method specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section for developing uncontrolled and controlled organic HAP 
emissions estimation equations and factors, you may either method 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable.
    (1) For either uncontrolled or controlled organic HAP emissions 
estimates, you may use previously established, facility-specific 
organic HAP emissions equations or factors, provided they allow 
estimation of both wet-out area and oven organic HAP emissions, where 
necessary, and have been approved by your permitting authority. If a 
previously established equation or factor is specific to the wet-out 
area only, or to the oven only, then you must develop the corresponding 
uncontrolled or controlled equation or factor for the other organic HAP 
emissions source.
    (2) For uncontrolled (controlled) organic HAP emissions estimates, 
you may use controlled (uncontrolled) organic HAP emissions estimates 
and control device destruction efficiency to calculate your 
uncontrolled (controlled) organic HAP emissions provided the control 
device destruction efficiency was calculated at the same time you 
collected the data to develop your facility's controlled (uncontrolled) 
organic HAP emissions estimation equations and factors.
    (c) Assign to each formula an uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 
estimation equation or factor based on the end product/thickness 
combination for which that formula is used.
    (d)(1) To calculate your annual uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 
from wet-out areas that do not have any capture and control and from 
wet-out areas that are captured by an enclosure but are vented to the 
atmosphere and not to a control device, multiply each formula's annual 
usage by its appropriate organic HAP emissions estimation equation or 
factor and sum the individual results.
    (2) To calculate your annual uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 
that escape from the enclosure on the wet-out area, multiply each 
formula's annual usage by its appropriate uncontrolled organic HAP 
emissions estimation equation or factor, sum the individual results, 
and multiply the summation by 1 minus the percent capture (expressed as 
a fraction).
    (3) To calculate your annual uncontrolled oven organic HAP 
emissions, multiply each formula's annual usage by its appropriate 
uncontrolled organic HAP emissions estimation equation or factor and 
sum the individual results.
    (4) To calculate your annual controlled organic HAP emissions, 
multiply each formula's annual usage by its appropriate organic HAP 
emissions estimation equation or factor and sum the individual results 
to obtain total annual controlled organic HAP emissions.
    (e) Where a facility is calculating both uncontrolled and 
controlled organic HAP emissions estimation equations and factors, you 
must test the same formulae. In addition, you must develop both sets of 
equations and factors from the same tests.


Sec.  63.5875  How do I determine the capture efficiency of the 
enclosure on my wet-out area and the capture efficiency of my oven(s) 
for continuous lamination/casting operations?

    (a) The capture efficiency of a wet-out area enclosure is assumed 
to be 100 percent if it meets the design and operation requirements for 
a permanent total enclosure (PTE) specified in EPA Method 204 of 
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51. If a PTE does not exist, then a temporary 
total enclosure must be constructed and verified using EPA Method 204, 
and capture efficiency testing must be determined using EPA Methods 
204B through E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51.
    (b) The capture efficiency of an oven is to be considered 100 
percent, provided the oven is operated under negative pressure.

[[Page 19411]]

Sec.  63.5880  How do I determine how much neat resin plus is applied 
to the line and how much neat gel coat plus is applied to the line for 
continuous lamination/casting operations?

    Use the following procedures to determine how much neat resin plus 
and neat gel coat plus is applied to the line each year.
    (a) Track formula usage by end product/thickness combinations.
    (b) Use in-house records to show usage. This may be either from 
automated systems or manual records.
    (c) Record daily the usage of each formula/end product combination 
on each line. This is to be recorded at the end of each run (i.e., when 
a changeover in formula or product is made) and at the end of each 
shift.
    (d) Sum the amounts from the daily records to calculate annual 
usage of each formula/end product combination by line.


Sec.  63.5885  How do I calculate percent reduction to demonstrate 
compliance for Continuous Lamination/Casting Operations?

    You may calculate percent reduction using any of the methods in 
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
    (a) Compliant line option. If all of your wet-out areas have PTE 
that meet the requirements of EPA Method 204 of appendix M of 40 CFR 
part 51, and all of your wet-out area organic HAP emissions and oven 
organic HAP emissions are vented to an add-on control device, use 
Equation 1 of this section to demonstrate compliance. In all other 
situations, use Equation 2 of this section to demonstrate compliance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.004


Where:

PR=percent reduction
Inlet=HAP emissions entering the control device, lbs per year
Outlet=HAP emissions exiting the control device to the atmosphere, lbs 
per year
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.005


Where:

PR=percent reduction
WAEu=uncontrolled wet-out area organic HAP emissions, lbs 
per year
Ou=uncontrolled oven organic HAP emissions, lbs per year
WAEc=controlled wet-out area organic HAP emissions, lbs per 
year
Oc=controlled oven organic HAP emissions, lbs per year
    (b) Averaging option. Use Equation 3 of this section to calculate 
percent reduction.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.006


Where:

PR=percent reduction
WAEui=uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from wet-out area 
i, lbs per year
Ouj=uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from oven j, lbs per 
year
WAEci=controlled organic HAP emissions from wet-out area i, 
lbs per year
Ocj=controlled organic HAP emissions from oven j, lbs per 
year
i=number of wet-out areas
j=number of ovens
m=number of wet-out areas uncontrolled
n=number of ovens uncontrolled
o=number of wet-out areas controlled
p=number of ovens controlled
    (c) Add-on control device option. Use Equation 1 of this section to 
calculate percent reduction.
    (d) Combination option. Use Equations 1 through 3 of this section, 
as applicable, to calculate percent reduction.


Sec.  63.5890  How do I calculate a organic HAP emissions factor to 
demonstrate compliance for continuous lamination/casting operations?

    (a) Compliant line option. Use Equation 1 of this section to 
calculate a organic HAP emissions factor in lbs/ton.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.007


Where:

E=HAP emissions factor in lbs/ton of resin and gel coat
WAEu=uncontrolled wet-out area organic HAP emissions, lbs 
per year
WAEc=controlled wet-out area organic HAP emissions, lbs per 
year
Ou=uncontrolled oven organic HAP emissions, lbs per year
Oc=controlled oven organic HAP emissions, lbs per year
R=total usage of neat resin plus, tpy
G=total usage of neat gel coat plus, tpy
(b) Averaging option. Use Equation 2 of this section to demonstrate 
compliance.

[[Page 19412]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.008


Where:

E=HAP emissions factor in lbs/ton of resin and gel coat
WAEui=uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from wet-out area 
i, lbs per year
WAEci=controlled organic HAP emissions from wet-out area i, 
lbs per year
Ouj=uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from oven j, lbs per 
year
Ocj=controlled organic HAP emissions from oven j, lbs per 
year
i=number of wet-out areas
j=number of ovens
m=number of wet-out areas uncontrolled
n=number of ovens uncontrolled
o=number of wet-out areas controlled
p=number of ovens controlled
R=total usage of neat resin plus, tpy
G=total usage of neat gel coat plus, tpy

    (c) Combination option. Use Equations 1 and 2 of this section, as 
applicable, to demonstrate compliance.

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.5895  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) During production, you must collect and keep a record of data 
as indicated in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, if you are using an add-on 
control device.
    (b) You must monitor and collect data as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Except for monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and 
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
you must conduct all monitoring in continuous operation (or collect 
data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected source 
is operating.
    (2) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control 
activities for purposes to this subpart, including data averages and 
calculations, or fulfilling a minimum data availability requirement, if 
applicable. You must use all the data collected during all other 
periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated 
control system.
    (3) At all times, you must maintain necessary parts for routine 
repairs of the monitoring equipment.
    (4) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring equipment to provide 
valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.
    (c) You must collect and keep records of resin and gel coat use, 
organic HAP content, and operation where the resin is used if you are 
meeting any organic HAP emissions limits based on an organic HAP 
emissions limit in Tables 3 or 5 to this subpart. You must collect and 
keep records of resin and gel coat use, organic HAP content, and 
operation where the resin is used if you are meeting any organic HAP 
content limits in Table 7 to this subpart if you are averaging organic 
HAP contents. Resin use records may be based on purchase records if you 
can reasonably estimate how the resin is applied. The organic HAP 
content records may be based on MSDS or on resin specifications 
supplied by the resin supplier.
    (d) If you initially demonstrate that all resins and gel coats 
individually meet the applicable organic HAP emissions limits, or 
organic HAP content limits, then resin and gel coat use records are not 
required. However, you must include a statement in each compliance 
report that all resins and gel coats still meet the organic HAP limits 
for compliant resins and gel coats shown in Tables 3 or 7 to this 
subpart. If after this initial demonstration, you change to a higher 
organic HAP resin or gel coat, or increase the resin or gel coat 
organic HAP content, or change to a higher-emitting resin or gel coat 
application method, then you must either again demonstrate that all 
resins and gel coats still meet the applicable organic HAP emissions 
limits, or begin collecting resin and gel coat use records and 
calculate compliance on a 12-month rolling average.
    (e) For each of your pultrusion machines, you must record all times 
that wet area enclosures doors or covers are open and there is resin 
present in the resin bath.


Sec.  63.5900  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
standards?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each standard 
in Sec.  63.5805 that applies to you according to the methods specified 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Compliance with organic HAP emissions limits for sources using 
add-on control devices is demonstrated following the procedures in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart SS. Sources using add-on controls may also use 
continuous emissions monitors to demonstrate continuous compliance as 
an alternative to control parameter monitoring.
    (2) Compliance with organic HAP emissions limits is demonstrated by 
maintaining a organic HAP emissions factor value less than or equal to 
the appropriate organic HAP emissions limit listed in Tables 3, or 5 to 
this subpart, on a 12-month rolling average, or by including in each 
compliance report a statement that all resins and gel coats meet the 
appropriate organic HAP emissions limits, as discussed in Sec.  
63.5895(d).
    (3) Compliance with organic HAP content limits in Table 7 to this 
subpart is demonstrated by maintaining an average organic HAP content 
value less than or equal to the appropriate organic HAP contents listed 
in Table 7 to this subpart, on a 12-month rolling average, or by 
including in each compliance report a statement that all resins and gel 
coats individually meet the appropriate organic HAP content limits, as 
discussed in Sec.  63.5895(d).
    (4) Compliance with the work practice standards in Table 4 to this 
subpart is demonstrated by performing the work practice required for 
your operation.
    (b) You must report each deviation from each standard in Sec.  
63.5805 that applies to you. The deviations must be reported according 
to the requirements in Sec.  63.5910.
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, during 
periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction, you must meet the organic 
HAP emissions limits and work practice standards that apply to you.
    (d) When you use an add-on control device to meet standards in 
Sec.  63.5805, you are not required to meet those standards during 
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, but you must operate your 
affected source in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan.
    (e) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations 
that occur during a period of malfunction for those affected sources 
and standards specified in paragraph (d) of this section are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the

[[Page 19413]]

Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with 
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The Administrator will 
determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction are violations, according to the provisions 
in Sec.  63.6(e).

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.5905  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Table 13 to this 
subpart that apply to you by the dates specified in Table 13 to this 
subpart. The notifications are described more fully in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A, referenced in Table 13 to this subpart.
    (b) If you change any information submitted in any notification, 
you must submit the changes in writing to the Administrator within 15 
calendar days after the change.


Sec.  63.5910  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 14 to this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
by the date specified in Table 14 to this subpart and according to 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.5800 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the first calendar half after the 
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec.  63.5800.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the 
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for 
your affected source in Sec.  63.5800.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
requirements pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting 
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports 
pursuant to Sec.  70.6 (a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec.  71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you 
may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the 
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to 
the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (c) The compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section:
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (3) Date of the report and beginning and ending dates of the 
reporting period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the 
information in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) If there are no deviations from any organic HAP emissions 
limitations (emissions limit and operating limit) that apply to you, 
and there are no deviations from the requirements for work practice 
standards in Table 4 to this subpart, a statement that there were no 
deviations from the organic HAP emissions limitations or work practice 
standards during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which the continuous monitoring 
system (CMS), including a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) 
and an operating parameter monitoring system were out of control, as 
specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods 
during which the CMS was out of control during the reporting period.
    (d) For each deviation from a organic HAP emissions limitation 
(i.e., emissions limit and operating limit) and for each deviation from 
the requirements for work practice standards that occurs at an affected 
source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the organic HAP 
emissions limitations or work practice standards in this subpart, the 
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (4) of this section and in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 
section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (e) For each deviation from a organic HAP emissions limitation 
(i.e., emissions limit and operating limit) occurring at an affected 
source where you are using a CMS to comply with the organic HAP 
emissions limitation in this subpart, you must include the information 
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section and in paragraphs 
(e)(1) through (12) of this section. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out of control, 
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction, or during another period.
    (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the 
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of 
the total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (8) An identification of each organic HAP that was monitored at the 
affected source.
    (9) A brief description of the process units.
    (10) A brief description of the CMS.
    (11) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
    (12) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls 
since the last reporting period.
    (f) You must report if you have exceeded the 100 tpy organic HAP 
emissions threshold if that exceedance would make your facility subject 
to Sec.  63.5805(b) or (d). Include with this report any request for an 
exemption under Sec.  63.5805(e). If you receive an exemption under 
Sec.  63.5805(e) and subsequently exceed the 100 tpy organic HAP 
emissions threshold, you must report this exceedance as required in 
Sec.  63.5805(f).

[[Page 19414]]

    (g) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating 
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must report all deviations as 
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 
Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec.  71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected 
source submits a compliance report pursuant to Table 14 to this subpart 
along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 
Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec.  71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the 
compliance report includes all required information concerning 
deviations from any organic HAP emissions limitation (including any 
operating limit) or work practice requirement in this subpart, 
submission of the compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any 
obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring 
report. However, submission of a compliance report shall not otherwise 
affect any obligation the affected source may have to report deviations 
from permit requirements to the permitting authority.
    (h) Submit compliance reports and startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction reports based on the requirements in Table 14 to this 
subpart, and not based on the requirements in Sec.  63.999.


Sec.  63.5915  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) The records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) Records of performance tests, design, and performance 
evaluations as required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2).
    (b) If you use an add-on control device, you must keep all records 
required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, to show continuous compliance 
with this subpart.
    (c) You must keep all data, assumptions, and calculations used to 
determine organic HAP emissions factors or average organic HAP contents 
for operations listed in Tables 3, 5, and 7 to this subpart.
    (d) You must keep a certified statement that you are in compliance 
with the work practice requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, as 
applicable.
    (e) For a new or existing continuous lamination/casting operation, 
you must keep the records listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of 
this section, when complying with the percent reduction and/or lbs/ton 
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of Sec.  63.5805.
    (1) You must keep all data, assumptions, and calculations used to 
determine percent reduction and/or lbs/ton as applicable;
    (2) You must keep a brief description of the rationale for the 
assignment of an equation or factor to each formula;
    (3) When using facility-specific organic HAP emissions estimation 
equations or factors, you must keep all data, assumptions, and 
calculations used to derive the organic HAP emissions estimation 
equations and factors and identification and rationale for the worst-
case formula; and
    (4) For all organic HAP emissions estimation equations and organic 
HAP emissions factors, you must keep documentation that the appropriate 
permitting authority has approved them.


Sec.  63.5920  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

    (a) You must maintain all applicable records in such a manner that 
they can be readily accessed and are suitable for inspection according 
to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record 
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the 
date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, 
report, or record, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). You can keep the 
records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
    (d) You may keep records in hard copy or computer readable form 
including, but not limited to, paper, microfilm, computer floppy disk, 
magnetic tape, or microfiche.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.5925  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 15 to this subpart shows which parts of the General 
Provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.


Sec.  63.5930  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be administered by us, the EPA, or a delegated 
authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA 
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal 
agency, then that agency has the authority to administer and enforce 
this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to find out 
if this subpart is delegated to your 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 paragraph (c) of this section 
are not delegated.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 
section:
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the organic HAP emissions standards 
in Sec.  63.5805 under Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f) and 
as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.


