43842 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6719–3]

RIN 2060–AG27

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat

Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for new and

existing boat manufacturing facilities.

The processes regulated include

fiberglass resin and gel coat operations,

carpet and fabric adhesive operations,

and aluminum boat painting operations.

The EPA has identified boat

manufacturing as a major source of

hazardous air pollutants (HAP), such as

styrene, methyl methacrylate (MMA),

methylene chloride (dichloromethane),

toluene, xylenes, n-hexanes, methyl

ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl

ketone (MIBK), and methyl chloroform

(1,1,1-trichloroethane). These proposed

standards will implement section 112(d)

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring

all major sources to meet HAP emission

standards reflecting the application of

the maximum achievable control

technology (MACT). We estimate the

proposed NESHAP would reduce

nationwide emissions of HAP from

these facilities by approximately 36

percent from the 1997 level of

emissions.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on

or before September 12, 2000.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by August 3, 2000, a public

hearing will be held on August 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written

comments should be submitted (in

duplicate if possible) to: Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), Attention Docket Number

A–95–44, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.

The EPA requests a separate copy also

be sent to the contact person listed

below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT).

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at EPA’s Office of

Administration Auditorium, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Docket. Docket No. A–95–44 contains

supporting information used in

developing the standards. The docket is

located at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460,

and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to

5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Morris, Organic Chemicals Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711, (919) 541–5416,

morris.mark@epamail.epa.gov. For

public hearing information contact

Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711, (919) 541–5607.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Docket. The docket is an organized

and complete file of all 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 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) 260–7548. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying docket materials.

Public Hearing. Persons interested in

presenting oral testimony or inquiring

as to whether a hearing is to be held

should contact Maria Noell, Organic

Chemicals Group, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), U.S. EPA, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,

(919) 541–5607 at least 2 days in

advance of the public hearing. Persons

interested in attending the public

hearing must also call Maria Noell to

verify the time, date, and location of the

hearing. The public hearing will provide

interested parties the opportunity to

present data, views, or arguments

concerning these proposed emission

standards.

Comments. Comments and data may

be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail)

to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file to avoid the use of special

characters and encryption problems and

will also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect’’ version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8

file format. All comments and data

submitted in electronic form must note

the docket number: A–95–44. No

confidential business information (CBI)

should be submitted by e-mail.

Electronic comments may be filed

online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

Commenters wishing to submit

proprietary information for

consideration must clearly distinguish

such information from other comments

and clearly label it as CBI. Send

submissions containing such

proprietary information directly to the

following address, and not to the public

docket, to ensure that proprietary

information is not inadvertently placed

in the docket: Attention: Mark Morris, c/

o OAQPS Document Control Officer

(Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel

Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA

will disclose information identified as

CBI only to the extent allowed by the

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies a submission when it is

received by the EPA, the information

may be made available to the public

without further notice to the

commenter.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition

to being available in the docket, an

electronic copy of the proposed

NESHAP will also be available on the

WWW through the Technology Transfer

Network (TTN). Following signature, a

copy of the proposed 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.

Regulated Entities. Categories and

entities potentially regulated by this

action include:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43843

Category NAICS

code

SIC

code Examples of regulated entities

Industrial ..................... 336612 3732 Boat manufacturing facilities that perform fiberglass production operations or aluminum

coating operations.

3731 Shipbuilding and repair facilities that perform fiberglass production operations or aluminum

coating operations.

Federal Government .. 336612 3731

3732

Federally owned facilities (e.g., Navy shipyards) that perform fiberglass production operations or aluminum coating operations.

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 section II.A. of

this preamble. 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.

Outline. The information presented in

this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Introduction

A. What is the purpose of the proposed

NESHAP?

B. What is the statutory authority for the

proposed NESHAP?

C. What are the potential health effects of

the HAP emitted by the boat

manufacturing industry?

D. How were the proposed NESHAP

developed?

E. What processes and operations

constitute boat manufacturing?

II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP

A. What sources and operations are subject

to the proposed NESHAP?

B. What pollutants are regulated by the

proposed NESHAP?

C. What do the proposed NESHAP require?

D. What is the MACT model point value

and how is it used in the proposed

NESHAP?

E. When must I comply with the proposed

NESHAP?

F. How do I demonstrate compliance with

the proposed NESHAP?

G. How do I demonstrate compliance if I

use an enclosure and an add-on control

device?

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and

Economic Impacts

A. What facilities are affected by the

proposed 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. Rationale for the Proposed NESHAP

A. How did EPA determine the source

category to regulate?

B. What pollutants are regulated under the

proposed NESHAP?

C. What is the ‘‘affected source’’ and how

did EPA select the operations to be

regulated by the proposed NESHAP?

D. What is a new affected source?

E. How did EPA determine the MACT floor

for existing sources?

F. How did EPA determine the MACT floor

for new sources?

G. Did EPA consider control options more

stringent than the MACT floor?

H. Why are some boat manufacturing

operations not being covered by the

proposed NESHAP?

I. How did EPA select the format of the

proposed NESHAP?

J. How did EPA select the test methods for

determining compliance with the

proposed NESHAP?

K. How did EPA determine the monitoring

and recordkeeping requirements?

L. How did EPA select the notification and

reporting requirements?

V. Relationship to Other Standards and

Programs under the CAA

A. National Emission 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)

B. Shipbuilding and Repair (Surface

Coating) NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63,

Subpart II)

C. Wood Furniture Manufacturing

Operations NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63

Subpart JJ)

D. Plastic Parts and Products (Surface

Coating) NESHAP

E. Relationship Between Operating Permit

Program and the Proposed Standards

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

I. Introduction

A. What Is the Purpose of the Proposed

NESHAP?

The purpose of the proposed NESHAP

is to protect the public health by

reducing emissions of HAP from boat

manufacturing facilities.

B. What Is the Statutory Authority for

the Proposed NESHAP?

The CAA was created, in part, ‘‘* * *

to protect and enhance the quality of the

Nation’s air resources so as to promote

the public health and welfare and the

productive capacity of its population

* * *’’ (see section 101(b) of the CAA).

The proposed NESHAP are consistent

with the requirements of the CAA.

Section 112 of the CAA requires that

we promulgate regulations for the

control of HAP from both new and

existing major sources. The CAA

requires the regulations to reflect the

maximum degree of reduction in

emissions of HAP that is achievable

taking into consideration the cost of

achieving the emissions reductions, any

non-air-quality health and

environmental impacts, and energy

requirements. This level of control is

commonly referred to as the maximum

achievable control technology.

We based the proposed NESHAP for

boat manufacturing for new and existing

sources on the MACT floor control

level. The MACT floor is the minimum

control level allowed for NESHAP and

is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the

CAA. In essence, the MACT floor

ensures that all major HAP emission

sources achieve the level of control

already achieved by the bettercontrolled and lower-emitting sources

in each category. For new sources, the

MACT floor cannot be less stringent

than the emission control that is

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The standards

for existing sources can be less stringent

than standards for new sources, but they

cannot be less stringent than the average

emission limitation achieved by the

best-performing 12 percent of existing

sources (or the best-performing 5

sources for categories or subcategories

with fewer than 30 sources).

We estimate that major sources in the

boat manufacturing source category

collectively emit 9,000 megagrams per

year (Mg/yr) (9,920 tons per year (tons/

yr)) of HAP. A major source of HAP is

defined as any stationary source or

group of stationary sources within a

contiguous area and under common

control that emits or has the potential to

emit, considering controls, in the

aggregate, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) or more

of any single HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr or more

(25 tons/yr) of multiple HAP.

43844 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

In developing MACT, we also must

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, non-air-quality health and

environmental impacts, and energy

requirements.

C. What Are the Potential Health Effects

of the HAP Emitted by the Boat

Manufacturing Industry?

The following is a summary of the

potential health and environmental

effects associated with exposure, at

some level, to emitted pollutants that

the proposed NESHAP would reduce.

Styrene. Humans exposed to styrene

for short periods through inhalation

may exhibit irritation of the eyes and

mucous membranes, and

gastrointestinal effects. Styrene

inhalation over longer periods may

cause central nervous system effects

including headache, fatigue, weakness,

and depression. Exposure may also

damage peripheral nerves and cause

changes to the kidney and blood.

Chronic inhalation studies with animals

have indicated that styrene affects the

central nervous system, liver, and

kidney, and irritates eye and nasal

membranes. The EPA has developed a

reference concentration of 1 milligram

per cubic meter (mg/m 3) for styrene

based on central nervous system effects

in exposed workers. Inhalation of this

concentration or less over a lifetime

would be unlikely to result in adverse

noncancer effects. Epidemiological

studies have suggested an association

between styrene exposure and increased

incidence of leukemia and lymphoma.

The EPA considers this evidence to be

inconclusive because of multiple

chemical exposures and inadequate

information on the levels and duration

of exposure. Animal cancer studies have

produced variable results but provide

limited evidence for carcinogenicity.

The EPA has not classified styrene with

respect to carcinogenicity. The EPA is

currently reviewing its assessment of

styrene.

Methyl methacrylate. Humans

exposed to MMA for short periods

through inhalation may experience

depression of the central nervous

system and irritation of the skin, eyes,

and mucous membranes. Dermal

exposure may cause a severe allergic

response. Short-term animal studies

have indicated that MMA inhalation

damages the liver and lung. Kidney and

liver lesions have been observed in

humans who ingested MMA over longer

periods and in animals exposed either

orally or by inhalation. Workers

exposed through inhalation have

indicated headaches, fatigue, sleeping

disturbances, and irritability. Exposed

workers have also suffered reproductive

effects, including pregnancy

complications in women and sexual

disorders in both men and women. Fetal

abnormalities have been reported in

animals exposed to MMA by injection

and inhalation. The EPA has developed

a reference concentration of 0.7 mg/m 3

for MMA. Inhalation of this

concentration or less over a lifetime

would be unlikely to result in adverse

noncancer effects. Several animal

studies observed no carcinogenic

effects. The EPA has classified MMA in

Group E, not likely to be carcinogenic in

humans.

Methylene chloride. Short-term

exposure of humans to high-levels of

methylene chloride affects the central

nervous system, causing impairment of

vision and hearing. These effects are

reversible once exposure ceases. Longterm exposure also affects the central

nervous system, causing headaches,

dizziness, nausea, and memory loss.

Studies of methylene chloride exposure

to animals have indicated effects to the

liver, kidney, and cardiovascular

system. Animal studies have indicated

that methylene chloride inhalation

causes tumors of the lung, liver, and

mammary glands. Based on this

evidence, EPA has classified methylene

chloride in Group B2, a probable human

carcinogen, with an inhalation unit risk

of 4.7 × 10¥7 per microgram per cubic

meter (μg/m3).

Toluene. Humans exposed to toluene

for short periods may experience

irregular heartbeat and effects to the

central nervous system such as fatigue,

sleepiness, headache, and nausea.

Repeated exposure to high

concentrations may induce loss of

coordination, tremors, decreased brain

size, and involuntary eye movements,

and may impair speech, hearing, and

vision. Chronic exposure to toluene in

humans has also been indicated to

irritate the skin, eyes, and respiratory

tract, and to cause dizziness, headaches,

and difficulty with sleep. Children

exposed to toluene before birth may

suffer central nervous system

dysfunction, attention deficits, and

minor face and limb defects. Inhalation

of toluene by pregnant women may

increase the risk of spontaneous

abortion. The EPA has developed a

reference concentration of 0.4 mg/m3 for

toluene. Inhalation of this concentration

or less over a lifetime would be unlikely

to result in adverse noncancer effects.

No data exist that suggest toluene is

carcinogenic. The EPA has classified

toluene in Group D, not classifiable as

to human carcinogenicity.

Xylenes. Short-term inhalation of

mixed xylenes (a mixture of three

closely related compounds) in humans

may cause irritation of the nose and

throat, nausea, vomiting, gastric

irritation, mild transient eye irritation,

and neurological effects. Long-term

inhalation of xylenes in humans may

result in central nervous system effects

such as headache, dizziness, fatigue,

tremors, and incoordination. Other

reported effects include labored

breathing, heart palpitation, severe chest

pain, abnormal electrocardiograms, and

possible effects on the blood and

kidneys. Developmental effects have

been indicated from xylene exposure via

inhalation in animals. Not enough

information exists to determine the

carcinogenic potential of mixed xylenes.

The EPA has classified xylenes in Group

D, not classifiable as to human

carcinogenicity.

n-Hexane. Short-term inhalation

exposure of humans to high levels of nhexane causes mild central nervous

system depression. Dermal exposure

may cause irritation of the skin and

mucous membrane. The nervous system

effects include dizziness, giddiness,

slight nausea, and headache in humans,

with numbness in the extremities,

muscular weakness, blurred vision,

headache, and fatigue observed.

Neurotoxic effects have also been

exhibited in rats. Mild inflammatory

and degenerative lesions in the nasal

cavity have been observed in rodents

chronically exposed through inhalation.

The reference concentration for hexane

is 0.2 mg/m3. The EPA estimates that

inhalation of this concentration or less

over a lifetime would not likely result

in the occurrence of chronic noncancer

effects. No information is available on

the carcinogenic effects of hexane in

humans or animals. The EPA has

classified hexane as a Group D, not

classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.

Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). Short-term

inhalation exposure to MEK in humans

may irritate the eyes, nose, and throat,

and cause central nervous system

depression. Limited information is

available on long-term effects of MEK

exposure to humans, but chronic

inhalation studies in animals have

indicated effects on the central nervous

system, liver, and respiratory system.

The EPA’s reference concentration for

MEK is 1 mg/m3, based on decreased

fetal birth weight in mice. Inhalation of

this concentration or less over a lifetime

would be unlikely to result in adverse

noncancer effects. Limited data exist on

carcinogenic effects of MEK. The EPA

has classified MEK in Group D, not

classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43845

Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK). Shortterm exposure to MIBK may irritate the

eyes and mucous membranes, and cause

weakness, headache, and nausea. Longterm exposure by workers has been

observed to cause nausea, headache,

burning eyes, insomnia, intestinal pain,

and slight enlargement of the liver. No

information is available on reproductive

or developmental effects of MIBK in

humans, but studies with rats and mice

have indicated neurological effects and

increased liver and kidney weights. The

EPA has not established a reference

concentration or classified MIBK with

respect to carcinogenicity.

1,1,1-trichloroethane. Short-term

inhalation exposure of humans to 1,1,1-

trichloroethane causes mild hepatic

effects, central nervous system

depression, dizziness, nausea, vomiting,

diarrhea, loss of consciousness, and

decreased blood pressure. Cardiac

arrhythmia and respiratory arrest may

result from the depression of the central

nervous system. After long-term

inhalation exposure to 1,1,1-

trichloroethane, some liver damage was

observed in mice and ventricular

arrhythmias in humans. The reference

concentration for 1,1,1-trichloroethane

is under review by EPA. The EPA has

classified 1,1,1-trichloroethane as a

Group D, not classifiable as to human

carcinogenicity, based on no reported

human data and inadequate animal

data.

D. How Were the Proposed NESHAP

Developed?

We consulted many representatives of

the boat manufacturing industry, State

and Federal representatives, and

material and equipment vendors in

developing the proposed NESHAP. We

held a series of approximately 50

stakeholder meetings over a period of

nearly 4 years. These meetings were

held to keep stakeholders informed and

to solicit data and information on issues

relevant to the NESHAP development.

Stakeholders helped in data gathering,

arranged site visits, and reviewed

questionnaires. Stakeholders also shared

data, identified issues and provided

information to help resolve issues in the

rulemaking process.

We identified the MACT floor control

level with information obtained through

questionnaire responses, site visits,

telephone contacts, and operating

permits.

E. What Processes and Operations

Constitute Boat Manufacturing?

The proposed NESHAP regulate

fiberglass and aluminum boat

manufacturing operations. The

emissions from these boat

manufacturing operations and processes

are fugitive emissions. Fugitive

emissions result from HAP evaporating

from the resins, gel coats, solvents,

adhesives, and surface coatings used in

manufacturing processes.

The following is a brief description of

these processes and operations found at

boat manufacturing facilities: fiberglass

boat manufacturing operations; fabric

and carpet adhesive operations; and

aluminum boat surface coating

operations.

Fiberglass boat manufacturing

operations. Fiberglass boats are built

from glass fiber reinforcements laid in a

mold and saturated with a polyester or

vinylester plastic resin. The resin

hardens to form a rigid plastic part

reinforced with the fiberglass. The resin

is mixed with a catalyst as it is applied

that causes a cross-linking reaction

between the resin molecules. The crosslinking reaction causes the resin to

harden from a liquid to a solid.

Fiberglass manufacturing processes

are generally considered either ‘‘open

molding’’ or ‘‘closed molding.’’ In open

molding, fiberglass boat parts are built

‘‘from the outside in’’ according to three

basic process steps:

(1) The mold is sprayed with a layer

of gel coat, which is a pigmented

polyester resin that hardens and

becomes the smooth outside surface of

the part.

(2) The inside of the hardened gel coat

layer is coated with a ‘‘skin coat’’ of

chopped glass fibers and polyester or

vinylester resin.

(3) Additional layers of fiberglass

cloth or chopped glass fibers saturated

with resin are added until the part is the

final thickness.

The same basic process is used to

build or repair molds with tooling gel

coat and tooling resin.

In closed molding, the resin is applied

to fabric placed between the halves of a

two-piece mold. Three basic types of

closed molding used in boat

manufacturing are resin infusion

molding, resin transfer molding (RTM),

and compression molding with sheet

molding compound (SMC).

The polyester and vinylester resins

that are used in fiberglass boat

manufacturing contain styrene as a

solvent and a cross-linking agent. Gel

coats also contain MMA as a solvent,

and styrene. Styrene and MMA are

HAP, and a fraction evaporates during

resin and gel coat application and

curing. Resins and gel coats containing

styrene and MMA are also used to make

the molds used in producing fiberglass

parts.

Mixing is done to stir the resin or gel

coat and promoters, fillers, or other

additives before being applied to the

parts. Some HAP from the resin and gel

coat are emitted during the mixing

process.

Resin and gel coat application

equipment requires solvent cleaning to

remove uncured resin or gel coat when

not in use. The resin or gel coat will

catalyze in the hoses or gun if not

flushed with a solvent after each use.

Fabric and carpet adhesive

operations. The interiors of many types

of fiberglass boats and aluminum boats

are covered with carpeting or fabric to

improve the appearance, provide

traction, or deaden sound. The material

is bonded to the interior with contact

adhesives. The HAP-containing

solvents, such as methylene chloride,

toluene, xylenes, and methyl chloroform

(1,1,1-trichloroethane), are used in these

adhesives. The solvents evaporate as the

adhesives dry.

Aluminum boat surface coatings.

Aluminum boat hull topsides and decks

are painted with coatings applied with

spray guns. These coatings may be highgloss polyurethane coatings or low-gloss

single-part coatings. These surface

coatings often contain HAP solvents,

such as toluene, xylenes, and

isocyanates.

The HAP-containing solvents are also

used to clean surfaces before finishing

(wipe-down solvents) and for cleaning

paint and coating spray guns.

II. Summary of Proposed NESHAP

This preamble section discusses the

proposed NESHAP as they apply to

‘‘you,’’ the owner or operator of a new

or existing boat manufacturing facility.

A. What Sources and Operations Are

Subject to the Proposed NESHAP?

The proposed NESHAP would

regulate HAP from major sources that

manufacture fiberglass boats or

noncommercial, nonmilitary aluminum

boats. Coating operations on aluminum

commercial and military vessels are

covered by the shipbuilding and repair

NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart II).

The proposed NESHAP apply to

fiberglass boat manufacturers making all

sizes and types of fiberglass boats using

the operations listed below:

• All open molding operations,

including pigmented gel coat, clear gel

coat, production resin, tooling resin,

and tooling gel coat.

• All closed molding resin

operations.

• All resin and gel coat application

equipment cleaning.

• All resin and gel coat mixing

operations.

• All carpet and fabric adhesive

operations.

43846 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

The proposed NESHAP apply to

aluminum boat manufacturing facilities

performing the operations listed below:

• All aluminum boat surface coatings

and associated spray gun cleaning and

wipe-down solvent operations.

• All carpet and fabric adhesive

operations.

B. What Pollutants are Regulated by the

Proposed NESHAP?

The proposed NESHAP regulate the

total HAP content in the materials used

in each regulated operation. The

proposed NESHAP do not set limits for

individual species of HAP. The HAP

emitted by boat manufacturing facilities

typically include styrene, MMA,

toluene, xylenes, methyl chloroform

(1,1,1-trichloroethane), MEK, n-hexane,

and MIBK. However, the total HAP

content limit includes all HAP listed in

section 112(b) of the CAA.

C. What Do the Proposed NESHAP

Require?

The proposed NESHAP have various

formats for the different operations

being regulated. For open molding resin

and gel coat operations, you must

comply with a HAP emission limit that

is calculated for your facility using

MACT model point value equations,

which are described in section II.D., for

each open molding operation.

You can demonstrate compliance

with the HAP emissions limit for your

facility either by (1) averaging emissions

with the MACT model point value

equations, (2) complying with

equivalent material HAP content

requirements for each type of open

molding operation, or (3) using an addon control device. The HAP emissions

limit and equivalent HAP content

requirements are the same for new and

existing sources. You may use averaging

for all of your open molding operations

or only for some of them. For those

operations not included in the

emissions average, you must comply

with one of the alternative provisions.

For resin operations, different HAP

content requirements apply to atomized

and nonatomized resin application

methods. The HAP content

requirements for open molding are

presented in table 2 of the proposed

NESHAP. If you use an add-on control

device to meet the emissions limit, the

emissions limit is calculated using the

MACT model point value operations

and is in units of kilograms (kg) of HAP

per megagram (1000 kg) of resin or gel

coat consumed.

As stated above, you may use a

combination of compliance options for

the different resin and gel coat

operations within your facility. For

example, a hull production line may use

several resins and gel coats. The skin

coat resin may comply with the HAP

content requirements, while you may

decide to use the averaging approach to

comply by averaging between the

laminating resin and production gel

coats. In another example, you could

include in the average all production

resins and pigmented gel coats at your

facility, but decide not to include clear

gel coat, tooling resin, and tooling gel

coat. You could also use averaging to

use a mix of atomized and nonatomized

resin application methods but at

different HAP contents from those in

table 2 of the proposed NESHAP.

Other operations regulated by the

proposed NESHAP would be subject to

work practice requirements or HAP

content limits. Resin and gel coat

mixing containers with a capacity of 208

liters (55 gallons) or more must be

covered. Routine resin and gel coat

application equipment cleaning

operations must use zero-HAP solvents,

but solvents used to remove cured resin

or gel coat from equipment would be

exempt. The containers used to hold the

exempt solvent and to soak the

equipment with cured resin and gel coat

must be covered. Carpet and fabric

adhesive operations must use zero-HAP

adhesives. Aluminum boat wipedown

solvents and surface coatings would be

subject to HAP content limits.

Aluminum boat spray gun cleaning

operations would be subject to a work

practice requirement. The NESHAP for

these operations are the same for new

and existing sources. The proposed

NESHAP have no averaging compliance

options for these operations. Today’s

proposed NESHAP contain the specific

requirements for each operation

regulated by this proposal.

Compliance with all of the emissions

limits in the proposed NESHAP are

based on a 3-month rolling average

except when an add-on control device is

used. At the end of every month, you

determine compliance for each

operation based on the HAP content and

material consumption data collected

over the past 3 months. When an addon control device is used, compliance is

determined through a one-time test and

subsequent monitoring.

D. What Is the MACT Model Point Value

and How Is It Used In the Proposed

NESHAP?

The MACT model point value is a

number calculated for each open

molding operation and is a surrogate for

emissions. The MACT model point

value is a way to rank the relative

performance of different resin and gel

coat emissions reduction techniques.

This approach allows you to create

control strategies using different resin

and gel coat emissions reduction

techniques. The proposed NESHAP

provide equations to calculate MACT

model point values based on HAP

content and application method for each

material that you use. These MACT

model point values are then averaged

and compared to limits in the proposed

NESHAP to determine if your open

molding operations are in compliance.

The MACT model point values have

units of kilograms of HAP per megagram

of resin or gel coat applied. It is

important to note that the MACT model

point values are surrogates for

emissions, and the MACT model point

value equations are used only for

determining compliance with the

emissions limit for open molding

operations. The MACT model point

value equations should not be used in

other environmental programs for

estimating emissions in place of true

emission factor equations.

The MACT model point value

equations account only for HAP content

and application method. Other factors

(including curing time, part thickness,

and operator technique) can have

significant effects on emissions, and

these factors are not accounted for in the

MACT model point value equations.

Determining the HAP content of

materials and the method of application

is relatively easy, but it is difficult to

determine the other factors. Therefore,

these factors are not included in the

MACT model point value equations.

E. When Must I Comply With the

Proposed NESHAP?

Existing boat manufacturing facilities

must comply within 3 years of the date

the promulgated NESHAP are published

in the Federal Register. New sources

that commence construction after

today’s date must comply immediately

upon startup or by the promulgation

date, whichever is later.

F. How Do I Demonstrate Compliance

With the Proposed NESHAP?

Unless you are using an add-on

control device, you must measure and

record the HAP contents of all the

materials regulated by the proposed

NESHAP. You may determine HAP

content using EPA Method 311, but you

may also use documentation provided

by the material manufacturer, such as a

material safety data sheet (MSDS) or

HAP data sheet to show compliance.

Although you may use either EPA

Method 311 or the manufacturer’s

documentation to show compliance,

EPA will use EPA Method 311 results to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43847

determine compliance if they differ

from the manufacturer’s documentation.

Compliance with the HAP content

limits is based on the weighted-average

HAP content for each material on a 3-

month rolling-average basis.

Compliance is determined at the end of

every month (12 times per year) based

on the past 3 months of data. To

determine weighted-average HAP

content, you will also need to monitor

and record the amount of each regulated

material used per month, as well as

HAP content.

If all of the material in a particular

operation meets the applicable HAP

content limit, then you would not need

to record the amount of material used.

Likewise, you would not need to

perform and record any calculations to

determine weighted-average HAP

content.

For open molding resin and gel coat

operations, how you show compliance

will depend on which compliance

option you choose. For example, if you

choose to average among several open

molding resin and gel coat operations,

you will have greater operating

flexibility, but you will also need to do

more recordkeeping and calculations to

show compliance than if you comply

with the HAP content limits. Also, you

must complete an implementation plan

for the open molding operations at your

facility that are included in an averaging

option. The implementation plan must

describe the resin and gel coat materials

you plan to use, their HAP contents, and

how you will apply those materials so

that you are in compliance. The plan

must also include calculations showing

that your choice of materials and

application methods will achieve

compliance.

You must keep records of the HAP

content of all materials that are subject

to HAP content limits. You must also

keep records of the amount of material

used and any calculations you perform

to determine compliance using

weighted-average HAP contents or the

averaging option for open molding

operations. Every month, you must

inspect the covers required by the work

practice standards for resin and gel coat

mixing containers and aluminum boat

coating spray gun cleaners. You must

also keep records of the results of these

inspections and any repairs made to the

covers. All records must be kept for 5

years (at least the last 2 years of records

must be kept onsite).

Today’s proposed NESHAP contain

the specific monitoring, recordkeeping,

and reporting requirements for each

operation regulated by this proposal.

G. How Do I Demonstrate Compliance If

I Use an Enclosure and an Add-On

Control Device?

If you use an enclosure (such as a

spray booth) and add-on control, you

must use EPA Method 204 to prove that

the enclosure is a total enclosure. If the

enclosure is not a total enclosure, you

must use a temporary enclosure to

measure the fugitive emissions from the

enclosure and the control device. Stack

testing is used to determine compliance

with the emissions limit. You must use

either EPA Method 25A to measure

emissions as total hydrocarbons (as a

surrogate for total HAP) or EPA Method

18 for specific HAP.

During and after the initial

performance test, you must monitor and

record certain control device parameters

to ensure that the control device

continues to be operated as it was

during the test. For example, for thermal

oxidizers, you must monitor and record

combustion temperature and maintain

the temperature above an allowable

minimum value. The monitoring

requirements for several add-on control

devices (including absorbers, adsorbers,

and condensers) are contained in 40

CFR part 63, subpart SS, and are

referenced in the proposed NESHAP.