Sec.  63.5935  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:
    Atomized mechanical application means application of resin or gel 
coat with spray equipment that separates the liquid into a fine mist. 
This fine mist may be created by forcing the liquid under high pressure 
through an elliptical orifice, bombarding a liquid stream with directed 
air jets, or a combination of these techniques.
    Bulk molding compound (BMC) means a putty-like molding compound 
containing resin(s) in a form that is ready to mold. In addition to 
resins, BMC may contain catalysts, fillers, and reinforcements. Bulk 
molding compound can be used in compression molding and injection 
molding operations to manufacture reinforced plastic composites 
products.
    BMC manufacturing means a process that involves the preparation of 
BMC.
    Centrifugal casting means a process for fabricating cylindrical 
composites, such as pipes, in which composite materials are positioned 
inside a rotating hollow mandrel and held in place by centrifugal 
forces until the part is sufficiently cured to maintain its physical 
shape.
    Charge means the amount of SMC or BMC that is placed into a 
compression or injection mold necessary to complete one mold cycle.
    Cleaning means removal of composite materials, such as cured and 
uncured resin from equipment, finished surfaces, floors, hands of 
employees, or any other surfaces.
    Clear production gel coat means an unpigmented, quick-setting resin 
used to improve the surface appearance and/

[[Page 19415]]

or performance of composites. It can be used to form the surface layer 
of any composites other than those used for molds in tooling 
operations.
    Closed molding means a grouping of processes for fabricating 
composites in a way that HAP-containing materials are not exposed to 
the atmosphere except during the material loading stage (e.g., 
compression molding, injection molding, and resin transfer molding). 
Processes where the mold is covered with plastic (or equivalent 
material) prior to resin application, and the resin is injected into 
the covered mold are also considered closed molding.
    Composite means a shaped and cured part produced by using composite 
materials.
    Composite materials means the raw materials used to make 
composites. The raw materials include styrene containing resins. They 
may also include gel coat, monomer, catalyst, pigment, filler, and 
reinforcement.
    Compression molding means a closed molding process for fabricating 
composites in which composite materials are placed inside matched dies 
that are used to cure the materials under heat and pressure without 
exposure to the atmosphere. The addition of mold paste or in-mold 
coating is considered part of the closed molding process. The composite 
materials used in this process are generally SMC or BMC.
    Compression/injection molding means a grouping of processes that 
involves the use of compression molding and/or injection molding.
    Continuous casting means a continuous process for fabricating 
composites in which composite materials are placed on an in-line 
conveyor belt to produce cast sheets that are cured in an oven.
    Continuous lamination means a continuous process for fabricating 
composites in which composite materials are typically sandwiched 
between plastic films, pulled through compaction rollers, and cured in 
an oven. This process is generally used to produce flat or corrugated 
products on an in-line conveyor.
    Continuous lamination/casting means a grouping of processes that 
involves the use of continuous lamination and/or continuous casting.
    Controlled emissions means those organic HAP emissions that are 
vented from a control device to the atmosphere.
    Corrosion-resistant gel coat means a gel coat used on a product 
made with a corrosion-resistant resin that has a corrosion-resistant 
end-use application.
    Corrosion-resistant end-use applications means applications where 
the product is manufactured specifically for an application that 
requires a level of chemical inertness or resistance to chemical attack 
above that required for typical reinforced plastic composites products. 
These applications include, but are not limited to, chemical processing 
and storage; pulp and paper production; sewer and wastewater treatment; 
power generation; potable water transfer and storage; food and drug 
processing; pollution or odor control; metals production and plating; 
semiconductor manufacturing; petroleum production, refining, and 
storage; mining; textile production; nuclear materials storage; 
swimming pools; and cosmetic production, as well as end-use 
applications that require high strength resins.
    Corrosion-resistant industry standard includes the following 
standards: ASME RTP-1 or Sect. X; ASTM D5364, D3299, D4097, D2996, 
D2997, D3262, D3517, D3754, D3840, D4024, D4160, D4161, D4162, D4184, 
D3982, or D3839; ANSI/AWWA C950; UL 215, 1316 or 1746, IAPMO PS-199, or 
written customer requirements for resistance to specified chemical 
environments.
    Corrosion-resistant product means a product made with a corrosion-
resistant resin and is manufactured to a corrosion-resistant industry 
standard, or a food contact industry standard, or is manufactured for 
corrosion-resistant end-use applications involving continuous or 
temporary chemical exposures.
    Corrosion-resistant resin means a resin that either:
    (1) Displays substantial retention of mechanical properties when 
undergoing ASTM C-581 coupon testing, where the resin is exposed for 6 
months or more to one of the following materials: Material with a pH 
= 12.0 or <= 3.0, oxidizing or reducing agents, organic 
solvents, or fuels or additives as defined in 40 CFR 79.2. In the 
coupon testing, the exposed resin needs to demonstrate a minimum of 50 
percent retention of the relevant mechanical property compared to the 
same resin in unexposed condition. In addition, the exposed resin needs 
to demonstrate an increased retention of the relevant mechanical 
property of at least 20 percentage points when compared to a similarly 
exposed general-purpose resin. For example, if the general-purpose 
resin retains 45 percent of the relevant property when tested as 
specified above, then a corrosion-resistant resin needs to retain at 
least 65 percent (45 percent plus 20 percent) of its property. The 
general-purpose resin used in the test needs to have an average 
molecular weight of greater than 1,000, be formulated with a 1:2 ratio 
of maleic anhydride to phthalic anhydride and 100 percent diethylene 
glycol, and a styrene content between 43 to 48 percent; or
    (2) Complies with industry standards that require specific exposure 
testing to corrosive media, such as UL 1316, UL 1746, or ASTM F-1216.
    Doctor box means the box or trough on an SMC machine into which the 
liquid resin paste is delivered before it is metered onto the carrier 
film.
    Filament application means an open molding process for fabricating 
composites in which reinforcements are fed through a resin bath and 
wound onto a rotating mandrel. The materials on the mandrel may be 
rolled out or worked by using nonmechanical tools prior to curing. 
Resin application to the reinforcement on the mandrel by means other 
than the resin bath, such as spray guns, pressure-fed rollers, flow 
coaters, or brushes is not considered filament application.
    Filled Resin means that fillers have been added to a resin such 
that the amount of inert substances is at least 10 percent by weight of 
the total resin plus filler mixture. Filler putty made from a resin is 
considered a filled resin.
    Fillers means inert substances dispersed throughout a resin, such 
as calcium carbonate, alumina trihydrate, hydrous aluminum silicate, 
mica, feldspar, wollastonite, silica, and talc. Materials that are not 
considered to be fillers are glass fibers or any type of reinforcement 
and microspheres.
    Fire retardant gel coat means a gel coat used for products for 
which low-flame spread/low-smoke resin is used.
    Fluid impingement technology means a spray gun that produces an 
expanding non-misting curtain of liquid by the impingement of low-
pressure uninterrupted liquid streams.
    Food contact industry standard means a standard related to food 
contact application contained in Food and Drug Administration's 
regulations at 21 CFR 177.2420.
    Gel Coat means a quick-setting resin used to improve surface 
appearance and/or performance of composites. It can be used to form the 
surface layer of any composites other than those used for molds in 
tooling operations.
    Gel coat application means a process where either clear production, 
pigmented production, white/off-white or tooling gel coat is applied.
    HAP-containing materials storage means an ancillary process which 
involves keeping HAP-containing materials, such as resins, gel coats, 
catalysts, monomers, and cleaners, in containers or bulk storage tanks 
for any

[[Page 19416]]

length of time. Containers may include small tanks, totes, vessels, and 
buckets.
    High Performance gel coat means a gel coat used on products for 
which National Science Foundation, United States Department of 
Agriculture, ASTM, durability, or other property testing is required.
    High strength gel coat means a gel coat applied to a product that 
requires high strength resin.
    High strength resins means polyester resins which have a casting 
tensile strength of 10,000 pounds per square inch or more and which are 
used for manufacturing products that have high strength requirements 
such as structural members and utility poles.
    Injection molding means a closed molding process for fabricating 
composites in which composite materials are injected under pressure 
into a heated mold cavity that represents the exact shape of the 
product. The composite materials are cured in the heated mold cavity.
    Low Flame Spread/Low Smoke Products means products that meet the 
following requirements. The products must meet both the applicable 
flame spread requirements and the applicable smoke requirements. 
Interior or exterior building application products must meet an ASTM E-
84 Flame Spread Index of less than or equal to 25, and Smoke Developed 
Index of less than or equal to 450, or pass National Fire Protection 
Association 286 Room Corner Burn Test with no flash over and total 
smoke released not exceeding 1000 meters square. Mass transit 
application products must meet an ASTM E-162 Flame Spread Index of less 
than or equal to 35 and ASTM E662 Smoke Density Ds @ 1.5 minutes less 
than or equal to 100 and Ds @ 4 minutes less than to equal to 200. Duct 
application products must meet ASTM E084 Flame Spread Index less than 
or equal to 25 and Smoke Developed Index less than or equal to 50 on 
the interior and/or exterior of the duct.
    Manual resin application means an open molding process for 
fabricating composites in which composite materials are applied to the 
mold by pouring or by using hands and nonmechanical tools, such as 
brushes and rollers. Materials are rolled out or worked by using 
nonmechanical tools prior to curing. The use of pressure-fed rollers 
and flow coaters to apply resin is not considered manual resin 
application.
    Mechanical resin application means an open molding process for 
fabricating composites in which composite materials (except gel coat) 
are applied to the mold by using mechanical tools such as spray guns, 
pressure-fed rollers, and flow coaters. Materials are rolled out or 
worked by using nonmechanical tools prior to curing.
    Mixing means the blending or agitation of any HAP-containing 
materials in vessels that are 5.00 gallons (18.9 liters) or larger. 
Mixing may involve the blending of resin, gel coat, filler, 
reinforcement, pigments, catalysts, monomers, and any other additives.
    Mold means a cavity or matrix into or onto which the composite 
materials are placed and from which the product takes its form.
    Neat gel coat means the resin as purchased for the supplier, but 
not including any inert fillers.
    Neat gel coat plus means neat gel coat plus any organic HAP-
containing materials that are added to the gel coat by the supplier or 
the facility, excluding catalysts and promoters. Neat gel coat plus 
does include any additions of styrene or methyl methacrylate monomer in 
any form, including in catalysts and promoters.
    Neat resin means the resin as purchased from the supplier, but not 
including any inert fillers.
    Neat resin plus means neat resin plus any organic HAP-containing 
materials that are added to the resin by the supplier or the facility. 
Neat resin plus does not include any added filler, reinforcements, 
catalysts, or promoters. Neat resin does include any additions of 
styrene or methyl methacrylate monomer in any form, including in 
catalysts and promoters.
    Nonatomized mechanical application means the use of application 
tools other than brushes to apply resin and gel coat where the 
application tool has documentation provided by its manufacturer or user 
that this design of the application tool has been organic HAP emissions 
tested, and the test results showed that use of this application tool 
results in organic HAP emissions that are no greater than the organic 
HAP emissions predicted by the applicable nonatomized application 
equation(s) in Table 1 to this subpart. In addition, the device must be 
operated according to the manufacturer's directions, including 
instructions to prevent the operation of the device at excessive spray 
pressures. Examples of nonatomized application include flow coaters, 
pressure fed rollers, and fluid impingement spray guns.
    Noncorrosion-resistant resin means any resin other than a 
corrosion-resistant resin or a tooling resin.
    Noncorrosion-resistant product means any product other than a 
corrosion-resistant product or a mold.
    Non-routine manufacture means that you manufacture parts to replace 
worn or damaged parts of a reinforced plastic composites product, or a 
product containing reinforced plastic composite parts, that was 
originally manufactured in another facility. For a part to qualify as 
non-routine manufacture, it must be used for repair or replacement, and 
the manufacturing schedule must be based on the current or anticipated 
repair needs of the reinforced plastic composites product, or a product 
containing reinforced plastic composite parts.
    Operation means a specific process typically found at a reinforced 
plastic composites facility. Examples of operations are noncorrosion-
resistant manual resin application, corrosion-resistant mechanical 
resin application, pigmented gel coat application, mixing and HAP-
containing materials storage.
    Operation group means a grouping of individual operations based 
primarily on mold type. Examples are open molding, closed molding, and 
centrifugal casting.
    Open molding means a process for fabricating composites in a way 
that HAP-containing materials are exposed to the atmosphere. Open 
molding includes processes such as manual resin application, mechanical 
resin application, filament application, and gel coat application. Open 
molding also includes application of resins and gel coats to parts that 
have been removed from the open mold.
    Pigmented gel coat means a gel coat that has a color, but does not 
contain 10 percent of more titanium dioxide by weight. It can be used 
to form the surface layer of any composites other than those used for 
molds in tooling operations.
    Polymer casting means a process for fabricating composites in which 
composite materials are ejected from a casting machine or poured into 
an open, partially open, or closed mold and cured. After the composite 
materials are poured into the mold, they are not rolled out or worked 
while the mold is open. The composite materials may or may not include 
reinforcements. Products produced by the polymer casting process 
include cultured marble products and polymer concrete.
    Preform Injection means a form of pultrusion where liquid resin is 
injected to saturate reinforcements in an enclosed system containing 
one or more chambers with openings only large enough to admit 
reinforcements. Resin, which drips out of the chamber(s) during the 
process, is collected in closed piping or covered troughs and then into 
a covered reservoir for recycle.

[[Page 19417]]

Resin storage vessels, reservoirs, transfer systems, and collection 
systems are covered or shielded from the ambient air. Preform injection 
differs from direct die injection in that the injection chambers are 
not directly attached to the die.
    Prepreg materials means reinforcing fabric received precoated with 
resin which is usually cured through the addition of heat.
    Pultrusion means a continuous process for manufacturing composites 
that have a uniform cross-sectional shape. The process consists of 
pulling a fiber-reinforcing material through a resin impregnation 
chamber or bath and through a shaping die, where the resin is 
subsequently cured. There are several types of pultrusion equipment, 
such as open bath, resin injection, and direct die injection equipment.
    Repair means application of resin or gel coat to a part to correct 
a defect, where the resin or gel coat application occurs after the part 
has gone through all the steps of its typical production process, or 
the application occurs outside the normal production area. For purposes 
of this subpart, rerouting a part back through the normal production 
line, or part of the normal production line, is not considered repair.
    Resin transfer molding means a process for manufacturing composites 
whereby catalyzed resin is transferred or injected into a closed mold 
in which fiberglass reinforcement has been placed.
    Sheet molding compound (SMC) means a ready-to-mold putty-like 
molding compound that contains resin(s) processed into sheet form. The 
molding compound is sandwiched between a top and a bottom film. In 
addition to resin(s), it may also contain catalysts, fillers, chemical 
thickeners, mold release agents, reinforcements, and other ingredients. 
Sheet molding compound can be used in compression molding to 
manufacture reinforced plastic composites products.
    Shrinkage controlled resin means a resin that when promoted, 
catalyzed, and filled according to the resin manufacturer's 
recommendations demonstrates less than 0.3 percent linear shrinkage 
when tested according to ASTM D2566.
    SMC manufacturing means a process which involves the preparation of 
SMC.
    Tooling gel coat means a gel coat that is used to form the surface 
layer of molds. Tooling gel coats generally have high heat distortion 
temperatures, low shrinkage, high barcol hardness, and high dimensional 
stability.
    Tooling resin means a resin that is used to produce molds. Tooling 
resins generally have high heat distortion temperatures, low shrinkage, 
high barcol hardness, and high dimensional stability.
    Uncontrolled oven organic HAP emissions means those organic HAP 
emissions emitted from the oven through closed vent systems to the 
atmosphere and not to a control device. These organic HAP emissions do 
not include organic HAP emissions that may escape into the workplace 
through the opening of panels or doors on the ovens or other similar 
fugitive organic HAP emissions in the workplace.
    Uncontrolled wet-out area organic HAP emissions means any or all of 
the following: Organic HAP emissions from wet-out areas that do not 
have any capture and control, organic HAP emissions that escape from 
wet-out area enclosures, and organic HAP emissions from wet-out areas 
that are captured by an enclosure but are vented to the atmosphere and 
not to an add-on control device.
    Unfilled means that there has been no addition of fillers to a 
resin or that less than 10 percent of fillers by weight of the total 
resin plus filler mixture has been added.
    Vapor suppressant means an additive, typically a wax, that migrates 
to the surface of the resin during curing and forms a barrier to seal 
in the styrene and reduce styrene emissions.
    Vapor-suppressed resin means a resin containing a vapor suppressant 
added for the purpose of reducing styrene emissions during curing.
    White and off-white gel coat means a gel coat that contains 10 
percent of more titanium dioxide by weight.

   Table 1 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Equations to Calculate Organic HAP Emissions Factors for Specific Open
                                 Molding and Centrifugal Casting Process Streams
    [As required in Sec.  Sec.   63.5796, 63.5799(a)(1) and (b), and 63.5810(a)(1), to calculate organic HAP
 emissions factors for specific open molding and centrifugal casting process streams you must use the equations
                                            in the following table:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Use this organic
                                                                             HAP Emissions     Use this organic
                                                                              Factor (EF)        HAP Emissions
                                                                             Equation for         Factor (EF)
                                                                            materials with       Equation for
 If your operation type is a new   And you use . . .      With . . .         less than 33      materials with 33
        or existing . . .                                                   percent organic     percent or more
                                                                            HAP (19 percent     organic HAP (19
                                                                            organic HAP for       percent for
                                                                            nonatomized gel     nonatomized gel
                                                                          coat)  1 2 3 . . .  coat)  1 2 3 . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Open molding operation.......  a. Manual resin     i. Nonvapor-        EF = 0.126 x % HAP  EF = ((0.286 x
                                   application.        suppressed resin.   x 2000.             %HAP)-0.0529) x
                                                                                               2000
                                                      ii. Vapor-          EF = 0.126 x % HAP  EF = ((0.286 x
                                                       suppressed resin.   x 2000 x (1-(0.5    %HAP)-0.0529) x
                                                                           x VSE factor)).     2000 x (1-(0.5 x
                                                                                               VSE factor))
                                                      iii. Vacuum         EF = 0.126 x % HAP  EF = ((0.286 x
                                                       bagging/closed-     x 2000 x 0.8.       %HAP)-0.0529) x
                                                       mold curing with                        2000 x 0.8
                                                       roll out.
                                                      iv. Vacuum bagging/ EF = (0.126 x %     EF = ((0.286 x
                                                       closed-mold         HAP x 2000 x 0.5.   %HAP)-0.0529) x
                                                       curing without                          2000 x 0.5
                                                       roll-out.
                                  b. Atomized         i. Nonvapor-        EF = 0.169 x %HAP   EF = ((0.714 x
                                   mechanical resin    suppressed resin.   x 2000.             %HAP)-0.18) x
                                   application.                                                2000
                                                      ii. Vapor-          EF = 0.169 x %HAP   EF = ((0.714 x
                                                       suppressed resin.   x 2000 x (1-(0.45   %HAP)-0.18) x
                                                                           x VSE factor)).     2000 x (1-(0.45 x
                                                                                               VSE factor))

[[Page 19418]]

 
                                                      iii. Vacuum         EF = 0.169 x %HAP   EF = ((0.714 x
                                                       bagging/closed-     x 2000 x 0.85.      %HAP)-0.18) x
                                                       mold curing with                        2000 x 0.85
                                                       roll-out.
                                                      iv. Vacuum bagging/ EF = 0.169 x %HAP   EF = ((0.714 x
                                                       closed-mold         x 2000 x 0.55.      %HAP)-0.18) x
                                                       curing without                          2000 x 0.55
                                                       roll-out.
                                  c. Nonatomized      v. Nonvapor-        EF = 0.107 x %HAP   EF = ((0.157 x
                                   mechanical resin    suppressed resin.   x 2000.             %HAP)-0.0165) x
                                   application.                                                2000
                                                      vi. Vapor-          EF = 0.107 x %HAP   EF = ((0.157 x
                                                       suppressed resin.   x 2000 x (1-(0.45   %HAP)-0.0165) x
                                                                           x VSE factor)).     2000 x (1-(0.45 x
                                                                                               VSE factor))
                                                      vii. Closed-mold    EF = 0.107 x %HAP   EF = ((0.157 x
                                                       curing with roll-   x 2000 x 0.85.      %HAP)-0.0165) x
                                                       out.                                    2000 x 0.85
                                                      viii. Vacuum        EF = 0.107 x %HAP   EF = ((0.157 x
                                                       bagging/closed-     x 2000 x 0.55.      %HAP)-0.0165) x
                                                       mold curing                             2000 x 0.55
                                                       without roll-out.
                                  d. Atomized         Nonvapor-           EF = 0.169 x %HAP   EF = 0.77 x
                                   mechanical resin    suppressed resin.   x 2000 x 0.77.      ((0.714 x %HAP)-
                                   application with                                            0.18) x 2000
                                   robotic or
                                   automated spray
                                   control \4\.
                                  e. Filament         i. Nonvapor-        EF = 0.184 x %HAP   EF = ((0.2746 x
                                   application \5\.    suppressed resin.   x 2000.             %HAP)-0.0298) x
                                                                                               2000
                                                      ii. Vapor-          EF = 0.12 x %HAP x  EF = ((0.2746 x
                                                       suppressed resin.   2000.               %HAP)-0.0298) x
                                                                                               2000 x 0.65
                                  f. Atomized spray   Nonvapor-           EF = 0.446 x %HAP   EF = ((1.03646 x
                                   gel coat            suppressed gel      x 2000.             %HAP)-0.195) x
                                   application.        coat.                                   2000.
                                  g. Nonatomized      Nonvapor-           EF = 0.185 x %HAP   EF = ((0.4506 x
                                   spray gel coat      suppressed gel      x 2000.             %HAP)-0.0505) x
                                   application.        coat.                                   2000.
                                  h. Manual gel coat  Nonvapor-           EF = 0.126 x % HAP  EF = ((0.286 x
                                   application \6\.    suppressed gel      x 2000 (for         %HAP)-0.0529) x
                                                       coat.               emissions           2000 (for
                                                                           estimation only,    emissions
                                                                           see footnote 6).    estimation only,
                                                                                               see footnote 6)
---------------------------------
2. Centrifugal casting            Heated air blown    Nonvapor-           EF = 0.558 x        EF = 0.558 x
 operations. 7 8.                  through molds.      suppressed resin.   (%HAP) x 2000.      (%HAP) x 2000.
                                  Vented molds, but   Nonvapor-           EF = 0.026 x        EF = 0.026 x
                                   air vented          suppressed resin.   (%HAP) x 2000.      (%HAP) x 2000.
                                   through the molds
                                   is not heated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes to Table 1
\1\ To obtain the organic HAP emissions factor value for an operation with an add-on control device multiply the
  EF above by the add-on control factor calculated using Equation 1 of Sec.   63.5810. The organic HAP emissions
  factors have units of lbs of organic HAP per ton of resin or gel coat applied.
\2\ Percent HAP means total weight percent of organic HAP (styrene, methyl methacrylate, and any other organic
  HAP) in the resin or gel coat prior to the addition of fillers, catalyst, and promoters. Input the percent HAP
  as a decimal, i.e. 33 percent HAP should be input as 0.33, not 33.
\3\ The VSE factor means the percent reduction in organic HAP emissions expressed as a decimal measured by the
  VSE test method of appendix A to this subpart.
\4\ This equation is based on a organic HAP emissions factor equation developed for mechanical atomized
  controlled spray. It may only be used for automated or robotic spray systems with atomized spray. All spray
  operations using hand held spray guns must use the appropriate mechanical atomized or mechanical nonatomized
  organic HAP emissions factor equation. Automated or robotic spray systems using nonatomized spray should use
  the appropriate nonatomized mechanical resin application equation.
\5\ Applies only to filament application using an open resin bath. If resin is applied manually or with a spray
  gun, use the appropriate manual or mechanical application organic HAP emissions factor equation.
\6\ Do not use this equation for determining compliance with emission limits in Tables 3 or 5 to this subpart.
  To determine compliance with emission limits you must treat all gel coat as if it were applied as part of your
  gel coat spray application operations. If you apply gel coat by manual techniques only, you must treat the gel
  coat as if it were applied with atomized spray and use Equation 1.f. to determine compliance with the
  appropriate emission limits in Tables 3 or 5 to this subpart. To estimate emissions from manually applied gel
  coat, you may either include the gel coat quantities you apply manually with the quantities applied using
  spray, or use this equation to estimate emissions from the manually applied portion of your gel coat.
\7\ These equations are for centrifugal casting operations where the mold is vented during spinning. Centrifugal
  casting operations where the mold is completely sealed after resin injection are considered to be closed
  molding operations.

[[Page 19419]]

 
\8\ If a centrifugal casting operation uses mechanical or manual resin application techniques to apply resin to
  an open centrifugal casting mold, use the appropriate open molding equation with covered cure and no rollout
  to determine an emission factor for operations prior to the closing of the centrifugal casting mold. If the
  closed centrifugal casting mold is vented during spinning, use the appropriate centrifugal casting equation to
  calculate an emission factor for the portion of the process where spinning and cure occur. If a centrifugal
  casting operation uses mechanical or manual resin application techniques to apply resin to an open centrifugal
  casting mold, and the mold is then closed and is not vented, treat the entire operation as open molding with
  covered cure and no rollout to determine emission factors.


    Table 2 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Compliance Dates for New and
            Existing Reinforced Plastic Composites Facilities
  [As required in Sec.  Sec.   63.5800 and 63.5840 you must demonstrate
   compliance with the standards by the dates in the following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Then you must comply
  If your facility is . . .         And . . .        by this date . . .
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. An existing source.......  a. Is a major source  i. April 21, 2006,
                               on or before the      or
                               publication date of  ii. You must accept
                               this subpart.         and meet an
                                                     enforceable HAP
                                                     emissions limit
                                                     below the major
                                                     source threshold
                                                     prior to April 21,
                                                     2006.
2. An existing source that    Becomes a major       3 years after
 is an area source.            source after the      becoming a major
                               publication date of   source or April 21,
                               this subpart.         2006, whichever is
                                                     later.
3. An existing source, and    Subsequently          3 years of the date
 emits less than 100 tpy of    increases its         your semi-annual
 organic HAP from the          actual organic HAP    compliance report
 combination of all            emissions to 100      indicates your
 centrifugal casting and       tpy or more from      facility meets or
 continuous lamination/        these operations,     exceeds the 100 tpy
 casting operations at the     which requires that   threshold.
 time of initial compliance    the facility must
 with this subpart.            now comply with the
                               standards in Sec.
                               63.5805(b).
4. A new source.............  Is a major source at  Upon startup or
                               startup.              April 21, 2003,
                                                     whichever is later.
5. A new source.............  Is an area source at  Immediately upon
                               startup and becomes   becoming a major
                               a major source.       source.
6. A new source, and emits    Subsequently          3 years from the
 less than 100 tpy of          increases its         date that your semi-
 organic HAP from the          actual organic HAP    annual compliance
 combination of all open       emissions to 100      report indicates
 molding, centrifugal          tpy or more from      your facility meets
 casting, continuous           the combination of    or exceeds the 100
 lamination/casting,           these operations,     tpy threshold.
 pultrusion, SMC and BMC       which requires that
 manufacturing, and mixing     the facility must
 operations at the time of     now meet the
 initial compliance with       standards in Sec.
 this subpart.                 63.5805(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 3 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Organic HAP Emissions Limits for Existing Open Molding Sources, New Open
   Molding Sources Emitting Less Than 100 TPY of HAP, and New and Existing Centrifugal Casting and Continuous
                          Lamination/Casting Sources that Emit Less Than 100 TPY of HAP
  [As required in Sec.  Sec.   63.5796, 63.5805 (a) through (c) and (g), 63.5810(a), (b), and (d), 63.5820(c),
  63.5830, 63.5835(a), 63.5895(c) and (d), 63.5900(a)(2), and 63.5915(c), you must meet the appropriate organic
                                  HAP emissions limits in the following table:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         And the highest organic
                                                                    Your organic HAP        HAP content for a
   If your operation type is . . .        And you use . . .      emissions limit is 1 .   compliant resin or gel
                                                                          . .                coat is 2 . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Open molding--corrosion-resistant   a. Mechanical resin      112 lb/ton.............  46.2 with nonatomized
 and/or high strength (CR/HS).          application.                                      resin application.
                                       b. Filament application  171 lb/ton.............  42.0.
                                       c. Manual resin          123 lb/ton.............  40.0.
                                        application.
2. Open molding--non-CR/HS...........  a. Mechanical resin      87 lb/ton..............  38.4 with nonatomized
                                        application.                                      resin application.
                                       b. Filament application  188 lb/ton.............  45.0.
                                       c. Manual resin          87 lb/ton..............  33.6.
                                        application.
3. Open molding--tooling.............  a. Mechanical resin      254 lb/ton.............  43.0 with atomized
                                        application.                                      application, 91.4 with
                                                                                          nonatomized
                                                                                          application.
                                       b. Manual resin          157 lb/ton.............  45.9.
                                        application.
4. Open molding--low-flame spread/low- a. Mechanical resin      497 lb/ton.............  60.0.
 smoke products.                        application.
                                       b. Filament application  270 lb/ton.............  60.0.
                                       c. Manual resin          238 lb/ton.............  60.0.
                                        application.
5. Open molding--shrinkage controlled  a. Mechanical resin      354 lb/ton.............  50.0.
 resins.                                application.
                                       b. Filament application  215 lb/ton.............  50.0.
                                       c. Manual resin          180 lb/ton.............  50.0.
                                        application.
6. Open molding--gel coat 3..........  a. Tooling gel coating.  437 lb/ton.............  40.0.
                                       b. White/off white       267 lb/ton.............  30.0.
                                        pigmented gel coating.
                                       c. All other pigmented   377 lb/ton.............  37.0.
                                        gel coating.
                                       d. CR/HS or high         605 lb/ton.............  48.0.
                                        performance gel coat.
                                       e. Fire retardant gel    854 lb/ton.............  60.0.
                                        coat.
                                       f. Clear production gel  522 lb/ton.............  44.0.
                                        coat.

[[Page 19420]]

 
7. Centrifugal casting--CR/HS 4 5....  N/A....................  25 lb/ton..............  48.0.
8. Centrifugal casting--non-CR/HS 4 5  N/A....................  20 lb/ton..............  37.5.
9. Pultrusion 6......................  N/A....................  Reduce total organic     NA.
                                                                 HAP emissions by at
                                                                 least 60 weight
                                                                 percent.
10. Continuous lamination/casting....  N/A....................  Reduce total organic     NA.
                                                                 HAP emissions by at
                                                                 least 58.5 weight
                                                                 percent or not exceed
                                                                 a organic HAP
                                                                 emissions limit of
                                                                 15.7 lbs of organic
                                                                 HAP per ton of neat
                                                                 resin plus and neat
                                                                 gel coat plus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes to Table 3
1 Organic HAP emissions limits for open molding and centrifugal casting are expressed as lb/ton. You must be at
  or below these values based on a 12-month rolling average.
2 A compliant resin or gel coat means that if its organic HAP content is used to calculate an organic HAP
  emissions factor, the factor calculated does not exceed the appropriate organic HAP emissions limit shown in
  the table.
3 These limits are for spray application of gel coat. Manual gel coat application must be included as part of
  spray gel coat application for compliance purposes using the same organic HAP emissions factor equation and
  organic HAP emissions limit. If you only apply gel coat with manual application, treat the manually applied
  gel coat as if it were applied with atomized spray for compliance determinations.
4 Centrifugal casting operations where the mold is not vented during spinning and cure are considered to be
  closed molding and are not subject to any emissions limit. Centrifugal casting operations where the mold is
  not vented during spinning and cure, and the resin is applied to the open centrifugal casting mold using
  mechanical or manual open molding resin application techniques are considered to be open molding operations
  and the appropriate open molding emission limits apply.
5 Centrifugal casting operations where the mold is vented during spinning and the resin is applied to the open
  centrifugal casting mold using mechanical or manual open molding resin application techniques, use the
  appropriate centrifugal casting emission limit to determine compliance. Calculate your emission factor using
  the appropriate centrifugal casting emission factor in Table 1 to this subpart, or a site specific emission
  factor as discussed in Sec.   63.5796.
6 Pultrusion machines that produce parts with 1000 or more reinforcements and a cross sectional area of 60
  inches or more are not subject to this requirement. Their requirement is the work practice of air flow
  management which is described in Table 4 to this subpart.