For other control devices not listed in

subpart SS, you must identify

parameters that demonstrate proper

control device operation and have these

parameters approved by the EPA.

Monitored operating parameters must be

kept within the allowable ranges to

demonstrate compliance with the

control device operating requirements.

III. Summary of Environmental,

Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Facilities Are Affected by the

Proposed NESHAP?

There are approximately 119 existing

facilities manufacturing fiberglass boats

or aluminum boats that are major

sources and would be subject to the

proposed NESHAP. The rate of growth

for the boat manufacturing industry is

estimated to be five new facilities per

year for the next 5 years.

B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

The 1997 baseline emissions from the

boat manufacturing industry are

approximately 9,000 Mg/yr (9,920 tons/

yr). The proposed NESHAP would

reduce HAP from existing sources by

3,220 Mg/yr (3,550 tons/yr) from the

baseline level, a reduction of 36 percent.

Table 2 shows the amount of HAP

reduced by each type of operation.

TABLE 2.—NATIONAL BASELINE EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR EACH TYPE OF OPERATION (1997 DATA)

Operation

Baseline emissions Potential emissions

reductions

Mg/yr Percent of

total Mg/yr Percent

Production resin ............................................................................................................... 5,320 59.2 2,020 38

Tooling resin .................................................................................................................... 80 0.9 30 43

Pigmented gel coat .......................................................................................................... 2,440 27.0 330 14

Clear gel coat .................................................................................................................. 190 2.1 5 2

Tooling gel coat ............................................................................................................... 40 0.4 7 19

Closed molding resin ....................................................................................................... NE NE NE NE

Resin and gel coat mixing ............................................................................................... NE NE NE NE

Fiberglass application equipment cleaning solvents ....................................................... 130 1.5 130 100

Carpet and fabric adhesives ............................................................................................ 543 6.0 540 100

Aluminum Wipedown Solvents ........................................................................................ 60 0.7 40 65

Aluminum Boat Surface Coatings ................................................................................... 190 2.1 100 54

Totals .................................................................................................................... 9,000 .................... 3,223 36

NE means ‘‘not estimated.’’

The proposed NESHAP will not result

in any increase in other air pollution

emissions. While combustion devices

can result in increased sulfur dioxide

and oxides of nitrogen emissions, we do

not expect anyone to comply by

43848 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

installing new combustion devices

during the next 5 years.

C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?

We estimate that the proposed boat

manufacturing 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 proposed

NESHAP will decrease the amount of

solid waste generated by the boat

manufacturing industry by

approximately 360 Mg/yr (400 tons/yr).

The decrease in solid waste is directly

related to switching to nonatomized

resin application equipment (i.e.,

flowcoaters and resin rollers). Switching

to flowcoaters results in a decrease in

overspray because of a greater transfer

efficiency of resin from flowcoaters 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 320 Mg/yr (350 tons/yr),

and that cured resin solid waste will

decrease by approximately 45 Mg/yr (50

tons/yr).

Decreased overspray from flowcoaters

will result in a decreased usage of PPE,

which also consequently reduces the

amount of solid waste. Workers who use

flowcoaters typically wear less PPE than

when using 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 spray

guns to flowcoaters may have a small

increase of hazardous waste from the

used flowcoater cleaning solvents.

However, most facilities will not see an

increase, and the overall impact on the

industry will be small relative to the

solid waste reductions. Nearly all

flowcoaters 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 spray guns to

flowcoaters will use more solvent.

Solvent usage should not change at

facilities switching from internal-mix

spray guns to flowcoaters.

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 flowcoaters and

internal-mix spray guns. We have

observed during site visits that this

small quantity of solvent is usually

sprayed into the air or onto the floor

coverings and allowed to evaporate.

The EPA does not have adequate data

to predict the potential solvent waste

impact from switching to flowcoaters.

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?

We estimate that energy consumption

for new and existing facilities will not

increase. No new or existing facilities

are expected to install add-on control

devices to comply with the proposed

NESHAP in the first 5 years after

promulgation. One facility currently

uses a thermal oxidizer to control some

of their styrene and MMA emissions

from fiberglass boat manufacturing

operations. No increase in energy use is

anticipated to comply with the

proposed NESHAP.

F. What Are the Cost Impacts?

We estimate that nationwide annual

compliance costs for the existing

facilities will be $14 million. This

estimate includes annualized capital

costs and increased material costs for

purchasing more expensive, lower-HAP

materials. Annual costs also include

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting costs. The estimated annual

cost of reduced HAP is $4,350/Mg

($3,950/ton).

Table 3 shows the estimated costs to

reduce emissions from the operations at

the 119 major source boat

manufacturing facilities regulated by the

proposed NESHAP.

TABLE 3.—COST IMPACTS

Type of operation

Nationwide annual costs (millions) in 1998

dollars

Production resin (including nonspray equipment) ............................................................................................................................. 4.9

Pigmented gel coat ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2.1

Clear gel coat .................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.05

Tooling resin ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.9

Tooling gel coat ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.1

Resin and gel coat new product testing cost .................................................................................................................................... 0.5

Fiberglass application equipment cleaning ....................................................................................................................................... 0.3

Resin and gel coat mixing ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.04

Closed molding resin ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0

Aluminum and fiberglass boat carpet and fabric adhesives and application equipment .................................................................. 2.5

Aluminum wipedown solvent ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.03

Aluminum boat surface coating ......................................................................................................................................................... 1.0

Monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting costs ................................................................................................................................. 1.6

Total ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 14

The capital costs would be for

purchase of new resin application

equipment, resin mixer covers, and

adhesive application equipment. The

estimated cost of new resin application

equipment (flowcoaters) is $6,000 per

unit (includes flowcoater, hoses, and

resin and catalyst pumps). The

estimated cost of new adhesive

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43849

application equipment is also

approximately $6,000 per unit. The

resin and gel coat mixer covers will be

approximately $180 per year per

container.

No capital costs are predicted for

mold construction or aluminum boat

surface coating operations.

G. What Are the Economic Impacts?

The EPA prepared an economic

impact analysis to evaluate the primary

and secondary impacts of the proposed

NESHAP on the boat manufacturing

market, consumers, and society.

Because the characteristics of boats vary

greatly throughout the industry, we

evaluated the market by assessing the

impacts on six separate market segments

of the industry, including: outboard

boats, inboard runabouts/sterndrive,

inboard cruisers/yachts, jet boats/

personal watercraft, sailboats, and

canoes. The total annualized social cost

(in 1994 dollars) of the proposed

NESHAP on the industry is $13.0

million, which is 0.2 percent of total

baseline revenue. Generally, the

analysis indicates a minimal change in

market prices and quantity of boats sold.

Imports will increase negligibly, with a

corresponding decrease in exports. The

analysis also suggests a loss (at the

maximum) of 48 employees out of the

51,500 employees in the industry. The

impacts on specific market segments are

summarized in the table below.

TABLE 4.—ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED NESHAP ON BOAT MARKET SEGMENTS

Boat market segment

Change in

price

(percent)

Change in

market output

(percent)

Outboard Boats ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.1 ¥0.3

Inboard Runabouts/Sterndrive ......................................................................................................................................... 0.1 ¥0.1

Inboard Cruisers/Yachts .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0 ¥0.0

Jet Boats/Personal Watercraft ......................................................................................................................................... 0.0 ¥0.0

Sailboats .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 ¥0.2

Canoes ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.1 ¥0.1

The analysis also predicts the number

of facilities that would close as a result

of the cost of complying with the

proposed NESHAP. The EPA used

market level information on total

predicted change in quantity to infer

how many plants would close if the

quantity decrease was borne entirely by

one (or more) facility. For example, if

the market analysis predicts that 1,000

fewer boats are produced and the

average facility produces 500 boats, then

the impact is equivalent to two facility

closures. Using this approach, the

predicted reduction in quantity did not

equal even one facility closure in any of

the six market segments. While this

does not mean that no facilities will

close as a result of the proposed

NESHAP, it does indicate that the

proposed NESHAP have minimal total

impacts, and that any facility closure

will likely be the result of poor baseline

cost conditions rather than a direct

result of the compliance burden.

IV. Rationale for Proposed NESHAP

A. How Did EPA Determine the Source

Category To Regulate?

The proposed NESHAP applies to

fiberglass boat and aluminum boat

manufacturing facilities that are located

at major sources of HAP. Section 112(c)

of the CAA directs us to list each

category of major source emitting any

HAP listed in section 112(b). Boat

manufacturing (major sources only) was

included on the initial list of source

categories published on July 16, 1992

(57 FR 31576). The initial notice of the

source category list stated that we

would refine category descriptions

during the rulemaking process, based on

additional information available.

We redefined the category to include

aluminum boat manufacturing facilities

(64 FR 63025, November 18, 1999). The

initial source category definition

included only fiberglass boat

manufacturing operations. We added

aluminum boat manufacturing facilities

to the source category because many of

these facilities are major sources of

HAP. Aluminum boats are defined as

noncommercial, nonmilitary aluminum

boats. Aluminum commercial and

military boats are not included in the

source category because the HAPemitting process in the construction of

these boats (surface coatings) is

regulated by the shipbuilding and repair

NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart II).

B. What Pollutants Are Regulated Under

the Proposed NESHAP?

The proposed NESHAP regulate total

HAP, rather than individual HAP

compounds. A standard for total HAP

simplifies compliance and enforcement,

compared with standards for individual

HAP compounds. Moreover, the

proposed NESHAP will affect the

formulation of chemical products used

by the industry. It is not reasonable to

regulate the content of individual

constituents in these complex mixtures.

Styrene is the HAP emitted in the

largest magnitude (about 87 percent of

emissions). Other HAP emitted from

boat manufacturing facilities include

MMA, methylene chloride

(dichloromethane), toluene, xylenes,

methyl chloroform (1,1,1-

trichloroethane), n-hexane, and MIBK.

C. What Is the ‘‘Affected Source’’ and

How Did EPA Select the Operations To

Be Regulated by the Proposed NESHAP?

The affected source is the

combination of all regulated operations

at a single boat manufacturing facility.

The following regulated operations are

typically performed at fiberglass boat

manufacturing facilities and are part of

the affected source:

• Open molding operations,

including pigmented gel coat, clear gel

coat, production resin, tooling resin,

and tooling gel coat;

• Closed molding resin operations;

• Resin and gel coat application

equipment cleaning operations; and

• Resin and gel coat mixing

operations.

Carpet and fabric adhesive operations

are performed at both fiberglass boat

and aluminum boat manufacturing

facilities and are part of the affected

source at those facilities.

The following regulated operations

are typically performed at aluminum

boat manufacturing facilities and are

part of the affected source:

• Aluminum wipedown solvent

operations;

• Aluminum boat surface coating

operations; and

• Aluminum coating spray gun

cleaning operations.

These are the typical operations found

at fiberglass boat and aluminum boat

manufacturing facilities, and we were

able to determine MACT for these

operations. If a single facility

43850 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

manufactures both aluminum boat and

fiberglass boats, the facility is a single

affected source.

Mold sealing and release agents, mold

stripping and cleaning solvents,

solvents used to clean cured resin and

gel coat from application equipment,

wood coatings, fiberglass hull and deck

coatings, and antifoulant coatings are

not covered by the proposed NESHAP.

See section IV.H. for the rationale for

why these operations are not regulated

by the proposed NESHAP.

We defined the affected source as the

combination of all of these operations at

a site to provide compliance flexibility.

This broad source definition allows a

manufacturer to determine compliance

by averaging the HAP content of

different products used throughout the

facility within certain defined

operations, and to use different

application techniques as needed to

meet product quality specifications.

This approach is consistent with the

way that the HAP content and

application data were analyzed to

determine the MACT floor.

D. What Is a New Affected Source?

A new affected source is any

fiberglass boat or aluminum boat

manufacturing facility that meets both

of these criteria:

• It began construction after today’s

date, and

• It is a new fiberglass or aluminum

boat manufacturing operation at a site

that does not presently contain any boat

manufacturing operations.

We selected this broad definition of

new source for two reasons. First, the

MACT for new and existing sources is

the same, so there is no difference in

emission control requirements for new

and existing sources. Second, we

concluded that it would be

unreasonably costly to demonstrate

compliance separately for both new and

existing source operations that are

located at the same site. Because the

equipment is easily portable, it can be

difficult to define exactly what would

constitute a new line or operation. Also,

it would be burdensome to monitor and

record equipment and material usage for

separate operations that were

considered new and existing because

the equipment is portable, and material

is often dispensed from centralized bulk

storage containers.

Although some sources might be

required to achieve compliance earlier

under a narrower new source definition,

the small emissions reductions do not

justify the additional long-term

compliance burden.

E. How Did EPA Determine the MACT

Floor for Existing Sources?

We determined separate MACT floors

for each type of boat manufacturing

operation based on data collected from

about one-half of the major source boat

manufacturers. We received data

through questionnaire responses from

54 fiberglass and 13 aluminum boat

manufacturers, site visits to 10 boat

manufacturers (9 fiberglass and 1

aluminum), and through telephone

contacts and operating permits for

several more boat manufacturers. The

data collected from the fiberglass boat

manufacturers represent both large and

small companies, as well as power and

sailboat manufacturers who build

vessels ranging in size from small

runabouts to large, luxury yachts.

Therefore, we believe the data are

representative of the fiberglass boat

industry segment. Our database also

includes all the major source aluminum

boat manufacturers known to us;

therefore, the database also accurately

represents this industry segment.

Using the data collected from boat

manufacturers, we determined separate

existing source MACT floors for each

type of boat manufacturing operation

(e.g., open molding operations, carpet

and fabric adhesives operations). For

each operation, the facilities were

ranked from lowest to highest emitting.

Emissions were computed as a

facilitywide average for each operation

to account for the variety of materials

within each operation that are required

to construct a boat. For open molding

resin operations (production and

tooling), we estimated the HAP using

the MACT model point value equations.

This approach takes into account the

combined effect of application method

and the HAP content of the resins used,

but is not an estimate of actual HAP to

the atmosphere.

To determine MACT floors for the

production resin operations, we

evaluated open molding and closed

molding as separate types of emission

sources. Closed molding is a loweremitting operation than open molding,

but at this time has not been

demonstrated to be generally applicable

for all types of boats. Boat

manufacturers typically use closed

molding to achieve specific product

qualities, such as two finished sides,

higher fiber-to-resin ratios, or higher

production levels that cannot be

achieved with open molding. Therefore,

closed molding operations were not

used in setting the MACT floor for open

molding.

Also, we determined MACT floors

separately for fiberglass and aluminum

boat manufacturers because the

regulated operations at these facilities

differ. The one exception was for carpet

and fabric adhesive operations, where

the MACT floor analysis was based on

a combined data set. Fiberglass and

aluminum boat manufacturers both have

carpet and fabric adhesive operations

and use the same adhesives.

We determined MACT floors based on

the median facility of the lowestemitting 12 percent for production

resin, pigmented gel coat, tooling resin,

tooling gel coat, resin and gel coat

application equipment cleaning and

carpet and fabric adhesives. For clear

gel coat, closed molding resin,

aluminum boat surface coatings,

aluminum coating spray gun cleaning

operations, and aluminum wipe-down

solvents, we used the median of the five

lowest-emitting facilities because we

had data on fewer than 30 sources. We

selected the median facility rather than

the arithmetic average of the lowestemitting facilities in order to represent

the performance of an actual facility.

A more detailed summary of the

results of the MACT floor analysis, the

data and the considerations used to

determine the MACT floors for the boat

manufacturing source category can be

found in Docket No. A–95–44.

F. How Did EPA Determine the MACT

Floor for New Sources?

We believe that the existing source

MACT floor also represents the new

source floor. The existing source MACT

floor represents the greatest degree of

emissions reductions that is achievable

under all circumstances within each

particular operation regulated by the

proposed NESHAP.

For new sources, the CAA requires

the MACT floor to be based on the

degree of emissions reductions achieved

in practice by the best-controlled similar

source. A variety of chemical materials

and application methods are available

for each operation within the boat

manufacturing source category. The

suitability of these materials and

methods depends on several product

and manufacturing requirements. These

requirements typically include part size

and shape, strength, durability,

production volume and schedule,

product mix, color, and worker safety.

Therefore, an emission control option

(e.g., HAP content and application

method) that is applicable at one facility

with a particular mix of these

requirements may not be applicable at

another facility with different

requirements. While some facilities are

using lower-HAP materials and

techniques than represented by the

existing source MACT floor, we do not

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43851

believe that the lowest-emitting options

are universally applicable to all new

boat manufacturers. Sometimes, the

lower-HAP materials are used to

produce particular colors and geometric

shapes that do not represent the range

of boats that are manufactured.

Accordingly, the lowest-HAP-emitting

facilities may not be using materials or

techniques that can be used by new

sources in all circumstances.

Some facilities do use the lower-HAP

materials or techniques for particular

products. However, we have no data to

precisely define the particular

combination of requirements where

these lower-emitting options can be

used and still maintain the minimum

required strength and durability

requirements of these products. These

facilities, consequently, do not represent

the new source MACT floor, and we are

unable to establish subcategories for

purposes of determining a more

stringent MACT floor for new sources.

The existing source MACT floor level of

control is universally applicable to all

boat manufacturers because it has been

demonstrated at several different

facilities that produce a range of

products that represent the industry,

and that use different combinations of

materials and methods to achieve the

emissions reductions. Therefore, the

existing source MACT floor is

achievable by all new sources and also

represents the new source floor.

G. Did EPA Consider Control Options

More Stringent Than the MACT Floor?

Because no control options more

stringent than the MACT floor are

feasible for new and existing sources,

we have determined that MACT for new

and existing sources is the MACT floor

level of control. We considered three

potential options for MACT that might

be more stringent than the MACT floors,

but found that these options were not

achievable. The options we considered

were lower-HAP materials, zero-HAP

materials and add-on control devices.

The following analysis applies equally

to new and existing source MACT.

As noted in the discussion of the new

source MACT floor in the previous

section, some facilities use materials

with HAP contents lower than the new

and existing source MACT floor.

However, as also noted in that

discussion, EPA does not have the data

to define subcategories in which these

lower-HAP materials can be used.

Therefore, these lower-HAP materials

are not a viable option more stringent

than the MACT floor for new or existing

sources.

For carpet and fabric adhesives, as

well as resin and gel coat application

equipment cleaning solvents, the new

and existing source MACT floor is zeroHAP materials. In these two cases, zeroHAP materials are also MACT for new

and existing sources because no more

stringent level of control is achievable.

For the other operations regulated by

the proposed NESHAP, no zero-HAP

substitutes are currently available. No

zero-HAP substitutes for polyester and

vinylester resins or gel coats have been

demonstrated for large-scale production

boat manufacturing. The zero-HAP

alternatives for aluminum wipe-down

solvents, such as acetone, are too

volatile and flammable for this

operation. No waterborne coatings or

powder coatings have been

demonstrated as substitutes for the

solvent-borne coatings currently used in

aluminum boat surface coating

operations.

We also evaluated add-on control

devices. We are aware of one facility

using a thermal oxidizer to control HAP

from resin and gel coat operations in the

manufacture of small jet boats. Thermal

oxidizers are generally effective controls

for HAP emission sources.

The experience of the jet boat facility

with thermal oxidation suggests that

thermal oxidation has not been

effectively demonstrated as a control

option for boat manufacturing. During

the MACT analysis, no emission test

data were available to us or to the State

permitting authority to confirm the

performance of this control device.

Also, after several years of operation,

the facility had not received an

operating permit with an enforceable

emission limit and was still operating

under an extension of their construction

permit.

Moreover, the facility with the

thermal oxidizer uses restricted airflow

to capture concentrated HAP near the

surface of the molds. The restricted

airflow management is feasible at this

facility because the facility is dedicated

to the construction of only two models

of small jet boats, 4.4 and 5.5 meters

(14.5 and 18 feet, respectively) long. The

restricted airflow management was

implemented with the intention to use

robotics to apply some of the resin and

gel coat.

The restricted airflow management as

practiced at this facility would not be

suitable for other facilities in the

industry. All other facilities produce a

variety of products and parts and must

have the operational flexibility to

change product mix over time.

Restricted airflow management would

not be feasible in operations where

workers apply the resin and gel coat,

and a range of different types of boats

are produced.

Accordingly, we have concluded that

thermal oxidizers have not been

demonstrated for this industry. While

theoretically feasible, we have no data

to demonstrate the cost or the

effectiveness of the thermal oxidizer at

the air flow rates and HAP

concentrations that exist at typical boat

manufacturing plants.

H. Why Are Some Boat Manufacturing

Operations Not Being Covered by the

Proposed NESHAP?

The proposed NESHAP would not

regulate the following operations:

• Mold sealing and release agents;

• Mold stripping and cleaning

solvents;

• Solvents used to clean cured resin

and gel coat from application

equipment;

• Wood coatings;

• Fiberglass hull and deck coatings;

and

• Antifoulant coatings.

We excluded wood finishing

operations, fiberglass hull and deck

coating operations, and antifoulant

coating (bottom coating) operations

because they are performed only by a

relatively small percentage of boat

manufacturers and are not typical of the

majority of major source boat

manufacturers. These three operations

collectively account for about only 0.5

percent of HAP from major source boat

manufacturers.

The proposed NESHAP would not

regulate mold sealing and release agents

and mold stripping and cleaning

solvents because we were unable to set

MACT floors or determine MACT for

these operations. In both cases, the

information and data available to us

suggest that mold maintenance

practices, part shape and size, and

production schedules determine

emissions more than the HAP content of

these materials. The EPA does not have

sufficient data to identify and prescribe

work practices to reduce emissions from

these operations. Therefore, the

proposed NESHAP do not regulate these

materials. A more detailed explanation

of why we could not determine the

MACT is in Docket No. A–95–44. These

two operations collectively emit less

than 1 percent of HAP from boat

manufacturing.

Most boat manufacturers in our

database use mold sealing and release

agents that contain only a small

percentage of HAP (less than 10 percent

HAP) sold by two suppliers. Boat

manufacturers use the same group of

products but in different amounts

leading to differences in facilitywide

average HAP. Differences among

facilities are probably due to differences

43852 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

in facility-specific work practices that

are dictated by production

requirements, such as mold cycle time

and frequency, the size and shape of

parts, and mold maintenance. We do not

have sufficient data to identify the

MACT floor or MACT based on

differences in work practices among

facilities.

Mold stripping and cleaning solvents

are not regulated by the proposed

NESHAP because we do not have

sufficient data to determine a MACT

floor. The amount of HAP used per unit

of mold surface area applied depends on

facility-specific mold maintenance

practices and production requirements.

These may include mold cycle time,

how often the mold is used, and even

whether the mold is stored indoors or

outdoors. The size of the part may also

influence mold maintenance. We do not

have sufficient data to identify those

differences in production requirements

or work practices that determine mold

cleaning solvent usage. Therefore, we

cannot identify a MACT floor or MACT.

We are not regulating solvents used

for cleaning cured resin or gel coat from

application equipment because we

know of no emission controls. Cured

resin or gel coat inside a gun is usually

the result of operator error or an

equipment failure. To clean cured resin

and gel coat, an aggressive solvent is

needed and no low-HAP alternatives are

available. The equipment is usually

soaked in a covered bucket resulting in

little evaporation of the solvent. The

amount of solvent needed per year is

determined by the size of the facility,

degree of operator error, and equipment

failure rates. Because operator error and

equipment failure are hard to predict,

we could determine no basis for an

annual limit of solvent usage that would

be achievable by all facilities. The

proposed NESHAP, therefore, allow

HAP-containing solvents only for

cleaning cured resin and gel coat from

the application equipment. The use of

HAP-containing solvents for routine gun

flushing is prohibited.

I. How Did EPA Select the Format of the

Proposed NESHAP?

We decided to offer several formats

for complying with the proposed

NESHAP. The purpose of multiple

formats is to provide the flexibility to

comply in the most cost effective and

efficient manner. We considered the

following factors in selecting the format

of the proposed NESHAP:

• The format must allow for multiple

compliance techniques for the various

types of facilities in the industry.

• The format must simplify

compliance and ensure that the cost of

compliance is not excessive.

• The format must be enforceable.

The format of the proposed NESHAP

is based on a combination of HAP

content limits, equipment standards,

and work practice standards. Section

112(h) of the CAA states that ‘‘* * * if

it is not feasible in the judgement of the

Administrator to prescribe or enforce an

emission standard for control of a

hazardous air pollutant or pollutants,

the Administrator may, in lieu thereof,

promulgate a design, equipment, work

practice, or operational standard, or

combination thereof * * *.’’ Section

112(h)(2) further defines the phrase ‘‘not

feasible to prescribe or enforce an

emission standard’’ as any situation in

which ‘‘* * * a hazardous air pollutant

or pollutants cannot be emitted through

a conveyance designed and constructed

to emit or capture such pollutant, * * *

or the application of measurement

methodology to a particular class of

sources is not practicable * * *.’’

In general, numerical emission limits

are not feasible to prescribe or enforce.

Most boat manufacturing operations

occur in large buildings where

emissions are released to the

atmosphere through general building

ventilation, windows, and doors. These

emission points have high air volumes

and low HAP concentrations that would

pose unreasonably high costs to capture

the emissions. Some coating operations

are carried out in spray booths that are

vented through a single stack, but these

emissions also have high air volumes

and low HAP concentrations. Therefore,

the most reasonable format for these

situations is to specify HAP content

limits for materials, application

equipment requirements, and work

practices to minimize emissions.

The formats of the proposed NESHAP

include both numerical emission limits

and work practice/equipment standards

(HAP content limits and application

equipment requirements). We included

both types of formats so boat

manufacturers could choose to comply

using either averaging provisions, lowHAP materials and alternative

application equipment, or add-on

controls. However, very few boat

manufacturers will probably choose to

comply with emission limit controls

because it is not practical to capture the

emissions for use with add-on controls.

The following subsections describe

the selection of the formats for each type

of limit included in the proposed

NESHAP.

HAP Content Limits for Fiberglass

Boat Manufacturing Operations. The

proposed NESHAP for open molding

operations, resin and gel coat equipment

cleaning solvents, and carpet and fabric

adhesives include weight-percent HAP

content limits for these materials. The

HAP content is an accurate measure of

the relative emission potential of

materials. The HAP content is already

reported on the material safety data

sheet for each material. Therefore, HAP

content can simplify compliance by

allowing you to purchase compliant

materials. If you add HAP to your

materials before use, you must include

the additional HAP in your HAP content

calculations; do not include HAP

catalysts used for resins and gel coats in

the HAP content calculation.

Emission Averaging Using Kilogram of

HAP per Megagram of Material Applied.

The proposed NESHAP for open

molding operations include a HAP

emissions limit that is kilogram of HAP

per megagram of material applied. This

format is used in the emissions

averaging compliance option. This

format was selected to provide

compliance flexibility by allowing you

to use varying HAP content materials

and different application techniques in

the open molding operations and

average the emissions using the MACT

model point value equations described

in section II.D. The averaging approach

will allow you to use higher-HAP

materials and spray application

techniques for some open molding

operations while using lower-HAP

materials and lower-emitting

application methods for others.

The proposed NESHAP do not allow

you to average between open and closed

molding resin operations. However, the

EPA is soliciting comments on allowing

averaging between open and closed

molding operations under certain

circumstances. Industry representatives

have requested this option and have

argued that it will encourage pollution

prevention and long-term emissions

reductions by encouraging the

development of more widely applicable

closed molding technologies.

The EPA developed separate MACT

floors and standards for open and closed

molding processes because open

molding is currently considered a

separate manufacturing process from

closed molding. The NESHAP for open

molding require you to use low-emitting

resins and application methods to

reduce emissions. On the other hand,

closed molding is an inherently lowemitting process, so the proposed

NESHAP impose no additional

requirements to reduce emissions from

closed molding. Because today’s

proposed NESHAP have no numerical

emission limit for closed molding, you

cannot ‘‘over control’’ closed molding

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43853

for greater emissions reductions to offset

excess emissions from open molding.