      Table 4 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Work Practice Standards
      [As required in Sec.  Sec.   63.5805 (a) through (d) and (g),
 63.5835(a), 63.5900(a)(3), 63.5910(c)(5), and 63.5915(d), you must meet
    the appropriate work practice standards in the following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A new or existing closed    Uncover, unwrap or expose only one charge
 molding operation using        per mold cycle per compression/injection
 compression/injection          molding machine. For machines with
 molding.                       multiple molds, one charge means
                                sufficient material to fill all molds
                                for one cycle. For machines with robotic
                                loaders, no more than one charge may be
                                exposed prior to the loader. For
                                machines fed by hoppers, sufficient
                                material may be uncovered to fill the
                                hopper. Hoppers must be closed when not
                                adding materials. Materials may be
                                uncovered to feed to slitting machines.
                                Materials must be recovered after
                                slitting.
2. A new or existing cleaning  Not use cleaning solvents that contain
 operation.                     HAP, except that styrene may be used as
                                a cleaner in closed systems, and organic
                                HAP containing cleaners may be used to
                                clean cured resin from application
                                equipment. Application equipment
                                includes any equipment that directly
                                contacts resin.
3. A new or existing           Keep containers that store HAP-containing
 materials HAP-containing       materials closed or covered except
 materials storage operation.   during the addition or removal of
                                materials. Bulk HAP-containing materials
                                storage tanks may be vented as necessary
                                for safety.
4. An existing or new SMC      Close or cover the resin delivery system
 manufacturing operation.       to the doctor box on each SMC
                                manufacturing machine. The doctor box
                                itself may be open.
5. An existing or new SMC      Use a nylon containing film to enclose
 manufacturing operation.       SMC.
6. An existing or new mixing   Use mixer covers with no visible gaps
 or BMC manufacturing           present in the mixer covers, except that
 operation.                     gaps of up to 1 inch are permissible
                                around mixer shafts and any required
                                instrumentation.
7. An existing mixing or BMC   Close any mixer vents when actual mixing
 manufacturing operation.       is occurring, except that venting is
                                allowed during addition of materials, or
                                as necessary prior to adding materials
                                or opening the cover for safety.
8. A new or existing mixing    Keep the mixer covers closed while actual
 or BMC manufacturing           mixing is occurring except when adding
 operation \1\.                 materials or changing covers to the
                                mixing vessels.

[[Page 19421]]

 
9. A new or existing           i. Not allow vents from the building
 pultrusion operation           ventilation system, or local or portable
 manufacturing parts with       fans to blow directly on or across the
 1,000 or more reinforcements   wet-out area(s),
 and a cross section area of   ii. Not permit point suction of ambient
 60 square inches or more       air in the wet-out area(s) unless that
 that is not subject to the     air is directed to a control device,
 95 percent organic HAP        iii. Use devices such as deflectors,
 emission reduction             baffles, and curtains when practical to
 requirement.                   reduce air flow velocity across the wet-
                                out area(s),
                               iv. Direct any compressed air exhausts
                                away from resin and wet-out area(s),
                               v. convey resin collected from drip-off
                                pans or other devices to reservoirs,
                                tanks, or sumps via covered troughs,
                                pipes, or other covered conveyance that
                                shields the resin from the ambient air,
                               vi. Cover all reservoirs, tanks, sumps,
                                or HAP-containing materials storage
                                vessels except when they are being
                                charged or filled, and
                               vii. Cover or shield from ambient air
                                resin delivery systems to the wet-out
                                area(s) from reservoirs, tanks, or sumps
                                where practical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Containers of 5 gallons or less may be open when active mixing is
  taking place, or during periods when they are in process (i.e., they
  are actively being used to apply resin). For polymer casting mixing
  operations, containers with a surface area of 500 square inches or
  less may be open while active mixing is taking place.


 Table 5 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Alternative Organic HAP Emissions
   Limits for Open Molding, Centrifugal Casting, and SMC Manufacturing
    Operations Where the Standard is Based on a 95 Percent Reduction
                               Requirement
  [As specified in Sec.  Sec.   63.5796, 63.5805(b) and (d), 63.5810(a)
  and (b), 63.5835(a), 63.5895(c), 63.5900(a)(2), and 63.5915(c), as an
     alternative to the 95 percent organic HAP emissions reductions
 requirement, you may meet the appropriate organic HAP emissions limits
                        in the following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       LYour organic HAP
                                                        emissions limit
 If your operation type is . . .   And you use . . .     is a \1\. . .
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Open molding--corrosion-       a. Mechanical resin  6 lb/ton.
 resistant and/or high strength    application.
 (CR/HS).
                                  b. Filament          9 lb/ton.
                                   application.
                                  c. Manual resin      7 lb/ton.
                                   application.
2. Open molding--non-CR/HS......  a. mechanical resin  13 lb/ton.
                                   application.
                                  b. Filament          10 lb/ton.
                                   application.
                                  c. Manual resin      5 lb/ton.
                                   application.
3. Open molding--tooling........  a. Mechanical resin  13 lb/ton.
                                   application.
                                  b. Manual resin      8 lb/ton.
                                   application.
4. Open molding--low flame        a. Mechanical resin  25 lb/ton.
 spread/low smoke products.        application.
                                  b. Filament          14 lb/ton.
                                   application.
                                  c. Manual resin      12 lb/ton.
                                   application.
5. Open molding--shrinkage        a. Mechanical resin  18 lb/ton.
 controlled resins.                application.
                                  b. Filament          11 lb/ton.
                                   application.
                                  c. Manual resin      9 lb/ton.
                                   application.
6. Open molding--gel coat \2\...  a. Tooling gel       22 lb/ton.
                                   coating.
                                  b. White/off white   22 lb/ton.
                                   pigmented gel
                                   coating.
                                  c. All other         19 lb/ton.
                                   pigmented gel
                                   coating.
                                  d. CR/HS or high     31 lb/ton.
                                   performance gel
                                   coat.
                                  e. Fire retardant    43 lb/ton.
                                   gel coat.
                                  f. Clear production  27 lb/ton.
                                   gel coat.
7. Centrifugal casting--CR/HS 3   A vent system that   27 lb/ton.
 4.                                moves heated air
                                   through the mold.
8. Centrifugal casting--non-CR/   A vent system that   21 lb/ton.
 HS 3 4.                           moves heated air
                                   through the mold.
7. Centrifugal casting--CR/HS 3   A vent system that   2 lb/ton.
 4.                                moves ambient air
                                   through the mold.
8. Centrifugal casting--non-CR/   A vent system that   1 lb/ton.
 HS 3 4.                           moves ambient air
                                   through the mold.
9. SMC Manufacturing............  N/A................  2.4 lb/ton.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Organic HAP emissions limits for open molding and centrifugal
  casting expressed as lb/ton are calculated using the equations shown
  in Table 1 to this subpart. You must be at or below these values based
  on a 12-month rolling average.
\2\ These limits are for spray application of gel coat. Manual gel coat
  application must be included as part of spray gel coat application for
  compliance purposes using the same organic HAP emissions factor
  equation and organic HAP emissions limit. If you only apply gel coat
  with manual application, treat the manually applied gel coat as if it
  were applied with atomized spray for compliance determinations.
\3\ Centrifugal casting operations where the mold is not vented during
  spinning and cure are considered to be closed molding and are not
  subject to any emissions limit. Centrifugal casting operations where
  the mold is not vented during spinning and cure, and the resin is
  applied to the open centrifugal casting mold using mechanical or
  manual open molding resin application techniques are considered to be
  open molding operations and the appropriate open molding emission
  limits apply.

[[Page 19422]]

 
\4\ Centrifugal casting operations where the mold is vented during
  spinning and the resin is applied to the open centrifugal casting mold
  using mechanical or manual open molding resin application techniques,
  use the appropriate centrifugal casting emission limit to determine
  compliance. Calculate your emission factor using the appropriate
  centrifugal casting emission factor in Table 1 to this subpart, or a
  site specific emission factor as discussed in Sec.   63.5796.


   Table 6 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Basic Requirements for Performance Tests, Performance Evaluations, and
                  Design Evaluations for New and Existing Sources Using Add-On Control Devices
     [As required in Sec.   63.5850 you must conduct performance tests, performance evaluations, and design
                        evaluation according to the requirements in the following table:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             According to the
              For . . .                     You must . . .            Using . . .         following requirements
                                                                                                  . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each enclosure used to collect and  Meet the requirements    EPA method 204 of        Enclosures that meet
 route organic HAP emissions to an      for a PTE.               appendix M of 40 CFR     the requirements of
 add-on control device that is a PTE.                            part 51.                 EPA Method 204 of
                                                                                          appendix M of 40 CFR
                                                                                          part 51 for a PTE are
                                                                                          assumed to have a
                                                                                          capture efficiency of
                                                                                          100%. Note that the
                                                                                          criteria that all
                                                                                          access doors and
                                                                                          windows that are not
                                                                                          treated as natural
                                                                                          draft openings shall
                                                                                          be closed during
                                                                                          routine operation of
                                                                                          the process is not
                                                                                          intended to require
                                                                                          that these doors and
                                                                                          windows be closed at
                                                                                          all times. It means
                                                                                          that doors and windows
                                                                                          must be closed any
                                                                                          time that you are not
                                                                                          actually moving parts
                                                                                          or equipment through
                                                                                          them. Also, any
                                                                                          styrene retained in
                                                                                          hollow parts and
                                                                                          liberated outside the
                                                                                          PTE is not considered
                                                                                          to be a violation of
                                                                                          the EPA Method 204
                                                                                          criteria.
2. Each enclosure used to collect and  a. Determine the         i. EPA methods 204B      (1) Enclosures that do
 route organic HAP emissions to an      capture efficiency of    through E of appendix    not meet the
 add-on control device that is not a    each enclosure used to   M of 40 CFR part 51,     requirements for a PTE
 PTE.                                   capture organic HAP      or                       must determine the
                                        emissions sent to an                              capture efficiency by
                                        add-on control device.                            constructing a
                                                                                          temporary total
                                                                                          enclosure according to
                                                                                          the requirements of
                                                                                          EPA Method 204 of
                                                                                          appendix M of 40 CFR
                                                                                          part 51 and measuring
                                                                                          the mass flow rates of
                                                                                          the organic HAP in the
                                                                                          exhaust streams going
                                                                                          to the atmosphere and
                                                                                          to the control device.
                                                                                          Test runs for EPA
                                                                                          Methods 204B through E
                                                                                          of appendix M of 40
                                                                                          CFR part 51 must be at
                                                                                          least 3 hours.
                                                                ii. An alternative test  (1) The alternative
                                                                 method that meets the    test method must the
                                                                 requirements in 40 CFR   data quality
                                                                 part 51, appendix M.     objectives and lower
                                                                                          confidence limit
                                                                                          approaches for
                                                                                          alternative capture
                                                                                          efficiency protocols
                                                                                          requirements contained
                                                                                          in 40 CFR part 63
                                                                                          subpart KK, appendix
                                                                                          A.
3. Each control device used to comply  Determine the control    The test methods         Testing and evaluation
 with a percent reduction               efficiency of each       specified in Sec.        requirements are
 requirement, or a organic HAP          control device used to   63.5850 to this          contained in 40 CFR
 emissions limit.                       control organic HAP      subpart.                 part 63, subpart SS,
                                        emissions.                                        and Sec.   63.5850 to
                                                                                          this subpart.
4. Determining organic HAP emission    Determine the mass       The test methods         Testing and evaluation
 factors for any operation.             organic HAP emissions    specified in Sec.        requirements are
                                        rate.                    63.5850 to this          contained in 40 CFR
                                                                 subpart.                 part 63, subpart SS,
                                                                                          and Sec.   63.5850 to
                                                                                          this subpart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 19423]]


  Table 7 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Options Allowing Use of the Same
     Resin Across Different Operations That Use the Same Resin Type
    [As required in Sec.  Sec.   63.5810(a) through (d), 63.5835(a),
  63.5895(c), and 63.5900(a)(2), when electing to use the same resin(s)
 for multiple resin application methods you may use any resin(s) with an
   organic HAP contents less than or equal to the values shown in the
  following table, or any combination of resins whose weighted average
 organic HAP content based on a 12-month rolling average is less than or
             equal to the values shown the following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      The highest resin
                                       weight percent
                                    organic HAP content,
If your facility has the following   or weighted average
 resin type and application method     weight percent        Is . . .
               . . .                organic HAP content,
                                     you can use for . .
                                              .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CR/HS resins, centrifugal        a. CR/HS mechanical.            48.0
 casting.
                                    b. CR/HS filament               48.0
                                     application.
                                    c. CR/HS manual.....            48.0
2. CR/HS resins, nonatomized        a. CR/HS filament               46.2
 mechanical.                         application.                   46.2
                                    b. CR/HS manual.....
3. CR/HS resins, filament           CR/HS manual........            42.0
 application.
4. Non-CR/HS resins, filament       a. non-CR/HS                    45.0
 application.                        mechanical.                    45.0
                                    b. non-CR/HS manual.            45.0
                                    c. non-CR/HS
                                     centrifugal casting.
5. Non-CR/HS resins, nonatomized    a. Non-CR/HS manual.            38.4
 mechanical.                        b. non-CR/HS                    38.4
                                     centrifugal casting.
6. Non-CR/HS resins, centrifugal    Non-CR/HS manual....            37.5
 casting.
7. Tooling resins, nonatomized      Tooling manual......            91.4
 mechanical.
8. Tooling resins, manual.........  Tooling atomized                45.9
                                     mechanical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 8 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Organic HAP
                            Emissions Limits
     [As required in Sec.   63.5860(a), you must demonstrate initial
    compliance with organic HAP emissions limits as specified in the
                            following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               That must meet the
                                following organic         You have
          For . . .            HAP emissions limit  demonstrated initial
                                      . . .         compliance  if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Open molding and           a. An organic HAP     i. You have met the
 centrifugal casting           emissions limit       appropriate organic
 operations.                   shown in Tables 3     HAP emissions
                               or 5 to this          limits for these
                               subpart, or an        operations as
                               organic HAP content   calculated using
                               limit shown in        the procedures in
                               Table 7 to this       Sec.   63.5810 on a
                               subpart.              12-month rolling
                                                     average 1 year
                                                     after the
                                                     appropriate
                                                     compliance date, or
                                                    ii. You demonstrate
                                                     by using the
                                                     appropriate values
                                                     in Tables 3, or 7
                                                     to this subpart
                                                     that all resins and
                                                     gel coats
                                                     considered
                                                     individually meet
                                                     the appropriate
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     contents, or
                                                    iii. You demonstrate
                                                     by using the
                                                     appropriate values
                                                     in Table 7 to this
                                                     subpart that the
                                                     weighted average of
                                                     all resins and gel
                                                     coats for each
                                                     resin type and
                                                     application method
                                                     meet the
                                                     appropriate organic
                                                     HAP contents.
2. Open molding, centrifugal  a. Reduce total       Total organic HAP
 casting, continuous           organic HAP           emissions, based on
 lamination/casting, SMC and   emissions, by at      the results of the
 BMC manufacturing, and        least 95 percent by   capture efficiency
 mixing operations.            weight.               and destruction
                                                     efficiency testing
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     6 to this subpart,
                                                     are reduced by at
                                                     least 95 percent by
                                                     weight.
3. Continuous lamination/     a. Reduce total       Total organic HAP
 casting operations.           organic HAP           emissions, based on
                               emissions by at       the results of the
                               least 58.5 weight     capture efficiency
                               percent, or.          and destruction
                                                     efficiency testing
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     6 to this subpart
                                                     and the calculation
                                                     procedures
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     Sec.   63.5865
                                                     through 63.5890,
                                                     are reduced by at
                                                     least 58.5 percent
                                                     by weight.
                              b. Not exceed an HAP  Total organic HAP
                               emissions limit of    emissions, based on
                               15.7 lbs of organic   the results of the
                               HAP per ton of neat   capture efficiency
                               resin plus and neat   and destruction
                               gel coat plus.        efficiency testing
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     6 to this subpart
                                                     and the calculation
                                                     procedures
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     Sec.   63.5865
                                                     through 63.5890, do
                                                     not exceed 15.7 lbs
                                                     of organic HAP per
                                                     ton of neat resin
                                                     plus and neat gel
                                                     coat plus.