Therefore, the proposed NESHAP do not

include closed molding in the averaging

approach that is based on a source-wide

emission limit for resin and gel coat

operations.

The EPA is, however, considering the

feasibility of allowing closed molding as

a control technology in a source-wide

limit in cases where the closed molding

is used as a substitute or replacement

for an existing open molding operation.

Here, any reduction from switching to

closed molding could be applied to

excess emissions from other open

molding operations. Consider, for

example, a boat manufacturing facility

that makes 16-foot and 20-foot boats on

two separate lines using open molding.

If the facility adopts closed molding on

the 20-foot line and ceases open

molding, then this is an operational

change that reduces emissions from the

20-foot boat line. The excess emissions

reductions (above the level that would

be required by the open molding

standard) would allow the operator to

use higher-HAP materials on the 16-foot

boat line.

Under this proposal, EPA would

allow averaging only when the closed

molding resin application is a

replacement for existing open molding

resin application. This proposal

includes this restriction because MACT

for open molding resin application is

nonatomized application of resin with

35 percent HAP content. If this

restriction were not included, a facility

spray applying a higher-HAP resin and

using closed molding could comply

without any emissions reductions

simply by averaging the open and

closed molding. Moreover, a facility that

adds new closed molding capacity to

increase production would be allowed

to switch to higher HAP materials in

their existing open molding operations.

In these cases, the facility would not be

reducing emissions from the open

molding operations and would not be

achieving an open molding control level

equal to MACT (i.e., 35 percent HAP

content and nonatomized application).

Therefore, EPA is soliciting comments

on allowing averaging between open

and closed molding by including closed

molding in a source-wide emission

limit. Under this proposal, you could

average open and closed molding if you

meet all of the following three

conditions: (1) Your facility must be an

existing source that is operating prior to

today’s proposal date, (2) you must

begin the closed molding operation after

today’s proposal date, and (3) the closed

molding operation must replace an

equivalent amount of open molding

production capacity that existed before

today’s proposal date. The EPA

welcomes comments on the feasibility

of this approach, and whether it would

provide any additional operating

flexibility to existing boat

manufacturing facilities or encourage

more closed molding.

HAP Content Limits for Aluminum

Boat Surface Coatings. The proposed

standard for aluminum boat surface

coatings is expressed as mass of HAP

per volume of coating solids. For

coating operations, weight-percent HAP

is not an accurate predictor of relative

HAP. For this operation, the amount of

coating needed to cover a surface is

determined by the solids content of the

coating. Coatings with similar weightpercent HAP contents, but different

solids contents, will have different HAP

because different amounts of coating

will be needed for the same job.

In addition, coatings often have lowHAP solvents added to control viscosity

and achieve other coating liquid

properties. Such low-HAP solvents

reduce HAP content as weight-percent,

but increase the volume needed to

achieve the same dry-film thickness.

The proposed format of mass of HAP

per volume of coating solids assures that

coatings are being compared on an equal

basis.

HAP Content Limit for Aluminum

Wipe-Down Solvents. The proposed

standard for aluminum wipe-down

solvents is expressed as mass of HAP

per volume of solids from aluminum

primers or clear coats applied to bare

aluminum. This format allows you to

use a greater range of solvents and

compares HAP on an equal basis.

The data available to us indicate that

weight-percent HAP content for the

wipe-down solvents is not an accurate

predictor of emissions. Some facilities

using higher-HAP solvents have lower

HAP per unit of coating applied than

those using lower-HAP solvents. These

data indicate it is possible to use some

higher-HAP solvents more efficiently

than lower-HAP solvents and, therefore,

a limit on solvent HAP content could be

counterproductive.

Ideally, we would use HAP mass per

unit surface area, but this is not

practicable. It is not practical to measure

or monitor the surface area to be cleaned

prior to coating because of the

complicated three-dimensional shape of

aluminum boats and the variety of boats

produced. Therefore, the volume of

solids of aluminum clear coat primer

applied to bare aluminum was selected

as a surrogate for the amount of surface

area to be cleaned prior to coating.

Selection of Averaging Time for

Demonstrating Compliance. As a boat

manufacturer, you must show

compliance with the emissions limits in

the proposed NESHAP on a 3-month,

rolling-average basis. You must

determine compliance at the end of each

month from the data collected over the

past 3 months. A 3-month averaging

time provides a balance between

operating flexibility and enforceability

of the proposed standard. The 3-month

period is sufficiently long so that you

can identify potential compliance

problems and change your operations in

time to maintain compliance. The

rolling-average aspect provides an

enforceable emission limit 12 times per

year.

Many boat manufacturers already

track material usage monthly to comply

with State regulations and permit

requirements, so monthly tracking is

consistent with current practice.

Tracking on a more frequent basis

would be unnecessarily burdensome.

Boat manufacturers need a 3-month

rolling-average period to respond to

both short-term variations in HAP

content that is inherent in all chemical

products and short-term needs for

higher-HAP materials.

J. How Did EPA Select the Test Methods

for Determining Compliance With the

Proposed NESHAP?

The proposed NESHAP give you the

option of complying by either meeting

HAP content limits (among other

requirements) or using an enclosure and

add-on control device to meet numerical

emission limits. The reference method

for measuring the HAP content of resin,

gel coat, adhesives, aluminum boat

surface coatings, and wipe-down

solvents subject to the proposed

NESHAP is EPA Method 311 (Analysis

of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds

in Paints and Coatings by Direct

Injection Into a Gas Chromatograph).

This is an established method that is

appropriate for measuring the types of

HAP used in these materials. You may

use alternative methods for measuring

HAP content if approved by EPA.

The proposed NESHAP do not require

a compliance test for HAP content, nor

do they require you to test every

shipment of materials that you receive.

You are responsible, however, for

ensuring, by any means that you choose

(e.g., periodic testing, manufacturers’

certification), that the HAP content of

your materials complies with the

requirements of the proposed NESHAP.

We may require you to conduct a test at

any time using EPA Method 311 (or any

approved alternative method) to confirm

the HAP content in the compliance

reports that you submit. If there is any

inconsistency between the results of the

43854 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

EPA Method 311 test and any other

means of determining HAP content, the

Method 311 results will govern.

If you choose to use an enclosure and

add-on control device, you must

determine the capture efficiency of the

enclosure and measure the HAP from

the control device. To determine the

capture efficiency of the enclosure, you

must use EPA Method 204 (Criteria for

and Verification of Permanent or

Temporary Total Enclosure). If the

enclosure meets the criteria in EPA

Method 204 for a permanent total

enclosure, then you may assume that its

capture efficiency is 100 percent. If the

enclosure is not a total enclosure, then

you must build a total temporary

enclosure (TTE) around it that meets the

definition of a TTE in EPA Method 204.

You must then measure emissions from

both the control device and the TTE and

use the combined emissions to

determine compliance.

To measure HAP, you may use either

EPA Method 18 (Measurement of

Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions

by Gas Chromatography) to measure the

sum of individual species of HAP or

EPA Method 25A (Determination of

Total Gaseous Organic Matter

Concentration Using a Flame Ionization

Analyzer) for total hydrocarbons (THC)

as a surrogate for total HAP. The EPA

Method 25A allows you the flexibility to

use a simpler method than EPA Method

18 that does not speciate HAP in cases

where measuring THC is sufficient to

demonstrate compliance. You can

measure THC as a surrogate for total

HAP if most of the THC emitted from an

enclosure are HAP, such as styrene and

MMA from resin and gel coat

operations. For compliance

determinations, the EPA will assume

that all THC measured with EPA

Method 25A are HAP.

K. How Did EPA Determine the

Monitoring and Recordkeeping

Requirements?

The monitoring and recordkeeping

requirements you must meet will

depend on how you choose to comply

with the proposed NESHAP. For each

compliance option, the proposed

monitoring and recordkeeping

requirements are the minimum

necessary to determine initial and

ongoing compliance and are consistent

with the general provisions (40 CFR part

63, subpart A).

Compliance with HAP Content Limits.

For all operations subject to HAP

content limits, you must perform three

tasks: monitor and record the HAP

content of the material used, monitor

and record the monthly consumption of

the material, and record the

computations to show that the weighted

average HAP content over the past 3

months meets the standard. If all the

materials used in an operation meet the

HAP content limit, then you only need

to record HAP content, and you do not

need to track monthly consumption or

record the computations.

Compliance with Averaging

Provisions. To comply with the

averaging provisions for open molding

operations, you must monitor and

record HAP content, amount of material

applied by spray, and the amount

applied by nonspray; and you must

record the computations needed to

show compliance. You must use these

data as well as the MACT model point

value equations in the proposed

NESHAP to calculate the HAP emitted

for the materials used in that operation

for the past 3 months. Compliance is

then determined relative to the

allowable HAP limit calculated for those

operations for the past 3 months.

Compliance with Equipment and

Work Practice Standards. The proposed

NESHAP require resin and gel coat

mixing containers to be fitted with

covers that have no visible gaps. The

proposed NESHAP also require that

aluminum coating spray guns be

cleaned in enclosed gun cleaners or

sprayed into containers that can be

closed when not in use. You will be

required to inspect container covers and

enclosed gun cleaners each month to

ensure the covers are in place and

properly maintained. You must record

the results of the inspections. The

inspections should be sufficient to

ensure that the covers are in place and

properly maintained. We believe that

monthly inspections are a reasonable

interval because the nature of failure in

these pieces of equipment is likely due

to wear and tear and not a sudden

failure. Longer time periods between

inspections, however, would allow a

failure to go too long before being

repaired.

The proposed NESHAP for

production resin and tooling resin will

require most manufacturers to use

nonatomized resin application methods

to comply. These methods include

flowcoaters and pressure-fed resin

rollers, among others. We could identify

no parameters to monitor whether these

methods were being used. Rather,

compliance would be determined

during enforcement inspections as to

whether these methods were being used.

As long as flowcoaters, pressure-fed

resin rollers, or other similar devices are

installed and operated according to

manufacturer’s specifications, they will

comply with the requirements to use

nonatomized resin application methods.

Compliance for Sources Using

Enclosures and Add-on Control Devices.

You have the option of using an

enclosure and add-on control instead of

complying with HAP content or

application equipment standards. The

requirements in the proposed NESHAP

are consistent with other air quality

regulations that require capture and

control of emissions. They are the

minimum needed to demonstrate that

the capture and control system is

operated properly.

You must initially demonstrate

compliance with the emission limit by

demonstrating that the enclosure is a

total enclosure or by also measuring the

fugitive emissions that escape the

enclosure. You must also measure the

efficiency of the add-on control using

EPA Method 25A for THC (as a

surrogate for HAP) or EPA Method 18

for HAP. The EPA Method 18 measures

individual HAP that you sum to

calculate total HAP.

After the initial compliance test, you

must monitor control device parameters

to demonstrate that the control device

continues to be operated as it was

during the initial test. In the case of

thermal oxidizers, you must monitor

and record combustion temperature

every 15 minutes both during and after

the performance test. You must

calculate the average temperature

achieved during the test. After the test,

you must maintain the average

temperature at or above the temperature

achieved during the performance test.

Temperature monitors and recorders are

standard features on thermal oxidizers.

For other devices, you must determine

appropriate parameters to monitor and

receive our approval to use these

parameters.

L. How Did EPA Select the Notification

and Reporting Requirements?

The required notices and reports are

the minimum needed to determine if

you are subject to the proposed

NESHAP and whether you are in

compliance. You must submit an initial

notification stating that you are subject

to the proposed NESHAP. After the

compliance date for your facility, you

must submit a notification of your

compliance status. You must also

submit semiannual reports of your

compliance status. If you have an addon control device and you identify

deviations, you must submit quarterly

reports of your compliance status until

we approve a request to return to

semiannual reporting.

If your facility is a new source, you

will have additional preconstruction

notification requirements. You will also

have additional notification and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43855

reporting requirements if you use an

add-on control device, including

notifications and reports for the control

device performance test. These

notification and reporting requirements

are consistent with those specified in

the general provisions (subpart A) for

part 63 and are the minimum needed for

us to determine compliance for sources

with add-on control devices.

The startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan specified by the

general provisions will be required only

for sources using an add-on control

device and will apply only to the addon control device. For operations not

using a control device, the nature of the

materials and equipment used to

comply with the proposed boat

manufacturing NESHAP is such that

malfunctions will not lead to excess

emissions.

V. Relationship to Other Standards and

Programs Under the CAA

A. National Emission 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

other than a thermal oxidizer to control

emissions from resin and gel coat

operations, 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

proposed NESHAP are applicable to

most sources using an add-on control

device. The proposed NESHAP cite

these sections in subpart SS rather than

repeating them in the proposed

regulatory text.

B. Shipbuilding and Repair (Surface

Coating) NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63,

Subpart II)

Coating operations on commercial or

military aluminum boats and ships are

subject to the Shipbuilding and Repair

NESHAP. Today’s proposed boat

manufacturing NESHAP cover coating

operations only on nonmilitary and

noncommercial aluminum boats. Some

boat manufacturers may be potentially

subject to both NESHAP because they

manufacturer both noncommercial,

nonmilitary aluminum boats and either

commercial or military vessels.

However, there is no conflict between

the two NESHAP because the coating

operations on any single vessel would

be subject to only one NESHAP

depending on the intended function of

that vessel.

C. Wood Furniture Manufacturing

Operations NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63,

Subpart JJ)

Boat manufacturers, particularly

builders of large yachts, build wood

furniture (such as beds, cabinets, and

partitions) into the boat interiors and

finish this furniture with stains, sealers,

and varnishes that are similar to

finishing materials used for household

furniture. However, wood furniture

finishing operations on boats are not

subject to the requirements of 40 CFR

part 63, subpart JJ, because the EPA has

determined that wood furniture on a

boat is integral to the boat cabin and is

not comparable to the furniture

regulated by 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ

(see Docket No. A–95–44). Wood surface

coating operations are not covered by

the proposed boat manufacturing

NESHAP.

D. Plastic Parts and Products (Surface

Coating) NESHAP

The NESHAP for plastic parts are still

being developed and could potentially

cover antifoulant and hull and deck

surface coating operations at fiberglass

boat facilities.

E. Relationship Between Operating

Permit Program and the Proposed

Standards

Under the operating permit program

codified at 40 CFR parts 70 and 71, all

major sources subject to standards

under section 111 or 112 of the CAA

must obtain an operating permit (See

§ 70.3(a)(1) and § 71.3(a)(1)). Therefore,

all major sources subject to the

proposed NESHAP must obtain an

operating permit. Area sources in this

source category are not regulated by the

proposed NESHAP, and, therefore,

would not be required to obtain an

operating permit unless a State with an

approved operating permit program

chooses to permit all nonmajor sources.

Some boat manufacturers may be

major sources based solely on their

potential to emit even though their

actual emissions are below the major

source level. These boat manufacturers

may choose to obtain a federally

enforceable limit on their potential to

emit so that they are no longer

considered major sources and not

subject to the proposed 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 operating limits

will then be federally enforceable under

§ 70.6(b).

The EPA believes that the boat

manufacturing category could benefit

from the development of a general

permit. Under part 70, State permitting

authorities are allowed to develop

general permits for categories of sources

containing numerous similar sources. In

deciding which source should be

covered by general permits, State

regulators must consider three primary

criteria: (1) Source categories covered by

general permits should contain similar

operations and emit pollutants with

similar characteristics; (2) sources

should not be subject to case-by-case

standards; and (3) sources should be

subject to the same or substantially

similar requirements governing

operation, emissions, monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping.

There are several benefits to a general

permit. If a general permit developed by

a permitting authority has been

approved after public participation and

EPA and affected State review, the

permitting authority may then grant or

deny a general permit to a source

without further public participation or

EPA and affected State review. The

action of granting or denying a general

permit is also not subject to judicial

review. Another benefit of a general

permit that would be particularly

advantageous for the boat

manufacturing industry is that sources

may use general permits strictly for the

purposes of becoming synthetic area

sources (i.e., limiting their potential to

emit).

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), we must

determine whether a proposed

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and

therefore subject to Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) review

and the requirements of the Executive

Order. The 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,

43856 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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.

It has been determined that this

proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under the terms of

Executive Order 12866 and is, therefore,

not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the OMB

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An ICR document

has been prepared by EPA (ICR No.

1966.01) and a copy may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer by mail at the

Collection Strategies Division, Office of

Environmental Information, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at

‘‘farmer.sandy@epa.gov,’’ or by calling

(202) 260–2740. A copy may also be

downloaded from the internet at ‘‘http:/

/www.epa.gov/icr.’’

The proposed NESHAP contain

monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping requirements. The

required notices and reports are the

minimum needed by us to determine

who is subject to the NESHAP and

whether you are in compliance. The

proposed recordkeeping requirements

are the minimum necessary to

determine initial and ongoing

compliance. Based on reported

information, we would decide which

boat manufacturers 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, ‘‘Confidentiality of Business

Information.’’

The EPA expects the proposed

NESHAP to affect a total of 134 boat

manufacturing facilities over the first 3

years. The EPA assumes that five new

boat manufacturing facilities will

become subject to the proposed

NESHAP during each of the first 3 years.

The EPA expects 119 existing facilities

to be affected by the proposed NESHAP,

and these existing facilities will begin

complying in the third year.

The estimated average annual burden

for the first 3 years after promulgation

of the proposed 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. 1966.01,’’ in

Docket No. A–95–44.

Affected entity Total

hours

Labor

costs

Capital

costs

Operating

and

maintenance

costs

Total

costs

Industry .................................................................................................... 10,343 635,526 0 895 636,421

Implementing agency ............................................................................... 2,456 141,073 0 0 141,073

The EPA estimates that there are no

capital or startup costs for these new

facilities because they are expected to

comply by limiting the HAP content of

materials. The implementing agency

would not incur any capital or startup

costs.

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.

Comments are requested on the

Agency’s need for this information, the

accuracy of the provided burden

estimates, and any suggested methods

for minimizing respondent burden,

including the use of automated

collection techniques. Send comments

on the ICR to the Director, Collection

Strategies Division, Office of

Environmental Information, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,

Washington, DC 20460; and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’

Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Since OMB is required

to make a decision concerning the ICR

between 30 and 60 days after July 14,

2000, a comment to OMB is best assured

of having its full effect if OMB receives

it by August 14, 2000. The final rule

will respond to any OMB or public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed rule.

The EPA also may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications and

that preempts State law unless the

Agency consults with State and local

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43857

officials early in the process of

developing the proposed rule.

If EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to

provide to OMB, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a federalism summary impact

statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include

a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with State and local

officials, a summary of the nature of

their concerns and the Agency’s

position supporting the need to issue

the regulation, and a statement of the

extent to which the concerns of State

and local officials have been met. Also,

when EPA transmits a draft final rule

with federalism implications to OMB for

review pursuant to Executive Order

12866, EPA must include a certification

from the Agency’s Federalism Official

stating that EPA has met the

requirements of Executive Order 13132

in a meaningful and timely manner.

This proposed rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. No boat

manufacturing facilities subject to the

proposed NESHAP are owned by State

or local governments. Therefore, State

and local governments will not have any

direct compliance costs resulting from

this proposed rule. Furthermore, EPA is

directed to develop the proposed

NESHAP by section 112 of the CAA.

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of

the Executive Order do not apply to this

proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, we

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or we consult with those

governments. If we comply by

consulting, we are required by

Executive Order 13084 to provide to the

OMB in a separately identified section

of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of our prior

consultation with representatives of

affected tribal governments, a summary

of the nature of their concerns, and a

statement supporting the need to issue

the regulation. In addition, Executive

Order 13084 requires us to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’

Today’s proposed rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. No tribal governments are

believed to be affected by this proposed

rule. Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this proposed rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

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,

we must generally 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 we establish

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 our regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

We have determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more by 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 $14 million per year.

This proposed rule contains no

mandates affecting State, local, or Tribal

governments. Thus, today’s proposed

rule is not subject to the requirements

of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

We have determined that this

proposed rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments

because it contains no requirements that

apply to such governments or impose

obligations upon them.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), requires us to give

special consideration to the effect of

Federal regulations on small entities

and to consider regulatory options that

might mitigate any such impacts. We

must prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis unless we certify that the rule

will not have a ‘‘significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.’’ Small entities include small

businesses, small organizations, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

For the purposes of assessing the

impacts of today’s proposed rule on

small entities, a small entity is defined

as: (1) A small business whose parent

company has fewer than 500 employees;

(2) a small governmental jurisdiction

that is a government of a city, county,

town, school district or special district

with a population of less than 50,000; or

(3) a small organization that is ‘‘any notfor-profit enterprise which is

independently owned and operated and

is not dominant in its field.’’

We have determined that 66 out of the

2,307 small firms in the industry (2.9

percent) may be affected by this

proposed rule. In a screening of impacts

on these small firms, we found that 47

firms have costs that comprise less than

1 percent of firm revenues, and 19 firms

have estimated compliance costs that

exceed 1 percent of their revenues.

Based on available data of industry

profit margins, the average return on

sales for the industry is 3.4 percent. Of

the 19 firms with costs greater than one

percent of revenues, only one firm is

estimated to experience costs exceeding

3 percent of revenues. Thus, reviewing

the range of costs to be borne by small

businesses in light of the 3.4 percent

profit margins typical of this industry,

the Agency has determined the costs are

43858 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

typically small and, overall, do not

constitute a significant impact on a

substantial number. In addition, this

proposed rule is likely to also increase

profits at the 2,241 small firms that are

not affected by the proposed rule due to

the very slight increase in market prices.

The economic impacts are summarized

in section III.G. of this document and in

the economic impact analysis contained

in Docket No. A–95–44.

Although this proposed rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities,

EPA has tried to reduce the impact of

this proposed rule on small entities. We

have met with ten of these small firms

and their trade association. They have

been fully involved in this rulemaking,

and their concerns have been

considered in the development of this

proposed rule. In developing these

proposed standards, we have provided

the maximum degree of flexibility to

minimize impacts on small businesses

by providing several different

compliance options, several of which

require a minimum amount of

recordkeeping and reporting. Also, these

proposed standards, which are based on

MACT floor level control technology,

reflect the minimum level of control

allowed under the CAA. Small

businesses that are subject to the

proposed rule will not be systematically

impacted more than larger operations.

We continue to be interested in the

potential impacts of the proposed rule

on small entities and welcome

comments on issues related to such

impacts.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), we hereby certify that this

proposed rule, if promulgated, will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Under section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Publication L.

No. 104–113), all Federal agencies are

required to use voluntary consensus

standards in their regulatory and

procurement activities unless doing 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 requires

Federal agencies to provide Congress,

through annual reports to OMB, with

explanations when an agency does not

use available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA

conducted searches to identify

voluntary consensus standards for use

in emissions testing. The search for

emissions testing procedures identified

16 voluntary consensus standards that

appeared to have possible use in lieu of

EPA standard reference methods.

However, after reviewing the available

standards, EPA determined that six of

the candidate consensus standards

identified for measuring emissions of

HAP or surrogates subject to emission

standards in the rule would not be

practical due to lack of equivalency,

documentation and validation data.

Nine of the remaining candidate

consensus standards are under

development or under EPA review. The

EPA plans to follow, review and

consider adopting these standards after

their development and further review by

EPA is completed.

The ASTM D4457–85 (Reapproved

1991) is an acceptable alternative to

EPA Method 311 for only

dichloromethane (methylene chloride)

and 1,1,1–trichlorethane (methyl

chloroform). The EPA is requesting

comment on the incorporation by

reference of ASTM D4457 for the

purposes of the proposed NESHAP. Five

consensus standards (ASTM D1979–91,

ASTM D3432–89, ASTM D4747–87,

ASTM D4827–93, and ASTM PS 9–94)

are already incorporated by reference in

EPA Method 311.

The ASTM D6420–99 is currently

under EPA review as an approved

alternative to EPA Method 18. The EPA

will compare this final ASTM standard

to methods previously approved as

alternatives to EPA Method 18 with

specific applicability limitations. These

methods, designated as ALT–017 and

CTM-028, are available through EPA’s

Emission Measurement Center Internet

site at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/

tmethods.html. The final ASTM D6420–

99 standard is very similar to these

approved alternative methods, which

may be equally suitable for specific

applications. The EPA plans to continue

their review of the final standard and

will consider adopting the ASTM

standard at a later date.

The EPA requests comment on

compliance demonstration requirements

proposed in this rulemaking and

specifically invites the public to identify

potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards. Comments should

explain why this regulation should

adopt these voluntary consensus

standards in lieu of EPA’s standards.

Emission test methods and performance

specifications submitted for evaluation

should be accompanied with a basis for

the recommendation, including method

validation data and the procedure used

to validate the candidate method (if

method other than Method 301, 40 CFR

part 63, appendix A was used).

H. 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 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 Order has the potential to influence

the regulation. This proposal is not

subject to Executive Order 13045

because it is based on technology

performance and not on health or safety

risks. Additionally, this proposed rule is

not economically significant as defined

by Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous air

pollutants, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, and Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: June 12, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding

subpart VVVV to read as follows:

Subpart VVVV—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Boat Manufacturing

Sec.

What the Subpart Covers

63.5680 What is the purpose of this

subpart?

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43859

63.5683 Does this subpart apply to me?

63.5686 How do I demonstrate that my

facility is not a major source?

63.5689 What parts of my facility are

covered by this subpart?

63.5692 How do I know if my boat

manufacturing facility is a new affected

source or an existing affected source?

63.5695 When must I comply with this

subpart?

Standards for Open Molding Resin and Gel

Coat Operations

63.5698 What emission standard must I

meet for open molding resin and gel coat

operations?

63.5701 What are my options for complying

with the open molding emission

standard?

63.5704 What are the general requirements

for complying with the open molding

emission standard?

63.5707 What is an implementation plan for

open molding operations and when do I

need to prepare one?

63.5710 How do I demonstrate compliance

using MACT model point value

averaging?

63.5713 How do I demonstrate compliance

using compliant materials?

Demonstrating Compliance for Open

Molding Operations Controlled by Add-On

Control Devices

63.5716 When must I conduct a

performance test?

63.5719 How do I conduct a performance

test?

63.5722 How do I use the performance test

data to demonstrate initial compliance?

63.5725 What are the requirements for

monitoring and demonstrating

continuous compliance?

Standards for Closed Molding Resin

Operations

63.5728 What standards must I meet for

closed molding resin operations?

Standards for Resin and Gel Coat Mixing

Operations

63.5731 What standards must I meet for

resin and gel coat mixing operations?

Standards for Resin and Gel Coat

Application Equipment Cleaning Operations

63.5734 What standards must I meet for

resin and gel coat application equipment

cleaning operations?

63.5737 How do I demonstrate compliance

with the resin and gel coat application

equipment cleaning standards?

Standards for Carpet and Fabric Adhesive

Operations

63.5740 What standards must I meet for

carpet and fabric adhesive operations?

Standards for Aluminum Boat Surface

Coating Operations

63.5743 What standards must I meet for

aluminum boat surface coating

operations?

63.5746 How do I demonstrate compliance

with the standards for aluminum wipedown solvents and aluminum coatings?

63.5749 How do I calculate the HAP

content of aluminum wipe-down

solvents?

63.5752 How do I calculate the HAP

content of aluminum boat surface

coatings?

63.5755 How do I demonstrate compliance

with the aluminum boat surface coating

spray gun cleaning standards?

Methods for Determining Hazardous Air

Pollutant Content

63.5758 How do I determine the HAP

content of materials?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.5761 What notifications must I submit

and when?

63.5764 What reports must I submit and

when?

63.5767 What records must I keep?

63.5770 In what form and for how long

must I keep my records?

Other Information You Need To Know

63.5773 What parts of the general

provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A)

apply to me?

63.5776 Who implements and enforces this

subpart?

Definitions

63.5779 What definitions apply to this

subpart?

Tables to Subpart VVVV

Table 1 to Subpart VVVV—Compliance Dates

for New and Existing Boat

Manufacturing Facilities

Table 2 to Subpart VVVV—Alternative HAP

Content Requirements for Open Molding

Resin and Gel Coat Operations

Table 3 to Subpart VVVV—MACT Model

Point Value Equations for Open Molding

Operations

Table 4 to Subpart VVVV—Applicability and

Timing of Notifications

Table 5 to Subpart VVVV—Applicability of

General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63,

Subpart A) to Subpart VVVV

What the Subpart Covers

§ 63.5680 What is the purpose of this

subpart?