[[Page 19424]]

 
4. Continuous lamination/     a. Reduce total       Total organic HAP
 casting operations.           organic HAP           emissions, based on
                               emissions by at       the results of the
                               least 95 weight       capture efficiency
                               percent or            and destruction
                                                     efficiency testing
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     6 to this subpart,
                                                     and the calculation
                                                     procedures
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     Sec.   63.5865
                                                     through 63.5890,
                                                     are reduced by at
                                                     least 95 percent by
                                                     weight.
                              b. Not exceed an      Total organic HAP
                               organic HAP           emissions, based on
                               emissions limit of    the results of the
                               1.47 lbs of organic   capture efficiency
                               HAP per ton of neat   and destruction
                               resin plus and neat   efficiency testing
                               gel coat plus.        specified in Table
                                                     6 and the
                                                     calculation
                                                     procedures
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     Sec.   63.5865
                                                     through 63.5890, do
                                                     not exceed 1.47 lbs
                                                     of organic HAP per
                                                     ton of neat resin
                                                     plus and neat gel
                                                     coat plus.
5. Pultrusion operations....  a. Reduce total       i. Total organic HAP
                               organic HAP           emissions, based on
                               emissions by at       the results of the
                               least 60 percent by   capture efficiency
                               weight.               and add-on control
                                                     device destruction
                                                     efficiency testing
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     6 to this subpart,
                                                     are reduced by at
                                                     least 60 percent by
                                                     weight and
                                                    ii. As part of the
                                                     notification of
                                                     initial compliance
                                                     status, the owner/
                                                     operator submits a
                                                     certified statement
                                                     that all pultrusion
                                                     lines not
                                                     controlled with an
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device are using
                                                     direct die
                                                     injection, preform
                                                     injection, and/or
                                                     wet-area enclosures
                                                     that meet the
                                                     criteria of Sec.
                                                     63.5830.
6. Pultrusion operations....  a. Reduce total       i. Total organic HAP
                               organic HAP           emissions, based on
                               emissions by at       the results of the
                               least 95 percent by   capture efficiency
                               weight.               and add-on control
                                                     device destruction
                                                     efficiency testing
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     6 to this subpart,
                                                     are reduced by at
                                                     least 95 percent by
                                                     weight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 9 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Work
                           Practice Standards
     [As required in Sec.   63.5860(a), you must demonstrate initial
  compliance with work practice standards as specified in the following
                                 table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               That must meet the         You have
          For . . .           following standard .  demonstrated initial
                                       . .          compliance  if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A new or existing closed   Uncover, unwrap or    The owner operator
 or molding operation using    expose only one       submits a certified
 compression/injection         charge per mold       statement in the
 molding.                      cycle per             notice of
                               compression/          compliance status
                               injection molding     that only one
                               machine. For          charge is
                               machines with         uncovered,
                               multiple molds, one   unwrapped or
                               charge means          exposed per mold
                               sufficient material   cycle per
                               to fill all molds     compression/
                               for one cycle. For    injection molding
                               machines with         machine, or prior
                               robotic loaders, no   to the loader,
                               more than one         hoppers are closed
                               charge may be         except when adding
                               exposed prior to      materials, and
                               the loader. For       materials are
                               machines fed by       recovered after
                               hoppers, sufficient   slitting.
                               material may be
                               uncovered to fill
                               the hopper. Hoppers
                               must be closed when
                               not adding
                               materials.
                               Materials may be
                               uncovered to feed
                               to slitting
                               machines. Materials
                               must be recovered
                               after slitting.
2. A new or existing          Not use cleaning      The owner or
 cleaning operation.           solvents that         operator submits a
                               contain HAP, except   certified statement
                               that styrene may be   in the notice of
                               used in closed        compliance status
                               systems, and          that all cleaning
                               organic HAP           materials, except
                               containing            styrene contained
                               materials may be      in closed systems,
                               used to clean cured   or materials used
                               resin from            to clean cured
                               application           resin from
                               equipment.            application
                               Application           equipment contain
                               equipment includes    no HAP.
                               any equipment that
                               directly contacts
                               resin between
                               storage and
                               applying resin to
                               the mold or
                               reinforcement.
3. A new or existing          Keep containers that  The owner or
 materials HAP-containing      store HAP-            operator submits a
 materials storage operation.  containing            certified statement
                               materials closed or   in the notice of
                               covered except        compliance status
                               during the addition   that all HAP-
                               or removal of         containing storage
                               materials. Bulk HAP-  containers are kept
                               containing            closed or covered
                               materials storage     except when adding
                               tanks may be vented   or removing
                               as necessary for      materials, and that
                               safety.               any bulk storage
                                                     tanks are vented
                                                     only as necessary
                                                     for safety.

[[Page 19425]]

 
4. An existing or new SMC     Close or cover the    The owner or
 manufacturing operation.      resin delivery        operator submits a
                               system to the         certified statement
                               doctor box on each    in the notice of
                               SMC manufacturing     compliance status
                               machine. The doctor   that the resin
                               box itself may be     delivery system is
                               open.                 closed or covered.
5. An existing or new SMC     Use a nylon           The owner or
 manufacturing operation.      containing film to    operator submits a
                               enclose SMC.          certified statement
                                                     in the notice of
                                                     compliance status
                                                     that a nylon-
                                                     containing film is
                                                     used to enclose
                                                     SMC.
6. An existing or new mixing  Use mixer covers      The owner or
 or BMC manufacturing          with no visible       operator submits a
 operation.                    gaps present in the   certified statement
                               mixer covers,         in the notice of
                               except that gaps of   compliance status
                               up to 1 inch are      that mixer covers
                               permissible around    are closed during
                               mixer shafts and      mixing except when
                               any required          adding materials to
                               instrumentation.      the mixers, and
                                                     that gaps around
                                                     mixer shafts and
                                                     required
                                                     instrumentation are
                                                     less than 1 inch.
7. An existing mixing or BMC  Not actively vent     The owner or
 manufacturing operation.      mixers to the         operator submits a
                               atmosphere while      certified statement
                               the mixing agitator   in the notice of
                               is turning, except    compliance status
                               that venting is       that mixers are not
                               allowed during        actively vented to
                               addition of           the atmosphere when
                               materials, or as      the agitator is
                               necessary prior to    turning, except
                               adding materials      when adding
                               for safety.           materials or as
                                                     necessary for
                                                     safety.
8. A new or existing mixing   Keep the mixer        The owner or
 or BMC manufacturing          covers closed         operator submits a
 operation.                    during mixing         certified statement
                               except when adding    in the notice of
                               materials to the      compliance status
                               mixing vessels.       that mixers closed
                                                     except when adding
                                                     materials to the
                                                     mixing vessels.
9. A new or existing          i. Not allow vents    The owner or
 pultrusion operation          from the building     operator submits a
 manufacturing parts with      ventilation system,   certified statement
 1000 or more reinforcements   or local or           in the notice of
 and a cross section area of   portable fans to      compliance status
 60 square inches or more      blow directly on or   that they have
 that is not subject to the    across the wet-out    complied with all
 95 percent organic HAP        area(s),              the requirements
 emission reduction           ii. not permit point   listed in the 9.i
 requirement.                  suction of ambient    through 9.vii.
                               air in the wet-out
                               area(s) unless that
                               air is directed to
                               a control device,.
                              iii. use devices
                               such as deflectors,
                               baffles, and
                               curtains when
                               practical to reduce
                               air flow velocity
                               across wet-out
                               area(s),
                              iv. direct any
                               compressed air
                               exhausts away from
                               resin and wet-out
                               area(s),.
                              v. convey resin
                               collected from drip-
                               off pans or other
                               devices to
                               reservoirs, tanks,
                               or sumps via
                               covered troughs,
                               pipes, or other
                               covered conveyance
                               that shields the
                               resin from the
                               ambient air,
                              vi. cover all
                               reservoirs, tanks,
                               sumps, or HAP-
                               containing
                               materials storage
                               vessels except when
                               they are being
                               charged or filled,
                               and
                              vii. cover or shield
                               from ambient air
                               resin delivery
                               systems to the wet-
                               out area(s) from
                               reservoirs, tanks,
                               or sumps where
                               practical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 10 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Data Requirements for New and
    Existing Continuous Lamination Lines and Continuous Casting Lines
      Complying with a Percent Reduction Limit on a Per Line Basis
  [As required in Sec.   63.5865(a), in order to comply with a percent
 reduction limit for continuous lamination lines and continuous casting
       lines you must determine the data in the following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each line where the wet-                        You must determine .
       out area . . .          And the oven . . .            . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is uncontrolled..  i. Annual
 not a permanent total                               uncontrolled wet-
 enclosure (PTE) and the                             out area organic
 captured organic HAP                                HAP emissions,
 emissions are controlled by                        ii. Annual
 an add-on control device.                           controlled wet-out
                                                     area organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iv. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     wet-out area
                                                     enclosure,
                                                    v. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device, and
                                                    vi. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.

[[Page 19426]]

 
2. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is uncontrolled..  i. Annual
 a PTE and the captured                              uncontrolled wet-
 organic HAP emissions are                           out area organic
 controlled by an add-on                             HAP emissions,
 control device.                                    ii. Annual
                                                     controlled wet-out
                                                     area organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iv. That the wet-out
                                                     area enclosure
                                                     meets the
                                                     requirements of EPA
                                                     Method 204 of
                                                     appendix M to 40
                                                     CFR part 51 for a
                                                     PTE,
                                                    v. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device, and
                                                    vi. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
3. Is uncontrolled..........  a. Is controlled by   i. Annual
                               an add-on control     uncontrolled wet-
                               device.               out area organic
                                                     HAP emissions,
                                                    ii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     controlled oven
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iv. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     oven,
                                                    v. the destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device, and
                                                    vi. the amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
4. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is controlled by   i. Annual
 not a PTE and the captured    an add-on control     uncontrolled wet-
 organic HAP emissions are     device.               out area organic
 controlled by an add-on                             HAP emissions,
 control device.                                    ii. Annual
                                                     controlled wet-out
                                                     area organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iv. Annual
                                                     controlled oven
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions;
                                                    v. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     wet-out area
                                                     enclosure,
                                                    vi. Inlet organic
                                                     HAP emissions to
                                                     the add-on control
                                                     device,
                                                    vii. Outlet organic
                                                     HAP emissions from
                                                     the add-on control
                                                     device, and
                                                    viii. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
5. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is controlled by   i. That the wet-out
 a PTE and the captured        an add-on control     area enclosure
 organic HAP emissions are     device.               meets the
 controlled by an add-on                             requirements of EPA
 control device.                                     Method 204 of
                                                     appendix M to 40
                                                     CFR part 51 for a
                                                     PTE,
                                                    ii. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     oven, and
                                                    iii. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 11 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Data Requirements for New and
  Existing Continuous Lamination and Continuous Casting Lines Complying
 with a Percent Reduction Limit or a Lbs/Ton Limit on an Averaging Basis
    [As required in Sec.   63.5865, in order to comply with a percent
 reduction limit or a lbs/ton limit on an averaging basis for continuous
  lamination lines and continuous casting lines you must determine the
                      data in the following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    You must determine .
       For each . . .              That . . .                . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wet-out area.............  Is uncontrolled.....  Annual uncontrolled
                                                     wet-out area
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions.
2. Wet-out area.............  a. Has an enclosure   i. The capture
                               that is not a PTE.    efficiency of the
                                                     enclosure, and
                                                    ii. Annual organic
                                                     HAP emissions that
                                                     escape the
                                                     enclosure.
3. Wet-out area.............  Has an enclosure      That the enclosure
                               that is a PTE.        meets the
                                                     requirements of EPA
                                                     Method 204 of
                                                     appendix M to 40
                                                     CFR part 51 for a
                                                     PTE.
4. Oven.....................  Is uncontrolled.....  Annual uncontrolled
                                                     oven organic HAP
                                                     emissions.

[[Page 19427]]

 
5. Line.....................  a. Is controlled or   i. The amount of
                               uncontrolled.         neat resin plus
                                                     applied, and
                                                    ii. The amount of
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
6. Add-on control device....  ....................  i. Total annual
                                                     inlet organic HAP
                                                     emissions, and
                                                     total annual outlet
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 12 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Data Requirements for New and
    Existing Continuous Lamination Lines and Continuous Casting Lines
Complying with a Lbs/Ton Organic HAP Emissions Limit on a Per Line Basis
  [As required in Sec.   63.5865(b), in order to comply with a lbs/ton
     organic HAP emissions limit for continuous lamination lines and
  continuous casting lines you must determine the data in the following
                                 table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each line where the wet-                        You must determine .
       out area . . .           And the oven . . .           . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Is uncontrolled..........  a. Is uncontrolled..  i. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled wet-
                                                     out area organic
                                                     HAP emissions,
                                                     ii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions, and
                                                    iii. Annual neat
                                                     resin plus and neat
                                                     gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
2. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is uncontrolled..  i. Annual
 not a PTE and the captured                          uncontrolled wet-
 organic HAP emissions are                           out area organic
 controlled by an add-on                             HAP emissions,
 control device.                                    ii. Annual
                                                     controlled wet-out
                                                     area organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iv. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     wet-out area
                                                     enclosure,
                                                    v. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device, and
                                                    vi. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
3. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is uncontrolled..  i. Annual
 a PTE, and the captured                             uncontrolled wet-
 organic HAP emissions are                           out area organic
 controlled by an add-on                             HAP emissions,
 control device.                                    ii. Annual
                                                     controlled wet-out
                                                     area organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iv. That the wet-out
                                                     area enclosure
                                                     meets the
                                                     requirements of EPA
                                                     Method 204 of
                                                     appendix M to 40
                                                     CFR part 51 for a
                                                     PTE,
                                                    v. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device, and
                                                    vi. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
4. Is uncontrolled..........  a. Is controlled by   i. Annual
                               an add-on control     uncontrolled wet-
                               device.               out area organic
                                                     HAP emissions,
                                                    ii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     controlled oven
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iv. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     oven,
                                                    v. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device, and
                                                    vi. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
5. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is controlled by   i. Annual
 not a PTE and the captured    an add-on control     uncontrolled wet-
 organic HAP emissions are     device.               out area organic
 controlled by an add-on                             HAP emissions,
 control device.                                    ii. Annual
                                                     controlled wet-out
                                                     area organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions,

[[Page 19428]]

 
                                                    iv. Annual
                                                     controlled oven
                                                     organic HAP
                                                     emissions,
                                                    v. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     wet-out area
                                                     enclosure,
                                                    vi. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     oven,
                                                    vii. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device, and
                                                    viii. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
6. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is controlled by   i. That the wet-out
 a PTE, and the captured       an add-on control     area enclosure
 organic HAP emissions are     device.               meets the
 controlled by add-on                                requirements of EPA
 control device.                                     Method 204 of
                                                     appendix M to 40
                                                     CFR part 51 for a
                                                     PTE,
                                                    ii. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     oven,
                                                    iii. Inlet organic
                                                     HAP emissions to
                                                     the an add-on
                                                     control device, and
                                                    iv. Outlet organic
                                                     HAP emissions from
                                                     the add-on control
                                                     device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 13 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Applicability and Timing of
                              Notifications
  [As required in Sec.   63.5905(a), you must determine the applicable
    notifications and submit them by the dates shown in the following
                                 table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               You must submit . .
   If your facility . . .               .            By this date . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Is an existing source      An Initial            No later than the
 subject to this subpart.      Notification          dates specified in
                               containing the        Sec.   63.9(b)(2).
                               information
                               specified in Sec.
                               63.9(b)(2).
2. Is a new source subject    The notifications     No later than the
 to this subpart.              specified in Sec.     dates specified
                               63.9(b)(4) and (5).   Sec.   63.9(b)(4)
                                                     and (5).
3. Qualifies for a            A request for a       No later than the
 compliance extension as       compliance            dates specified in
 specified in Sec.   63.9(c).  extension as          Sec.   63.6(i).
                               specified in Sec.
                               63.9(c).
4. Is complying with organic  A Notification of     No later than 1 year
 HAP emissions limit           Compliance Status     plus 30 days after
 averaging provisions.         as specified in       your facility's
                               Sec.   63.9(h).       compliance date.
5. Is complying with organic  A Notification of     No later than 30
 HAP content limits,           Compliance Status     calendar days after
 application equipment         as specified in       your facility's
 requirements, or organic      Sec.   63.9(h).       compliance date.
 HAP emissions limit other
 than organic HAP emissions
 limit averaging.
6. Is complying by using an   a. A notification of  No later than the
 add-on control device.        intent to conduct a   date specified in
                               performance test as   Sec.   63.9(e).
                               specified in Sec.
                               63.9(e).
                              b. A notification of  The date of
                               the date for the      submission of
                               CMS performance       notification of
                               evaluation as         intent to conduct a
                               specified in Sec.     performance test.
                               63.9(g).
                              c. A Notification of  No later than 60
                               Compliance Status     calendar days after
                               as specified in       the completion of
                               Sec.   63.9(h).       the add-on control
                                                     device performance
                                                     test and CMS
                                                     performance
                                                     evaluation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table 14 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
  [As required in Sec.   63.5910(a), (b), (g), and (h), you must submit
         reports on the schedule shown in the following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    The report must      You must submit
     You must submit a(n)            contain . . .      the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report..........  a. A statement that     Semiannually
                                 there were no           according to
                                 deviations during       the
                                 that reporting period   requirements in
                                 if there were no        Sec.
                                 deviations from any     63.5910(b).
                                 emission limitations
                                 (emission limit,
                                 operating limit,
                                 opacity limit, and
                                 visible emission
                                 limit) that apply to
                                 you and there were no
                                 deviations from the
                                 requirements for work
                                 practice standards in
                                 Table 4 to this
                                 subpart that apply to
                                 you. If there were no
                                 periods during which
                                 the CMS, including
                                 CEMS, and operating
                                 parameter monitoring
                                 systems, was out of
                                 control as specified
                                 in Sec.   63.8(c)(7),
                                 the report must also
                                 contain a statement
                                 that there were no
                                 periods during which
                                 the CMS was out of
                                 control during the
                                 reporting period.

[[Page 19429]]

 
                                b. The information in   Semiannually
                                 Sec.   63.5910(d) if    according to
                                 you have a deviation    the
                                 from any emission       requirements in
                                 limitation (emission    Sec.
                                 limit, operating        63.5910(b).
                                 limit, or work
                                 practice standard)
                                 during the reporting
                                 period. If there were
                                 periods during which
                                 the CMS, including
                                 CEMS, and operating
                                 parameter monitoring
                                 systems, was out of
                                 control, as specified
                                 in Sec.   63.8(c)(7),
                                 the report must
                                 contain the
                                 information in Sec.
                                 63.5910(e).
                                c. The information in   Semiannually
                                 Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i)   according to
                                 if you had a startup,   the
                                 shutdown or             requirements in
                                 malfunction during      Sec.
                                 the reporting period,   63.5910(b).
                                 and you took actions
                                 consistent with your
                                 startup, shutdown,
                                 and malfunction plan.
2. An immediate startup,        a. Actions taken for    By fax or
 shutdown, and malfunction       the event.              telephone
 report if you had a startup,                            within 2
 shutdown, or malfunction                                working days
 during the reporting period                             after starting
 that is not consistent with                             actions
 your startup, shutdown, and                             inconsistent
 malfunction plan.                                       with the plan.
                                b. The information in   By letter within
                                 Sec.                    7 working days
                                 63.10(d)(5)(ii).        after the end
                                                         of the event
                                                         unless you have
                                                         made
                                                         alternative
                                                         arrangements
                                                         with the
                                                         permitting
                                                         authority.
                                                         (Sec.
                                                         63.10(d)(5)(ii)
                                                         ).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 15 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions (Subpart A) to Subpart WWWW of Part 63
    [As specified in Sec.   63.5925, the parts of the General Provisions which apply to you are shown in the
                                                following table:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Subject to the
 The general provisions reference . .    That addresses . . .    And applies to subpart    following additional
                  .                                              WWWW of part 63 . . .      information . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)....................  General applicability    Yes....................  Additional terms
                                        of the general                                    defined in subpart
                                        provisions.                                       WWWW of Part 63, when
                                                                                          overlap between
                                                                                          subparts A and WWWW of
                                                                                          Part 63 of this part,
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63 takes precedence.
Sec.   63.1(a)(2) through (4)........  General applicability    Yes....................
                                        of the general
                                        provisions.
Sec.   63.1(a)(5)....................  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(6)....................  General applicability    Yes....................
                                        of the general
                                        provisions.
Sec.   63.1(a)(7) through (9)........  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(10) through (14)......  General applicability    Yes....................
                                        of the general
                                        provisions.
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)....................  Initial applicability    Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        determination.                                    clarifies the
                                                                                          applicability inSec.
                                                                                          Sec.   63.5780 and
                                                                                          63.5785.
Sec.   63.1(b)(2)....................  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.1(b)(3)....................  Record of the            Yes....................
                                        applicability
                                        determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)....................  Applicability of this    Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        part after a relevant                             clarifies the
                                        standard has been set                             applicability of each
                                        under this part.                                  paragraph of subpart A
                                                                                          to sources subject to
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)....................  Title V operating        Yes....................  All major affected
                                        permit requirement.                               sources are required
                                                                                          to obtain a title V
                                                                                          operating permit. Area
                                                                                          sources are not
                                                                                          subject to subpart
                                                                                          WWWW of Part 63.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3) and (4)............  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)....................  Notification             Yes....................
                                        requirements for an
                                        area source that
                                        increases HAP
                                        emissions to major
                                        source levels.
Sec.   63.1(d).......................  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.1(e).......................  Applicability of permit  Yes....................
                                        program before a
                                        relevant standard has
                                        been set under this
                                        part.
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                                                                          defines terms in Sec.
                                                                                           63.5935. When overlap
                                                                                          between subparts A and
                                                                                          WWWW of Part 63
                                                                                          occurs, you must
                                                                                          comply with the
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63 definitions, which
                                                                                          take precedence over
                                                                                          the subpart A
                                                                                          definitions.

[[Page 19430]]

 
Sec.   63.3..........................  Units and abbreviations  Yes....................  Other units and
                                                                                          abbreviations used in
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63 are defined in
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.   63.4..........................  Prohibited activities    Yes....................  Sec.   63.4(a)(3)
                                        and circumvention.                                through (5) is
                                                                                          reserved and does not
                                                                                          apply.
Sec.   63.5(a)(1) and (2)............  Applicability of         Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        construction and                                  not become
                                        reconstruction.                                   reconstructed under
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1)....................  Relevant standards for   Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        new sources upon                                  not become
                                        construction.                                     reconstructed under
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.   63.5(b)(2)....................  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.5(b)(3)....................  New construction/        Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        reconstruction.                                   not become
                                                                                          reconstructed under
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.   63.5(b)(4)....................  Construction/            Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        reconstruction                                    not become
                                        notification.                                     reconstructed under
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.   63.5(b)(5)....................  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.5(b)(6)....................  Equipment addition or    Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        process change.                                   not become
                                                                                          reconstructed under
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.   63.5(c).......................  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)....................  General application for  Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        approval of                                       not become
                                        construction or                                   reconstructed under
                                        reconstruction.                                   subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.   63.5(d)(2)....................  Application for          Yes....................
                                        approval of
                                        construction.
Sec.   63.5(d)(3)....................  Application for          No.....................
                                        approval of
                                        reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(d)(4)....................  Additional information.  Yes....................
Sec.   63.5(e)(1) through (5)........  Approval of              Yes....................
                                        construction or
                                        reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f)(1) and (2)............  Approval of              Yes....................
                                        construction or
                                        reconstruction based
                                        on prior State
                                        preconstruction review.
Sec.   63.6(a)(1)....................  Applicability of         Yes....................
                                        compliance with
                                        standards and
                                        maintenance
                                        requirements.
Sec.   63.6(a)(2)....................  Applicability of area    Yes....................
                                        sources that increase
                                        HAP emissions to
                                        become major sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1) through (5)........  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        new and reconstructed                             clarifies compliance
                                        sources.                                          dates in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5800.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)....................  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)....................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  New operations at an
                                        new operations or                                 existing facility are
                                        equipment that cause                              not subject to new
                                        an area source to                                 source standards.
                                        become a major source.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1) and (2)............  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        existing sources.                                 clarifies compliance
                                                                                          dates in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5800.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3) and (4)............  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)....................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        existing area sources                             clarifies compliance
                                        that become major.                                dates in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5800.
Sec.   63.6(d).......................  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1) and (2)............  Operation & maintenance  Yes....................
                                        requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, shutdown, and   Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        malfunction plan and                              requires a startup,
                                        recordkeeping.                                    shutdown, and
                                                                                          malfunction plan only
                                                                                          for sources using add-
                                                                                          on controls.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance except        No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        during periods of                                 requires compliance
                                        startup, shutdown, and                            during periods of
                                        malfunction.                                      startup, shutdown, and
                                                                                          malfunction, except
                                                                                          startup, shutdown, and
                                                                                          malfunctions for
                                                                                          sources using add-on
                                                                                          controls.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2) and (3)............  Methods for determining  Yes....................
                                        compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1) through (3)........  Alternative standard...  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(h).......................  Opacity and visible      No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        emission Standards.                               does not contain
                                                                                          opacity or visible
                                                                                          emission standards.
 
Sec.   63.6(i)(1) through (14).......  Compliance extensions..  Yes....................

[[Page 19431]]

 
Sec.   63.6(i)(15)...................  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.6(i)(16)...................  Compliance extensions..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(j).......................  Presidential compliance  Yes....................
                                        exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)....................  Applicability of         Yes....................
                                        performance testing
                                        requirements.
Sec.   63.7(a)(2)....................  Performance test dates.  No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63initial compliance
                                                                                          requirements are in
                                                                                          Sec.   63.5840.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)....................  CAA Section 114          Yes....................
                                        authority.
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)....................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        performance test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)....................  Notification             Yes....................
                                        rescheduled
                                        performance test.
Sec.   63.7(c).......................  Quality assurance        Yes....................  Except that the test
                                        program, including                                plan must be submitted
                                        test plan.                                        with the notification
                                                                                          of the performance
                                                                                          test.
Sec.   63.7(d).......................  Performance testing      Yes....................
                                        facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e).......................  Conditions for           Yes....................  Performance test
                                        conducting performance                            requirements are
                                        tests.                                            contained in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5850. Additional
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          conducting performance
                                                                                          tests for continuous
                                                                                          lamination/casting are
                                                                                          included in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5870.
Sec.   63.7(f).......................  Use of alternative test  Yes....................
                                        method.
Sec.   63.7(g).......................  Performance test data    Yes....................
                                        analysis,
                                        recordkeeping, and
                                        reporting.
Sec.   63.7(h).......................  Waiver of performance    Yes....................
                                        tests.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1) and (2)............  Applicability of         Yes....................
                                        monitoring
                                        requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)....................  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)....................  Monitoring requirements  Yes....................
                                        when using flares.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)....................  Conduct of monitoring    Yes....................
                                        exceptions.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2) and (3)............  Multiple effluents and   Yes....................
                                        multiple monitoring
                                        systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)....................  Compliance with CMS      Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        operation and                                     you elect to use a CMS
                                        maintenance                                       to demonstrate
                                        requirements.                                     continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2) and (3)............  Monitoring system        Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        installation.                                     you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)....................  CMS requirements.......  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                                                                          you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)....................  Continuous Opacity       No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        Monitoring System                                 does not contain
                                        (COMS) minimum                                    opacity standards.
                                        procedures.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6) through (8)........  CMS calibration and      Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        periods CMS is out of                             you elect to use a CMS
                                        control.                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.   63.8(d).......................  CMS quality control      Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        program, including                                you elect to use a CMS
                                        test plan and all                                 to demonstrate
                                        previous versions.                                continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.   63.8(e)(1)....................  Performance evaluation   Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        of CMS.                                           you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.   63.8(e)(2)....................  Notification of          Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        performance evaluation.                           you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.   63.8(e)(3) and (4)............  CMS requirements/        Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        alternatives.                                     you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.   63.8(e)(5)(i).................  Reporting performance    Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        evaluation results.                               you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.   63.8(e)(5)(ii)................  Results of COMS          No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        performance evaluation.                           does not contain
                                                                                          opacity standards.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1) through (3)........  Use of an alternative    Yes....................
                                        monitoring method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(4)....................  Request to use an        Yes....................
                                        alternative monitoring
                                        method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(5)....................  Approval of request to   Yes....................
                                        use an alternative
                                        monitoring method.

[[Page 19432]]

 
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)....................  Request for alternative  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        to relative accuracy                              you elect to use a CMS
                                        test and associated                               to demonstrate
                                        records.                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1) through (5)........  Data reduction.........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.9(a)(1) through (4)........  Notification             Yes....................
                                        requirements and
                                        general information.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)....................  Initial notification     Yes....................
                                        applicability.
Sec.   63.9(b)(2)....................  Notification for         Yes....................
                                        affected source with
                                        initial startup before
                                        effective date of
                                        standard.
Sec.   63.9(b)(3)....................  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)(i).................  Notification for a new   Yes....................
                                        or reconstructed major
                                        affected source with
                                        initial startup after
                                        effective date for
                                        which an application
                                        for approval of
                                        construction or
                                        reconstruction is
                                        required.
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)(ii) through (iv)...  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)(v).................  Notification for a new   Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        or reconstructed major                            not become
                                        affected source with                              reconstructed under
                                        initial startup after                             subpart WWWW of Part
                                        effective date for                                63.
                                        which an application
                                        for approval of
                                        construction or
                                        reconstruction is
                                        required.
Sec.   63.9(b)(5)....................  Notification that you    Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        are subject to this                               not become
                                        subpart for new or                                reconstructed under
                                        reconstructed affected                            subpart WWWW of Part
                                        source with initial                               63.
                                        startup after
                                        effective date and for
                                        which an application
                                        for approval of
                                        construction or
                                        reconstruction is not
                                        required.
Sec.   63.9(c).......................  Request for compliance   Yes....................
                                        extension.
Sec.   63.9(d).......................  Notification of special  Yes....................
                                        compliance
                                        requirements for new
                                        source.
Sec.   63.9(e).......................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        performance test.
Sec.   63.9(f).......................  Notification of opacity  No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        and visible emissions                             does not contain
                                        observations.                                     opacity or visible
                                                                                          emission standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1)....................  Additional notification  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        requirements for                                  you elect to use a CMS
                                        sources using CMS.                                to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2)....................  Notification of          No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        compliance with                                   does not contain
                                        opacity emission                                  opacity emission
                                        standard.                                         standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(3)....................  Notification that        Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        criterion to continue                             you elect to use a CMS
                                        use of alternative to                             to demonstrate
                                        relative accuracy                                 continuous compliance
                                        testing has been                                  with an emission
                                        exceeded.                                         limit.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1) through (3)........  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        compliance status.
Sec.   63.9(h)(4)....................  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.9(h)(5) and (6)............  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        compliance status.
Sec.   63.9(i).......................  Adjustment of submittal  Yes....................
                                        deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j).......................  Change in information    Yes....................
                                        provided.
Sec.   63.10(a)......................  Applicability of         Yes....................
                                        recordkeeping and
                                        reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...................  Records retention......  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i) through (v)....  Records related to       Yes....................  Only applies to
                                        startup, shutdown, and                            facilities that use an
                                        malfunction.                                      add-on control device.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi)..  CMS records, data on     Yes....................
                                        performance tests, CMS
                                        performance
                                        evaluations,
                                        measurements necessary
                                        to determine
                                        conditions of
                                        performance tests, and
                                        performance
                                        evaluations.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)..............  Record of waiver of      Yes....................
                                        recordkeeping and
                                        reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............  Record for alternative   Yes....................
                                        to the relative
                                        accuracy test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..............  Records supporting       Yes....................
                                        initial notification
                                        and notification of
                                        compliance status.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...................  Records for              Yes....................
                                        applicability
                                        determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)...................  CMS records............  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                                                                          you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.