(a) This subpart establishes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) for new and existing

boat manufacturing facilities with resin

and gel coat operations, carpet and

fabric adhesive operations, or aluminum

boat surface coating operations. This

subpart also establishes requirements to

demonstrate initial and continuous

compliance with the emission

standards.

§ 63.5683 Does this subpart apply to me?

(a) This subpart applies to you if you

meet both of the criteria listed in

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) You are the owner or operator of

a boat manufacturing facility that builds

fiberglass boats or aluminum boats.

(2) Your boat manufacturing facility is

a major source of HAP either in and of

itself, or because it is collocated with

other sources of HAP, such that all

sources combined constitute a major

source.

(b) A boat manufacturing facility is a

facility that manufactures hulls or decks

of boats from fiberglass or aluminum, or

assembles boats from premanufactured

hulls and decks, or builds molds to

make fiberglass hulls or decks. A facility

that manufactures only parts of boats

(such as hatches, seats, or lockers) or

boat trailers is not considered a boat

manufacturing facility for the purpose of

this subpart.

(c) A major source is any stationary

source or group of stationary sources

located within a contiguous area and

under common control that emits or can

potentially emit, considering controls,

in the aggregate, 9.1 megagrams (10

tons) or more per year of a single HAP

or 22.7 megagrams (25 tons) or more per

year of a combination of HAP.

(d) This subpart does not apply to

aluminum coating operations on

aluminum boats intended for

commercial or military use, antifoulant

coatings, fiberglass assembly adhesives,

fiberglass hull and deck coatings, mold

sealing and release agents, mold

stripping and cleaning solvents, and

wood coatings as defined in § 63.5779.

This subpart does not apply to materials

contained in handheld aerosol cans.

§ 63.5686 How do I demonstrate that my

facility is not a major source?

(a) To demonstrate that your facility is

not a major source based on emissions,

you must demonstrate that your facility

does not emit, and does not have the

potential to emit, considering federally

enforceable permit limits, 9.1

megagrams (10 tons) or more per year of

a single HAP or 22.7 megagrams (25

tons) or more per year of a combination

of HAP. To calculate your facility’s

potential to emit, you must include

emissions from the boat manufacturing

facility and all other sources that are

collocated and under common

ownership or control with the boat

manufacturing facility.

(b) To demonstrate that you are not a

major source based on material

consumption, you must: manufacture

either fiberglass or aluminum boats at

your facility, but not both; demonstrate

that you are not collocated with another

source of HAP; and meet the

requirement in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of

this section.

(1) If your facility is a fiberglass boat

manufacturing facility, you must

demonstrate that it consumes less than

45.4 megagrams (50 tons) per year of all

polyester- and vinylester-based resins

and gel coats, including tooling and

43860 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

production resins and gel coats, and

clear gel coats.

(2) If your facility is an aluminum

boat manufacturing facility, you must

demonstrate that it consumes less than

18.2 megagrams (20 tons) per year of all

carpet and fabric adhesives, surface

wipe-down and application gun

cleaning solvents, and paints and

coatings.

§ 63.5689 What parts of my facility are

covered by this subpart?

The affected source (the portion of

your boat manufacturing facility

covered by this subpart) is the

combination of all of the boat

manufacturing operations listed in

paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section.

(a) Open molding resin and gel coat

operations (including pigmented gel

coat, clear gel coat, production resin,

tooling gel coat, and tooling resin).

(b) Closed molding resin operations.

(c) Resin and gel coat mixing

operations.

(d) Resin and gel coat application

equipment cleaning operations.

(e) Carpet and fabric adhesive

operations.

(f) Aluminum hull and deck coating

operations, including solvent wipedown operations and paint spray gun

cleaning operations, on aluminum

boats.

§ 63.5692 How do I know if my boat

manufacturing facility is a new affected

source or an existing affected source?

(a) A boat manufacturing facility is a

new affected source if it meets the

criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3)

of this section.

(1) You commence construction of the

affected source after July 14, 2000.

(2) It is a major source.

(3) It is a completely new boat

manufacturing affected source where no

other boat manufacturing affected

source existed prior to the construction

of the new affected source.

(b) For the purposes of this subpart,

an existing affected source is any

affected source that is not a new affected

source.

§ 63.5695 When must I comply with this

subpart?

You must comply with the standards

in this subpart by the dates specified in

table 1 to this subpart.

Standards for Open Molding Resin and

Gel Coat Operations

§ 63.5698 What emission standard must I

meet for open molding resin and gel coat

operations?

(a) You must control HAP emissions

from the five open molding operations

listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of

this section to the emission standard

specified in paragraph (b) of this

section.

(1) Production resin.

(2) Pigmented gel coat.

(3) Clear gel coat.

(4) Tooling resin.

(5) Tooling gel coat.

(b) You must limit HAP emissions

from open molding operations to the

standard specified by equation 1, based

on a 3-month rolling average.

HAP Limit = 46 M M M M M 1) [ ] ( ) R PG CG TR TG +159 291 54 214 ( . ( ) + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) Eq

Where:

HAP Limit= total allowable HAP that

can be emitted from the open

molding operations, kilograms.

MR = mass of production resin used in

the past 3 months, megagrams.

MPG = mass of pigmented gel coat used

in the past 3 months, megagrams.

MCG = mass of clear gel coat used in the

past 3 months, megagrams.

MTR = mass of tooling resin used in the

past 3 months, megagrams.

MTG = mass of tooling gel coat used in

the past 3 months, megagrams.

(c) The open molding emission

standard is the same for both new and

existing sources.

§ 63.5701 What are my options for

complying with the open molding emission

standard?

You must use one or more of the

options listed in paragraphs (a) through

(c) of this section to meet the emission

standard in § 63.5698 for the resins and

gel coats used in open molding

operations at your facility.

(a) Maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) model point value

averaging option. (1) Demonstrate that

emissions from the open molding resin

and gel coat operations that you average

meet the emission standard in § 63.5698

based on weighted-average MACT

model point values as described in

§ 63.5710. Compliance with this option

is based on a 3-month rolling average.

(2) Those operations and materials not

included in the average must comply

with either paragraph (b) or (c) of this

section.

(b) Compliant materials option.

Demonstrate compliance with the

emission standard in § 63.5698 by using

open molding resins and gel coats that

meet the HAP content requirements in

table 2 to this subpart. Compliance with

this option is based on a 3-month rolling

average.

(c) Add-on control option. Use an

enclosure and add-on control device

and demonstrate that the resulting

emissions meet the emission standard in

§ 63.5698. Compliance with this option

is based on a control device

performance test and control device

monitoring.

§ 63.5704 What are the general

requirements for complying with the open

molding emission standard?

(a) Maximum achievable control

technology model point value averaging

option. For those open molding

operations and materials complying

using the MACT model point value

averaging option, you must demonstrate

compliance by performing the steps in

paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this

section.

(1) Use the methods specified in

§ 63.5758 to determine the HAP content

of resins and gel coats.

(2) Complete the calculations

described in § 63.5710 to show that the

HAP emissions do not exceed the

standard specified in § 63.5698.

(3) Keep records as specified in

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this

section for each resin and gel coat.

(i) Hazardous air pollutant content.

(ii) Amount of material used per

month.

(iii) Application method used for

production resin and tooling resin. This

record is not required if all production

resins and tooling resins are applied

with nonatomized technology.

(iv) Calculations performed to

demonstrate compliance based on

MACT model point values, as described

in § 63.5710.

(4) Prepare and submit the

implementation plan described in

§ 63.5707 to the Administrator and keep

it up to date.

(5) Submit semiannual compliance

reports to the Administrator as specified

in § 63.5764.

(b) Compliant materials option. For

each open molding operation complying

using the compliant materials option,

you must demonstrate compliance by

performing the steps in paragraphs

(b)(1) through (4) of this section.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43861

(1) Use the methods specified in

§ 63.5758 to determine the HAP content

of resins and gel coats.

(2) Complete the calculations

described in § 63.5713 to show that the

weighted-average HAP content does not

exceed the requirement specified in

table 2 to this subpart.

(3) Keep records as specified in

paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iv) of this

section for each resin and gel coat.

(i) Hazardous air pollutant content.

(ii) Application method for

production resin and tooling resin. This

record is not needed if all production

resins and tooling resins are applied

with nonatomized technology.

(iii) Amount of material used per

month. This record is not needed for an

operation if all materials used for that

operation comply with the HAP content

requirements.

(iv) Calculations performed, if

needed, to demonstrate compliance

based on weighted-average HAP content

as described in § 63.5713.

(4) Submit semiannual compliance

reports to the Administrator as specified

in § 63.5764.

(c) Add-on control option. If you are

using an add-on control device, you

must demonstrate compliance by

performing the steps in paragraphs (c)(1)

through (5) of this section.

(1) Conduct a performance test of the

control device as specified in §§ 63.5719

and 63.5722 to demonstrate initial

compliance.

(2) Use the performance test results to

determine control device parameters to

monitor after the performance test as

specified in § 63.5725.

(3) Comply with the control device

monitoring and operating requirements

specified in § 63.5725 to demonstrate

continuous compliance.

(4) Keep the records specified in

§ 63.5767.

(5) Submit to the Administrator the

notifications and reports specified in

§§ 63.5761 and 63.5764.

§ 63.5707 What is an implementation plan

for open molding operations and when do

I need to prepare one?

(a) You must prepare an

implementation plan for all open

molding operations for which you

comply by using the MACT model point

value averaging option described in

§ 63.5704(a).

(b) The implementation plan must

describe the steps you will take to bring

the open molding operations covered by

this subpart into compliance. For each

operation included in the MACT model

point value average, your

implementation plan must include, at a

minimum, the elements listed in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3).

(1) A description of each operation

included in the average.

(2) The maximum HAP content of the

materials used, the application method

used (if any atomized resin application

methods are used in the average), and

any other methods used to control

emissions.

(3) Calculations showing that the

operations covered by the plan will

comply with the open molding emission

standard specified in § 63.5698.

(c) You must submit the

implementation plan to the

Administrator with the notification of

compliance status specified in

§ 63.5761.

(d) You must keep the

implementation plan on site and

provide it to the Administrator when

asked.

(e) If you revise the implementation

plan, you must submit the revised plan

with your next semiannual compliance

report specified in § 63.5764.

§ 63.5710 How do I demonstrate

compliance using MACT model point value

averaging?

(a) Compliance using the MACT

model point value averaging option is

demonstrated on a 3-month rollingaverage basis and is determined at the

end of every month (12 times per year).

(b) At the end of every month, use

equation 2 to demonstrate that the HAP

emissions from those operations

included in the average do not exceed

the emission standard in § 63.5698.

(Include terms in equation 1 in

§ 63.5698 and equation 2 for only those

operations and materials included in the

average.)

HAP emissions = PV M PV M PV M PV M PV M 2) [ ( )( ) R R PG PG CG CG TR TR TG TG + ( )( ) + ( )( ) + ( )( ) + ( )( )] ( . Eq

Where:

HAP emissions=HAP emissions

calculated using MACT model

point values for each operation

included in the average, kilograms.

PVR=Weighted-average MACT model

point value for production resin

used in the past 3 months,

kilograms per megagram.

MR=Mass of production resin used in

the past 3 months, megagrams.

PVPG=Weighted-average MACT model

point value for pigmented gel coat

used in the past 3 months,

kilograms per megagram.

MPG=Mass of pigmented gel coat used in

the past 3 months, megagrams.

PVCG=Weighted-average MACT model

point value for clear gel coat used

in the past 3 months, kilograms per

megagram.

MCG=Mass of clear gel coat used in the

past 3 months, megagrams.

PVTR=Weighted-average MACT model

point value for tooling resin used in

the past 3 months, kilograms per

megagram.

MTR=Mass of tooling resin used in the

past 3 months, megagrams.

PVTG=Weighted-average MACT model

point value for tooling gel coat used

in the past 3 months, kilograms per

megagram.

MTG=Mass of tooling gel coat used in

the past 3 months, megagrams.

(c) At the end of every month, use

equation 3 to compute the weightedaverage MACT model point value for

each open molding resin and gel coat

operation included in the average.

PV

M PV

M

OP Eq

i i

i

n

i

i

n =

( )

( )

=

=

∑

∑

1

1

( . 3)

Where:

PVOP=weighted-average MACT model

point value for each open molding

operation (PVR, PVPG, PVCG, PVTR,

and PVTG) included in the average,

kilograms of HAP per megagram of

material applied.

Mi=mass of resin or gel coat i used

within an operation in the past 3

months, megagrams.

n=number of different open molding

resins or gel coats used within an

operation in the past 3 months.

PVi=the MACT model point value for

resin or gel coat i used within an

operation in the past 3 months,

kilograms of HAP per megagram of

material applied.

(d) You must use the equations in

table 3 to this subpart to calculate the

MACT model point value (PVi) for each

resin and gel coat used in each

operation in the past 3 months.

(e) If the HAP emissions, as calculated

in paragraph (b) of this section, are less

than the HAP limit calculated in

§ 63.5698(b), then you are in compliance

with the emission standard in § 63.5698

43862 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

for those operations and materials

included in the average.

§ 63.5713 How do I demonstrate

compliance using compliant materials?

(a) Compliance using the HAP content

requirements listed in table 2 to this

subpart is based on a 3-month rolling

average that is calculated at the end of

every month.

(b) At the end of every month, review

the HAP contents of the resins and gel

coats used in the past 3 months in each

operation. If all resins and gel coats

used in an operation have HAP contents

no greater than the applicable HAP

content requirements in table 2 to this

subpart, then you are in compliance

with the emission standard specified in

§ 63.5698 for that 3-month period for

that operation. In addition, you do not

need to complete the weighted-average

HAP content calculation contained in

paragraph (c) of this section for that

operation.

(c) At the end of every month, you

must use equation 4 to calculate the

weighted-average HAP content for all

resins and gel coats used in that

operation in the past 3 months.