[[Page 19433]]

 
Sec.   63.10(c)(2) through (4).......  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.10(c)(5) through (8).......  CMS records............  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                                                                          you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.   63.10(c)(9)...................  Reserved...............  No.....................
Sec.   63.10(c)(10) through (15).....  CMS records............  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                                                                          you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...................  General reporting        Yes....................
                                        requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...................  Report of performance    Yes....................
                                        test results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...................  Reporting results of     No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        opacity or visible                                does not contain
                                        emission observations.                            opacity or visible
                                                                                          emission standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...................  Progress reports as      Yes....................
                                        part of extension of
                                        compliance.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...................  Startup, shutdown, and   Yes....................  Only applies if you use
                                        malfunction reports.                              an add-on control
                                                                                          device.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1) through (3).......  Additional reporting     Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        requirements for CMS.                             you have an add-on
                                                                                          control device and
                                                                                          elect to use a CEM to
                                                                                          demonstrate continuous
                                                                                          compliance with an
                                                                                          emission limit.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)...................  Reporting COMS data....  No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                                                                          does not contain
                                                                                          opacity standards.
Sec.   63.10(f)......................  Waiver for               Yes....................
                                        recordkeeping or
                                        reporting.
Sec.   63.11.........................  Control device           Yes....................  Only applies if you
                                        requirements.                                     elect to use a flare
                                                                                          as a control device.
Sec.   63.12.........................  State authority and      Yes....................
                                        delegations.
Sec.   63.13.........................  Addresses of State air   Yes....................
                                        pollution control
                                        agencies and EPA
                                        Regional Offices.
Sec.   63.14.........................  Incorporations by        Yes....................
                                        reference.
Sec.   63.15.........................  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        information and
                                        confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A to Subpart WWWW--Test Method for Determining Vapor 
Suppressant Effectiveness

1. Scope and Application

    1.1 Applicability. If a facility is using vapor suppressants to 
reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions, the organic HAP 
emission factor equations in Table 1 to this subpart require that 
the vapor suppressant effectiveness factor be determined. The vapor 
suppressant effectiveness factor is then used as one of the inputs 
into the appropriate organic HAP emission factor equation. The vapor 
suppressant effectiveness factor test is not intended to quantify 
overall volatile emissions from a resin, nor to be used as a stand-
alone test for emissions determination. This test is designed to 
evaluate the performance of film forming vapor suppressant resin 
additives. The results of this test are used only in combination 
with the organic HAP emissions factor equations in Table 1 to this 
subpart to generate emission factors.
    1.1.1 The open molding process consists of application of resin 
and reinforcements to the mold surface, followed by a manual rollout 
process to consolidate the laminate, and the curing stage where the 
laminate surface is not disturbed. Emission studies have shown that 
approximately 50 percent to 55 percent of the emissions occur while 
the resin is being applied to the mold. Vapor suppressants have 
little effect during this portion of the lamination process, but can 
have a significant effect during the curing stage. Therefore, if a 
suppressant is 100 percent effective, the overall emissions from the 
process would be reduced by 45 percent to 50 percent, representing 
the emissions generated during the curing stage. In actual practice, 
vapor suppressant effectiveness will be less than 100 percent and 
the test results determine the specific effectiveness in terms of 
the vapor suppressant effectiveness factor. This factor represents 
the effectiveness of a specific combination of suppressant additive 
and resin formulation.
    1.1.2 A resin manufacturer may supply a molder with a vapor-
suppressed resin, and employ this test to provide the molder with 
the vapor suppressant effectiveness factor for that combination of 
resin and vapor suppressant. The factor qualifies the effectiveness 
of the vapor suppressant when the resin is tested in the specific 
formulation supplied to the molder. The addition of fillers or other 
diluents by the molder may impact the effectiveness of the vapor 
suppressant. The formulation, including resin/glass ratio and filler 
content, used in the test should be similar to the formulation to be 
used in production. The premise of this method is to compare 
laminate samples made with vapor suppressant additive and made 
without the additive. The difference in emissions between the two 
yields the vapor suppressant effectiveness factor.
    1.1.3 The method uses a mass balance determination to establish 
the relative loss of the volatile component from unsaturated 
polyester or vinyl ester resins, with and without vapor suppressant 
additives. The effectiveness of a specific vapor suppressant and 
resin mixture is determined by comparing the relative volatile 
weight losses from vapor suppressed and non-suppressed resins. The 
volatile species are not separately analyzed. While the species 
contained in the volatile component are not determined, an extended 
listing of potential monomer that may be contained in unsaturated 
polyester or vinyl ester resins is provided in Table 1.1. However, 
most polyester and vinyl ester resin formulations presently used by 
the composites industry only contain styrene monomer.

     Table 1.1.--List of Monomers Potentially Present in Unsaturated
                      Polyester/Vinyl Ester Resins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Monomer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Styrene.................................  100-42-5.
Vinyl toluene...........................  25013-15-4.
Methyl methacrylate.....................  80-62-6.
Alpha methyl styrene....................  98-83-9.

[[Page 19434]]

 
Para methyl styrene.....................  Vinyl toluene isomer.
Chlorostyrene...........................  1331-28-8.
Diallyl phthalate.......................  131-17-9.
Other volatile monomers.................  Various.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of Method

    2.1 Differences in specific resin and suppressant additive 
chemistry affect the performance of a vapor suppressant. The purpose 
of this method is to quantify the effectiveness of a specific 
combination of vapor suppressant and unsaturated polyester or vinyl 
ester resin as they are to be used in production. This comparative 
test quantifies the loss of volatiles from a fiberglass reinforced 
laminate during the roll-out and curing emission phases, for resins 
formulated with and without a suppressant additive. A criterion for 
this method is the testing of a non-vapor suppressed resin system 
and testing the same resin with a vapor suppressant. The two resins 
are as identical as possible with the exception of the addition of 
the suppressant to one. The exact formulation used for the test will 
be determined by the in-use production requirements. Each 
formulation of resin, glass, fillers, and additives is developed to 
meet particular customer and or performance specifications.
    2.2 The result of this test is used as an input factor in the 
organic HAP emissions factor equations in Table 1 to this subpart, 
which allows these equations to predict emissions from a specific 
combination of resin and suppressant. This test does not provide an 
emission rate for the entire lamination process.

3. Definitions and Acronyms

    3.1 Definitions
    3.1.1 Vapor suppressant. An additive that inhibits the 
evaporation of volatile components in unsaturated polyester or vinyl 
ester resins.
    3.1.2 Unsaturated polyester resin. A thermosetting resin 
commonly used in composites molding.
    3.1.3 Unsaturated vinyl ester resin. A thermosetting resin used 
in composites molding for corrosion resistant and high performance 
applications.
    3.1.4 Laminate. A combination of fiber reinforcement and a 
thermoset resin.
    3.1.5 Chopped strand mat. Glass fiber reinforcement with random 
fiber orientation.
    3.1.6 Initiator. A curing agent added to an unsaturated 
polyester or vinyl ester resin.
    3.1.7 Resin application roller. A tool used to saturate and 
compact a wet laminate.
    3.1.8 Gel time. The time from the addition of initiator to a 
resin to the state of resin gelation.
    3.1.9 Filled resin system. A resin, which includes the addition 
of inert organic or inorganic materials to modify the resin 
properties, extend the volume and to lower the cost. Fillers 
include, but are not limited to; mineral particulates; microspheres; 
or organic particulates. This test is not intended to be used to 
determine the vapor suppressant effectiveness of a filler.
    3.1.10 Material safety data sheet. Data supplied by the 
manufacturer of a chemical product, listing hazardous chemical 
components, safety precautions, and required personal protection 
equipment for a specific product.
    3.1.11 Tare(ed). Reset a balance to zero after a container or 
object is placed on the balance; that is to subtract the weight of a 
container or object from the balance reading so as to weigh only the 
material placed in the container or on the object.
    3.1.12 Percent glass. The specified glass fiber weight content 
in a laminate. It is usually determined by engineering requirements 
for the laminate.
    3.2 Acronyms:
    3.2.1 VS--vapor suppressed or vapor suppressant.
    3.2.2 NVS--non-vapor suppressed.
    3.2.3 VSE--vapor suppressant effectiveness.
    3.2.4 VSE Factor--vapor suppressant effectiveness, factor used 
in the equations in Table 1 to this subpart.
    3.2.5 CSM--chopped strand mat.
    3.2.6 MSDS--material safety data sheet.

4. Interferences

    There are no identified interferences which affect the results 
of this test.

5. Safety

    Standard laboratory safety procedures should be used when 
conducting this test. Refer to specific MSDS for handling 
precautions.

6. Equipment and Supplies

    Note: Mention of trade names or specific products or suppliers 
does not constitute an endorsement by the Environmental Protection 
Agency.

    6.1 Required Equipment.
    6.1.1 Balance enclosure.\1\
    6.1.2 Two (2) laboratory balances--accurate to +/-0.01g.\2\
    6.1.3 Stop watch or balance data recording output to data logger 
with accuracy +/-1 second.\3\
    6.1.4 Thermometer--accurate to +/-2.0[deg]F(+/-1.0[deg]C).\4\
    6.1.5 A lipped pan large enough to hold the cut glass without 
coming into contact with the vertical sides, e.g. a pizza pan.\5\
    6.1.6 Mylar film sufficient to cover the bottom of the pan.\6\
    6.1.7 Tape to keep the Mylar from shifting in the bottom of the 
pan.\7\
    6.1.8 Plastic tri-corner beakers of equivalent--250 ml to 400 ml 
capacity.\8\
    6.1.9 Eye dropper or pipette.\9\
    6.1.10 Disposable resin application roller, \3/16\''-\3/4\'' 
diameter x 3''-6'' roller length.\10\
    6.1.11 Hygrometer or psychrometer \11\ accurate to +/-5 percent
    6.1.12 Insulating board, (Teflon, cardboard, foam board etc.) to 
prevent the balance from becoming a heat sink.\12\
    6.2 Optional Equipment.
    6.2.1 Laboratory balance--accurate to +/-.01g with digital 
output, such as an RS-232 bi-directional interface \13\ for use with 
automatic data recording devices.
    6.2.2 Computer with recording software configured to link to 
balance digital output. Must be programmed to record data at the 
minimum intervals required for manual data acquisition.
    6.3 Supplies.
    6.3.1 Chopped strand mat--1.5 oz/ft.\2\ \14\

7. Reagents and Standards

    7.1 Initiator. The initiator type, brand, and concentration will 
be specified by resin manufacturer, or as required by production 
operation.
    7.2 Polyester or vinyl ester resin.
    7.3 Vapor suppressant additive.

8. Sample Collection, Preservation, and Storage

    This test method involves the immediate recording of data during 
the roll out and curing phases of the lamination process during each 
test run. Samples are neither collected, preserved, nor stored.

9. Quality Control

    Careful attention to the prescribed test procedure, routing 
equipment calibration, and replicate testing are the quality control 
activities for this test method. Refer to the procedures in section 
11. A minimum of six test runs of a resin system without a 
suppressant and six test runs of the same resin with a suppressant 
shall be performed for each resin and suppressant test combination.

10. Calibration and Standardization

    10.1 The laboratory balances, stopwatch, hygrometer and 
thermometer shall be maintained in a state of calibration prior to 
testing and thereafter on a scheduled basis as determined by the 
testing laboratory. This shall be accomplished by using certified 
calibration standards.
    10.2 Calibration records shall be maintained for a period of 3 
years.

11. Test Procedure

    11.1 Test Set-up.
    11.1.1 The laboratory balance is located in an enclosure to 
prevent fluctuations in balance readings due to localized air 
movement. The front of enclosure is open to permit work activity, 
but positioned so that local airflow will not effect balance 
readings. The ambient temperature is determined by suspending the 
thermometer at a point inside the enclosure.
    11.1.2 The bottom of the aluminum pan is covered with the Mylar 
film. The film is held in position with tape or by friction between 
the pan and the film.
    11.1.3 The resin and pan are brought to room temperature. This 
test temperature must be between 70[deg]F and 80[deg]F. The testing 
temperature cannot vary more than +/-2[deg]F during the measurement 
of test runs. Temperature shall be recorded at the same time weight 
is recorded on suppressed and non-suppressed test data sheets, shown 
in Table 17.1.
    11.1.4 The relative humidity may not change more than +/-15 
percent during the test runs. This is determined by recording the 
relative humidity in the vicinity of the test

[[Page 19435]]

chamber at the beginning and end of an individual test run. This 
data is recorded on the test data sheets shown in Table 17.1.
    11.1.5 Two plies of nominal 1.5 oz/ft\2\ chopped strand mat 
(CSM) are cut into a square or rectangle with the minimum surface 
area of 60 square inches (i.e. a square with a side dimension of 
7.75 inches).
    11.1.6 The appropriate resin application roller is readily 
available.
    11.2 Resin Gel Time/Initiator Percentage
    11.2.1 Previous testing has indicated that resin gel time 
influences the emissions from composite production. The testing 
indicated that longer the gel times led to higher emissions. There 
are a number of factors that influence gel time including initiator 
type, initiator brand, initiator level, temperature and resin 
additives. Under actual usage conditions a molder will adjust the 
initiator to meet a gel time requirement. In this test procedure, 
the vapor suppressed and non-vapor suppressed resin systems will be 
adjusted to the same gel time by selecting the appropriate initiator 
level for each.
    11.2.2 All test runs within a test will be processed in a manner 
that produces the same resin gel time +/-2 minutes. To facilitate 
the resin mixing procedure, master batches of resin and resin plus 
vapor suppressant of resin are prepared. These resin master batches 
will have all of the required ingredients except initiator; this 
includes filler for filled systems. The gel times for the tests are 
conducted using the master batch and adjustments to meet gel time 
requirements shall be made to the master batch before emission 
testing is conducted. Test temperatures must be maintained within 
the required range, during gel time testing. Further gel time 
testing is not required after the non-vapor suppressed and vapor 
suppressed master batches are established with gel times within +/-2 
minutes. A sufficient quantity of each resin should be prepared to 
allow for additional test specimens in the event one or more test 
fails to meet the data acceptance criteria discussed in Section 11.5 
and shown in Table 17.2.
    11.2.3 The specific brand of initiator and the nominal 
percentage level recommended by the resin manufacturer will be 
indicated on the resin certificate of analysis \15\; or, if a unique 
gel time is required in a production laminate, initiator brand and 
percentage will be determined by that specific requirement.
    11.2.4 Examples:
    11.2.4.1 The resin for a test run is specified as having a 15-
minute cup gel time at 77[deg]F using Brand X initiator at 1.5 
percent by weight. The non-suppressed control resin has a 15-minute 
gel time. The suppressed resin has a gel time of 17-minutes. An 
initiator level of 1.5 percent would be selected for the both the 
non-suppressed and the suppressed test samples.
    11.2.4.2 Based on a specific production requirement, a resin is 
processed in production using 2.25 percent of Brand Y initiator, 
which produces a 20-minute gel time. This initiator at level of 2.25 
percent produces a 20 minute gel time for the non-suppressed control 
resin, but yields a 25-minute gel time for the suppressed resin 
sample. The suppressed resin is retested at 2.50 percent initiator 
and produces a 21-minute gel time. The initiator levels of 2.25 
percent and 2.50 percent respectively would yield gel times within 
+/-2 minutes.
    11.3 Test Run Procedure for Unfilled Resin (see the data sheet 
shown in Table 17.1).
    11.3.1 The insulating board is placed on the balance.
    11.3.2 The aluminum pan with attached Mylar film is placed on 
the balance, and the balance is tared (weight reading set to zero 
with the plate on the balance.)
    11.3.3 Place two plies of 1.5 oz. CSM on the balance and record 
the weight (glass weight).
    11.3.4 The resin beaker and stirring rod are put on the second 
balance and tared.
    11.3.5 The required resin weight and initiator weight are 
calculated (refer to calculation formulas in 12.2).
    11.3.6 The disposable resin application roller is placed on the 
edge of the plate.
    11.3.7 The balance is tared, with the aluminum pan, Mylar film, 
glass mat, and resin application roller on the balance pan.
    11.3.8 Resin is weighed into a beaker, as calculated, using the 
second balance. The mixing stick should be tared with the beaker 
weight.
    11.3.9 Initiator is weighed into the resin, as calculated, using 
an eyedropper or a pipette, and the combination is mixed.
    11.3.10 Initiated resin is poured on chopped strand mat in a pe-
determined pattern (see Figure 11.6).
    11.3.11 A stopwatch is started from zero.
    11.3.12 The initial laminate weight is recorded.
    11.3.13 The plate is removed from balance to enable roll-out of 
the laminate.
    11.3.14 The wet laminate is rolled with the resin application 
roller to completely distribute the resin, saturate the chopped 
strand mat, and eliminate air voids. Roll-out time should be in the 
range of 2 to 3\16\ minutes and vary less than +/-10 percent of the 
average time required for the complete set of six suppressed and six 
non-suppressed runs.
    11.3.15 Record the rollout end time (time from start to 
completion of rollout).
    11.3.16 Place the resin application roller on the edge of the 
plate when rollout is completed.
    11.3.17 Place the plate back on the balance pan. Immediately 
record the weight.
    11.3.18 For the first test in a series of six tests, weight is 
recorded every 5-minute interval (suppressed and non-suppressed). 
The end of the test occurs when three consecutive equal weights are 
recorded or a weight gain is observed (the last weight before the 
increased weight is the end of test weight). For the remaining five 
tests in the series, after the initial weights are taken, the next 
weight is recorded 30 minutes before the end of the test, as 
suggested by the results from the first test. It is likely that the 
time to reach the end point of a suppressed resin test will be 
shorter than the time required to complete a non-suppressed test. 
Therefore, the time to start taking data manually may be different 
for suppressed and non-suppressed resins.
    11.4 Test Run Procedures for Filled Resin Systems \17\ Note that 
the procedure for filled systems differs from the procedure for 
unfilled systems. With filled systems, resin is applied to one ply 
of the CSM and the second ply is placed on top of the resin.
    11.4.1 The insulating board is placed on the balance.
    11.4.2 The aluminum pan with attached Mylar film is placed on 
the balance, and the balance is tared (weight reading set to zero 
with the plate on the balance.)
    11.4.3 Place two plies of 1.5 oz. CSM on the balance and record 
the weight (glass weight).
    11.4.4 Remove the top ply of fiberglass and record its weight 
(weight of 1st layer of glass).
    11.4.5 The required resin weight and initiator weight are 
calculated (refer to calculation formulas in 12.2). Calculate the 
weight of filled resin and initiator based on the 2 layers of 
fiberglass.
    11.4.6 The resin beaker and stirring rod are put on the second 
balance and tared.
    11.4.7 A disposable resin application roller is placed on the 
edge of the plate.
    11.4.8 The balance is tared, with the aluminum pan, Mylar film, 
glass mat, and resin application roller on the balance pan.
    11.4.9 Resin is weighed into the beaker, as calculated, using 
the second balance. The mixing stick should be tared with the beaker 
weight.
    11.4.10 Initiator is weighed into the resin, as calculated, 
using an eyedropper or a pipette, and the combination is mixed.
    11.4.11 Initiated resin is poured on the single ply of CSM in a 
pre-determined pattern. Refer to Figure 11.6.
    11.4.12 A stopwatch is started from zero.
    11.4.13 Record the weight of the resin ans single ply of CSM 
(L1). The initial laminate weight equals L1 
plus the weight of second glass layer.
    11.4.14 Replace the second layer of fiberglass.
    11.4.15 Remove the plate from the balance to allow roll-out of 
the laminate.
    11.4.16 Roll the wet laminate with the resin application roller 
to completely distribute the resin, saturate the chopped strand mat, 
and eliminate air voids. Roll-out time should be in the range of 2 
to 3\16\ minutes and vary less than +/- 10 percent of the average 
time required for the complete set of six suppressed and six non-
suppressed runs.
    11.4.17 Record the roll-out end time (time from start to 
completion of rollout).
    11.4.18 Place the resin application roller on the edge of the 
plate when rollout is completed.
    11.4.19 Place the plate back on the balance pan. The initial 
weight is recorded immediately.
    11.4.20 For the first test run in a series of six, weight is 
recorded at every 5-minute interval (suppressed and non-suppressed). 
The end of the test occurs when three consecutive equal weights are 
recorded or a weight gain is observed (the last weight before the 
increased weight is the end of test weight). For the remaining five 
tests in the series, after the initial weights are taken, the next 
weight is recorded 30 minutes before the end of the test, as 
suggested by the results from the first test. It is likely that the 
time to reach the end point of a suppressed resin

[[Page 19436]]

test will be shorter than the time required to complete a non-
suppressed test. Therefore, the time to start taking data manually 
may be different for suppressed and non-suppressed resins.
    11.5 Data Acceptance Criteria:
    11.5.1 A test set is designed as twelve individual test runs 
using the same resin, initiator, and gel time, six of the test runs 
use the resin non-vapor suppressed and the other six use it vapor 
suppressed.
    11.5.2 If a test run falls outside any of the time, temperature, 
weight or humidity variation requirements, it must be discarded and 
run again.
    11.5.3 The laminate roll out time for each individual test run 
must vary less than +/- 10 percent of the average time required for 
the complete set of six suppressed and six non-suppressed runs.
    11.5.4 Test temperature for each test run must be maintained 
within +/-2[deg]F and the average must be between 70[deg] and 
80[deg]F. Refer to 11.1.3.
    11.5.5 The difference in the amount of resin for each run must 
be within +/-10 percent of the average weight for the complete set 
of six suppressed and six non-suppressed runs.
    11.5.6 The relative humidity from each test run must be within 
+/-15 percent of the average humidity for the complete set of six 
suppressed and six non-suppressed tests. Refer to 11.1.4
    11.5.7 The glass content for each test set must be within +/-10 
percent of the average resin-to-/glass ratio for the complete set of 
six suppressed and six non-suppressed runs. Refer to 12.2).
    11.5.8 The filler content for each test of a test set must be 
within +/-5 percent of the average filler content for the complete 
set of six suppressed and six non-suppressed runs. Refer to 12.2.
    11.6 Resin Application Pour Pattern:
     11.6.1 To facilitate the distribution of resin across the 
chopped strand mat, and to provide consistency from test to test, a 
uniform pour pattern should be used. A typical pour pattern is shown 
below:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.009

    11.6.2 The resin is to be evenly distributed across the entire 
surface of the chopped strand mat using the resin application roller 
to achieve a wet look across the surface of the laminate. Pushing 
excess resin off the reinforcement and onto the Mylar sheet should 
be avoided. No resin is to be pushed more than \1/2\ inch beyond the 
edge of the glass mat. If excess resin is pushed further from the 
glass mat, it will void the test run. As part of this process, 
typical visible air voids are to be eliminated by the rollout 
process. If the pour pattern is different from the above, it must be 
recorded and attached to test data sheet 17.1.

12. Data Analysis and Calculations

    12.1 Data Analysis:
    This test method requires a simple mass balance calculation, no 
special data analysis is necessary.
    12.2 Calculations:
    12.2.1 The target glass content (percent) for unfilled resin 
systems is determined from the specific production parameters being 
evaluated. In absence of any specific production requirements the 
target may be set at the tester's discretion.
    12.2.2 Glass content determination (expressed as a per cent):

% Glass = Glass wt(g)/(Glass wt(g) + Resin weight (g))

    12.2.3 Weight of resin required:
    Resin weight required = (Glass wt (g)/% glass)--Glass wt (g)
    12.2.4 Filled resin formulation determination for filled resin 
systems (e.g. 30 percent filler by weight for a 
particulate filler, or 1 percent by weight for a 
lightweight filler, such as hollow microspheres):

% Resin content = resin
weight(g)/(resin weight(g) + glass
weight(g) + filler weight(g))
% Glass content = glass
weight(g)/(resin weight(g) + glass
weight(g) + filler weight(g))
Filler content = filler
weight(g)/(resin weight(g) + glass
weight(g) + filler weight(g))

    12.2.5 Initiator weight determination:

Initiator weight (g) = Resin weight(g) x Initiator %

    12.2.6 Emission weight loss determination:
    Emissions weight loss (g) = Initial resin weight (g)-Final resin 
weight (g)
    12.2.7 % Emission weight loss:

% Emission Weight Loss = (Emission weight loss (g) Initial resin 
weight (g) x 100

    12.2.8 Average % Emission Weight Loss (assuming six test runs):
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.010
    

[[Page 19437]]


    12.2.9 VSE Factor calculation:

VSE Factor = 1 -(Average % VS Emission Weight Loss/Average NVS 
Emission Weight Loss)

                    Table 12.1.--Example Calculation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       % VS      % NVS
                   Test                      weight     weight
                                                       loss       loss
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................................      6.87      10.86
2..................................................      6.76      11.23
3..................................................      5.80      12.02
4..................................................      5.34      11.70
5..................................................      6.11      11.91
6..................................................      6.61      10.63
Average Weight Loss................................      6.25      11.39
VSE Factor.........................................  ........       0.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VSE Factor = 0.45

    VSE Factor is used as input into the appropriate equation in 
Table 1 to this subpart.
    Example from Table 1 to this subpart:

Manual Resin Application, 35 percent HAP resin, VSE Factor of 0.45
HAP Emissions with vapor suppresants = ((0.286 x %HAP)-0.0529) x 
2000 x (1-(0.5 x VSE factor))
HAP Emissions with vapor suppresants = ((0.286 x .35)-0.0529) x 2000 
x (1-(0.5 x .45))
HAP Emissions with vapor suppresants = 73 pounds of HAP emissions 
per ton of resin.

13. Method Performance

    13.1 Bias:
    The bias of this test method has not been determined.
    13.2 Precision Testing
    13.2.1 Subsequent to the initial development of this test 
protocol by the Composites Fabricators Association, a series of 
tests were conducted in three different laboratory facilities. The 
purpose of this round robin testing was to verify the precision of 
the test method in various laboratories. Each laboratory received a 
sample of an orthophthalic polyester resin from the same production 
batch, containing 48 per cent styrene by weight. Each testing site 
was also provided with the same vapor suppressant additive. The 
suppressant manufacturer specified the percentage level of 
suppressant additive. The resin manufacturer specified the type and 
level of initiator required to produce a 20 minute gel time. The 
target glass content was 30 percent by weight.
    13.2.2 Each laboratory independently conducted the VSE test 
according to this method. A summary of the results is included in 
Table 13.1.

                                    Table 13.1.--Round Robin Testing Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Test Lab 1            Test Lab 2            Test Lab 3
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   NVS         VS        NVS         S         NVS         VS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average percent WT Loss.......................       4.24       1.15       4.69       1.84       5.73       1.61
Standard Deviation............................      0.095      0.060      0.002      0.002      0.020      0.003
VSE Factor....................................  .........      0.730  .........      0.607  .........      0.720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13.3 Comparison to EPA Reference Methods This test has no 
corresponding EPA reference method.

14. Pollution Prevention

    The sample size used in this method produces a negligible 
emission of HAP, and has an insignificant impact upon the 
atmosphere.

15. Waste Management

    The spent and waste materials generated during this test are 
disposed according to required facility procedures, and waste 
management recommendations on the corresponding material safety data 
sheets.

16. References and footnotes

    16.1 Footnotes:

    \1\ Balance Enclosure--The purpose of the balance enclosure is 
to prevent localized airflow from adversely affecting the laboratory 
balance. The enclosure may be a simple three-sided box with a top 
and an open face. The configuration of the enclosure is secondary to 
the purpose of providing a stable and steady balance reading, free 
from the effects of airflow, for accurate measurements. The 
enclosure can be fabricated locally. A typical enclosure is shown in 
Figure 17.1.
    \2\ Laboratory Balance--Ohaus Precision Standard Series P/N 
TS400D or equivalent--Paul N. Gardner Co. 316 NE 1st St. Pompano 
Beach, FL 33060 or other suppliers.
    \3\ Stop Watch--Local supply.
    \4\ Thermometer--Mercury thermometer--ASTM No. 21C or 
equivalent; Digital thermometer--P/N TH-33033 or equivalent--Paul N. 
Gardner Co. 316 NE 1st St. Pompano Beach, FL 33060 or other 
suppliers.
    \5\ Aluminum Pan--Local supply.
    \6\ Mylar--Local supply.
    \7\ Double Sided Tape--3M Double Stick Tape or equivalent, local 
supply.
    \8\ Laboratory Beakers--250 to 400ml capacity--Local laboratory 
supply.
    \9\ Eye Dropper or Pipette--Local laboratory supply.
    \10\ Disposable Resin Application Roller Source--Wire Handle 
Roller P/N 205-050-300 or Plastic Handle Roller P/N 215-050-300 or 
equivalent; ES Manufacturing Inc., 2500 26st Ave. North, St. 
Petersburg, FL 33713, www.esmfg.com, or other source. Refer to 
Figure 17.3.
    \11\ Hygrometer or Psychrometer--Model THWD-1, or 
equivalent--Part  975765 by Amprobe Instrument, 630 Merrick 
Road, P.O. Box 329, Lynbrook, NY 11563, 516-593-5600
    \12\ Insulating Board (Teflon, cardboard, foam board etc.)--
Local supply.
    \13\ Laboratory Balance With Digital Output--Ohaus Precision 
Standard Series P/N TS120S or equivalent--Paul N. Gardner Co. 316 NE 
1st St. Pompano Beach, FL 33060 or other suppliers.
    \14\ Chopped Strand Mat--1.5 oz/ft \2\ Sources: Owens Corning 
Fiberglas--Fiberglas M-723; PPG Industries--ABM HTX; Vetrotex 
America--M-127 or equivalent.
    \15\ Certificate of Analysis: Resin gel time, as recorded on the 
resin certificate of analysis, is measured using a laboratory 
standard gel time procedure. This procedure typically uses a 100 
gram cup sample at 77[deg]F (25[deg]C), a specific type of initiator 
and a specified percentage.
    \16\ Roll-out times may vary with resin viscosity or resin 
additive. The important aspect of this step is to produce the same 
roll-out time for both the suppressed and non-suppressed samples.
    \17\ While this test can be used with filled resin systems, the 
test is not designed to determine the effect of the filler on 
emissions, but rather to measure the effect of the suppressant 
additive in the resin system. When evaluating a filled system both 
the non-vapor suppressed and vapor suppressed samples should be 
formulated with the same type and level of filler.

    16.2 References
    1. Phase 1--Baseline Study Hand Lay-up, CFA, 1996
    2. CFA Vapor Suppressant Effectiveness Test Development, 4/3/98, 
correspondence with Dr. Madeleine Strum, EPA, OAQPS
    3. CFA Vapor Suppressant Effectiveness Screening Tests, 4/4/98
    4. Styrene Suppressant Systems Study, Reichhold Chemical, 11/30/
98
    5. Evaluation of the CFA's New Proposed Vapor Suppressant 
Effectiveness Test, Technical Service Request : ED-01-98, 
BYK Chemie, 6/3/98
    6. Second Evaluation of the CFA's New Proposed Vapor Suppressant 
Effectiveness Test, Technical Service Request : ED-02-98, 
BYK Chemie, 1/26/99

17. Data Sheets and Figures

    17.1 This data sheet, or a similar data sheet, is used to record 
the test data for filled, unfilled, suppressed and non-suppressed 
tests. If additional time is required, the data sheet may be 
extended.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

[[Page 19438]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.011


[[Page 19439]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.012

    17.2 Data Acceptance Criteria Worksheet:
    The following worksheet is used to determine the quality of 
collected data (i.e. insure the data collected all meets acceptance 
criteria)

                                                                         Table 17.2.--Data Acceptance Criteria Worksheet
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Temperature                                       Relative humidity, %
           Test No.            ------------------------------------------   Laminate roll  --------------------------------  Resin weight,  Glass content,        Resin        Meets criteria Y/
                                     Min           Max          Delta       out time, min       Initial          Final            (g)              %           distribution            N
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
-------------------------------
2
-------------------------------
3
-------------------------------
4
-------------------------------
5
-------------------------------
6
-------------------------------
7
-------------------------------
8
-------------------------------
9
-------------------------------
10
-------------------------------
11
-------------------------------

[[Page 19440]]

 
12
-------------------------------
                          Average
Criteria..................................................  +/- 2[deg]F   +/-10% of         +/- 15 of       +/- 15 of       +/- 10% of      +/- 10% of      <\1/2\ inch off    All Y
                                                                           Average           Average         Average         Avg.            Avg.            mat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17.3 VSE Factor Calculation

                   Table 17.3.--Calculations Worksheet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Vapor suppressed                   Non-vapor suppressed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Test      % Weight loss     Test      % Weight loss
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------
 
------------------
 
------------------
 
------------------
 
------------------
 
------------------
Average Weight
 Loss
------------------
             VSE Factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VSE Factor = 1--(% Average Weight Loss VS/ % Average Weight LossNVS)

    17.4 Figures

[[Page 19441]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.013


[[Page 19442]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.014


[[Page 19443]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP03.015

[FR Doc. 03-5615 Filed 4-18-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C