Weighted-Average HAP Content (%) 4) =

( )

( )

=

=

∑

∑

M HAP

M

Eq

i i

i

n

i

i

n

1

1

( .

Where:

Mi = mass of open molding resin or gel

coat i used in the past 3 months in

an operation, megagrams.

HAPi = HAP content, by weight percent,

of open molding resin or gel coat i

used in the past 3 months in an

operation. Use the methods in

§ 63.5758 to determine HAP

content.

n = number of different open molding

resins or gel coats used in the past

3 months in an operation.

(d) If the weighted-average HAP

content does not exceed the applicable

HAP content requirement specified in

table 2 to this subpart, then you are in

compliance with the emission standard

specified in § 63.5698.

Demonstrating Compliance for Open

Molding Operations Controlled by AddOn Control Devices

§ 63.5716 When must I conduct a

performance test?

(a) You must conduct an initial

control device performance test within

180 calendar days after the compliance

date specified in § 63.5695 and

according to the provisions in

§ 63.7(a)(2).

(b) If you commenced construction

between today’s date and the effective

date of the subpart, you must

demonstrate initial compliance with

either the proposed emission standard

or the promulgated emission standard

no later than 180 calendar days after the

effective date of the regulation or within

180 calendar days after startup of the

source, whichever is later, according to

§ 63.7(a)(2)(ix).

(c) If you commenced construction

between today’s date and the effective

date of the subpart, and you chose to

comply with the proposed emission

standard when demonstrating initial

compliance, you must conduct a second

compliance demonstration for the

promulgated emission standard within 3

years and 180 calendar days after the

effective date of the subpart, or after

startup of the source, whichever is later,

according to § 63.7(a)(2)(ix).

(d) You must conduct a performance

test every 5 years as part of renewing

your 40 CFR part 70 or part 71 operating

permit.

§ 63.5719 How do I conduct a performance

test?

(a) You must capture the emissions

using a permanent enclosure (such as a

spray booth or similar containment

device) and direct the captured

emissions to the add-on control device.

(b) You must measure emissions as

specified in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of

this section.

(1) If the enclosure vented to the

control device is a permanent total

enclosure as defined in Method 204 of

appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, then you

may measure emissions only at the

outlet of the control device.

(2) If the permanent enclosure vented

to the control device is not a total

enclosure, you must build a temporary

total enclosure, as defined in Method

204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51,

around the permanent enclosure. You

must then simultaneously measure

emissions from the control device outlet

and the emissions from the total

temporary enclosure outlet. You

determine compliance from the

combined emissions from the control

device outlet and the total temporary

enclosure outlet.

(c) You must conduct the control

device performance test using the

emission measurement methods

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(3) 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 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 HAP emissions.

If you use Method 25A, you must

assume that all gaseous organic

emissions measured as carbon are HAP

emissions. If you use Method 18 and the

number of 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 HAP mass

emissions. Do not use Method 18 to

measure HAP emissions from a

combustion device; use instead Method

25A and assume that all gaseous organic

mass emissions measured as carbon are

HAP emissions.

(d) 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 HAP content of the

materials being applied and the material

application rates.

(e) 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.

§ 63.5722 How do I use the performance

test data to demonstrate initial compliance?

Demonstrate initial compliance with

the open molding emission standard as

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43863

described in paragraphs (a) through (c)

of this section:

(a) Calculate the HAP limit you must

achieve using equation 1 in § 63.5698.

For determining initial compliance, the

HAP limit is based on the amount of

material used during the performance

test, in megagrams, rather than during

the past 3 months. Calculate the limit

using the megagrams of resin and gel

coat applied inside the enclosure during

the three runs of the performance test

and equation 1 in § 63.5698.

(b) Add the total measured emissions,

in kilograms, from all three of the 1-

hour runs of the performance test.

(c) If the total emissions from the

three 1-hour runs of the performance

test are less than the HAP limit

calculated in paragraph (a) of this

section, then you have demonstrated

initial compliance with the emission

standard in § 63.5698 for those

operations performed in the enclosure

and controlled by the add-on control

device.

§ 63.5725 What are the requirements for

monitoring and demonstrating continuous

compliance?

(a) You must establish control device

parameters that indicate proper

operation of the control device.

(b) You must install, operate, and

maintain a continuous parameter

monitoring system as specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this

section.

(1) The continuous parameter

monitoring system must complete a

minimum of one cycle of operation for

each successive 15-minute period. You

must have a minimum of four

successive cycles of operation to have a

valid hour of data.

(2) You must have valid data from at

least 90 percent of the hours during

which the process operated.

(3) You must determine the hourly

average of all recorded readings.

(4) You must determine the daily

average of all recorded readings for each

operating day.

(5) You must determine the 30-day

average for each 30-day period.

(6) You must record the results of

each inspection, calibration, and

validation check.

(c) Enclosure bypass line. You must

meet the requirements of paragraph

(c)(1) and either paragraph (c)(2) or (3)

of this section for each enclosure

ventilation system that contains bypass

lines that could divert emissions from a

control device.

(1) If the bypass lines are opened, you

must include a description of the bypass

and its duration in the compliance

reports required in § 63.5764(c).

(2) You must properly install, operate,

and maintain a flow measurement

device that records the presence of a gas

stream flow in each bypass line. You

must meet the requirements in

paragraph (b) and paragraphs (c)(2)(i)

through (v) of this section for each flow

measurement device.

(i) Locate the flow sensor and other

necessary equipment such as

straightening vanes in a position that

provides a representative flow.

(ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum

tolerance of 2 percent of the flow rate.

(iii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal

velocity distributions due to upstream

and downstream disturbances.

(iv) Conduct a flow sensor calibration

check at least semi-annually.

(v) At least monthly, inspect all

components for integrity, all electrical

connections for continuity, and all

mechanical connections for leakage.

(3) You must secure the bypass line in

a nondiverting position with a seal in

such a way that the valve or closure

mechanism cannot be opened without

breaking the seal. You must inspect the

seal at least once per month and record

the results of the inspection.

(d) Thermal oxidizers. If you are using

a thermal oxidizer or incinerator as an

add-on control device, you must comply

with the requirements in paragraphs

(d)(1) through (6) of this section.

(1) You must install a combustion

temperature monitoring device in the

firebox of the thermal oxidizer or

incinerator, or in the duct immediately

downstream of the firebox before any

substantial heat exchange occurs. You

must meet the requirements in

paragraph (b) and paragraphs (d)(1)(i)

through (vii) of this section for each

temperature monitoring device.

(i) Locate the temperature sensor in a

position that provides a representative

temperature.

(ii) Use a temperature sensor with a

minimum tolerance of 2.2° C or 0.75

percent of the temperature value,

whichever is larger.

(iii) Shield the temperature sensor

system from electromagnetic

interference and chemical

contaminants.

(iv) If a chart recorder is used, it must

have a sensitivity in the minor division

of at least 20° F.

(v) Perform an electronic calibration

at least semiannually according to the

procedures in the manufacturer’s

owners manual. Following the

electronic calibration, you must conduct

a temperature sensor validation check in

which a second or redundant

temperature sensor placed nearby the

process temperature sensor must yield a

reading within 16.7° C of the process

temperature sensor’s reading.

(vi) Conduct calibration and

validation checks any time the sensor

exceeds the manufacturer’s specified

maximum operating temperature range

or install a new temperature sensor.

(vii) At least monthly, inspect all

components for integrity and all

electrical connections for continuity,

oxidation, and galvanic corrosion.

(2) Before or during the performance

test, you must conduct a performance

evaluation of the combustion

temperature monitoring system

according to § 63.8(e). Section 63.8(e)

specifies the general requirements for

continuous monitoring systems and

requirements for notifications, the sitespecific performance evaluation plan,

conduct of the performance evaluation,

and reporting of performance evaluation

results.

(3) During the performance test

required by § 63.5716, you must monitor

and record the combustion temperature

and determine the average combustion

temperature for the three 1-hour test

runs.

(4) Following the performance test,

you must continuously monitor the

combustion temperature and record the

average combustion temperature no less

frequently than every 15 minutes.

(5) You must operate the incinerator

or thermal oxidizer so that the average

combustion temperature in any 3-hour

period does not fall below the average

combustion temperature recorded

during the performance test.

(6) If the average combustion

temperature in any 3-hour period falls

below the average combustion

temperature recorded during the

performance test, or if you fail to collect

the minimum data specified in

paragraph (d)(4) of this section, it is a

deviation.

(e) Absorbers, condensers, and carbon

adsorbers. If you are using an absorber,

condenser, or carbon adsorber as an

add-on control device, you must comply

with the operating, testing, and

monitoring requirements in § 63.990.

(f) Other control devices. If you are

using a control device other than those

listed in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this

section, then you must comply with the

operating, testing, and monitoring

requirements in § 63.995.

Standards for Closed Molding Resin

Operations

§ 63.5728 What standards must I meet for

closed molding resin operations?

(a) If a resin application operation

meets the definition of closed molding

specified in § 63.5779, there is no

43864 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

requirement to reduce emissions from

that operation.

(b) If the resin application operation

does not meet the definition of closed

molding, then you must comply with

the standard for open molding resin

operations specified in § 63.5698.

(c) Open molding resin operations

that precede a closed molding operation

must comply with the standard for open

molding resin and gel coat operations

specified in § 63.5698. Examples of

these operations include gel coat or skin

coat layers that are applied before

lamination is performed by closed

molding.

Standards for Resin and Gel Coat

Mixing Operations

§ 63.5731 What standards must I meet for

resin and gel coat mixing operations?

(a) All resin and gel coat mixing

containers with a capacity equal to or

greater than 208 liters (55 gallons) must

have a cover with no visible gaps in

place at all times.

(b) The work practice standard in

paragraph (a) of this section does not

apply when material is being manually

added to or removed from a container,

or when mixing or pumping equipment

is being placed in or removed from a

container.

(c) To demonstrate compliance with

the work practice standard in paragraph

(a) of this section, you must visually

inspect all mixing containers subject to

this standard at least once per month.

The inspection should ensure that all

containers have covers with no visible

gaps between the cover and the

container, or between the cover and

equipment passing through the cover.

(d) You must keep records of which

mixing containers are subject to this

standard and the results of the

inspections, including a description of

any repairs or corrective actions taken.

Standards for Resin and Gel Coat

Application Equipment Cleaning

Operations

§ 63.5734 What standards must I meet for

resin and gel coat application equipment

cleaning operations?

(a) For routine flushing of resin and

gel coat application equipment (e.g.,

spray guns, flowcoaters, brushes, rollers,

and squeegees), you must use a cleaning

solvent that contains no HAP. This

emission standard does not apply to

solvents used for removing cured resin

or gel coat from application equipment.

(b) You must store HAP-containing

solvents used for removing cured resin

or gel coat in containers with covers.

The covers must have no visible gaps

and must be in place at all times, except

when equipment is placed in or

removed from the container. Cured resin

or gel coat means resin or gel coat that

has changed irreversibly from a liquid to

a solid.

(c) Recycled cleaning solvents that

contain trace amounts of HAP (5 percent

HAP or less by weight) are considered

to contain no HAP for the purposes of

this subpart.

§ 63.5737 How do I demonstrate

compliance with the resin and gel coat

application equipment cleaning standards?

(a) Determine and record the HAP

content of the cleaning solvents subject

to the standards specified in § 63.5734

using the methods specified in

§ 63.5758.

(b) Record the amount of cleaning

solvents purchased as recycled cleaning

solvents, and, therefore, may contain

trace amounts of HAP.

(c) At least once per month, you must

visually inspect any containers holding

HAP-containing solvents used for

removing cured resin and gel coat to

ensure that the containers have covers

with no visible gaps. Keep records of the

monthly inspections and any repairs

made to the covers.

Standards for Carpet and Fabric

Adhesive Operations

§ 63.5740 What standards must I meet for

carpet and fabric adhesive operations?

(a) You must use carpet and fabric

adhesives that contain no HAP.

(b) To demonstrate compliance with

the emission standard in paragraph (a)

of this section, you must determine and

record the HAP content of the carpet

and fabric adhesives using the methods

in § 63.5758.

Standards for Aluminum Boat Surface

Coating Operations

§ 63.5743 What standards must I meet for

aluminum boat surface coating operations?

(a) You must use aluminum wipedown solvents with a weighted-average

HAP content that does not exceed 2.57

kilograms of HAP per liter of solids from

aluminum primers and clear coats

applied over bare aluminum (21.5

pounds of HAP per gallon of solids).

Compliance is based on a 3-month

rolling average that is calculated at the

end of every month. This limit does not

apply to surfaces receiving decals or

adhesive graphics.

(b) You must use aluminum boat

surface coatings (including thinners,

activators, primers, topcoats, and clear

coats) with a weighted-average HAP

content that does not exceed 1.22

kilograms of HAP per liter of coating

solids (10.2 pounds of HAP per gallon

of coating solids). Compliance is based

on a 3-month rolling average that is

calculated at the end of every month.

(c) You must comply with the work

practice standard in paragraph (c)(1),

(2), or (3) of this section when cleaning

aluminum coating spray guns with

HAP-containing solvents. You do not

need to comply with these work

practice standards if you are using a

cleaning solvent that contains no HAP.

(1) Clean spray guns in an enclosed

device. Keep the device closed except

when you place spray guns in or remove

them from the device.

(2) Disassemble the spray gun and

manually clean the components in a vat.

Keep the vat closed when you are not

using it.

(3) Clean spray guns by placing

solvent in the pressure pot and forcing

the solvent through the gun. Do not use

atomizing air during this procedure.

Direct the used cleaning solvent from

the spray gun into a container that you

keep closed when you are not using it.

§ 63.5746 How do I demonstrate

compliance with the standards for

aluminum wipe-down solvents and

aluminum coatings?

To demonstrate compliance with the

emission standards for aluminum wipedown solvents and aluminum coatings

specified in § 63.5743 (a) and (b), you

must meet the requirements of

paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section.

(a) Determine and record the HAP

content (kilograms of HAP per kilogram

of material, or weight fraction) of each

aluminum wipe-down solvent and

aluminum coating (including primers,

topcoats, clear coats, thinners, and

activators). Use the methods in

§ 63.5758 to determine HAP content.

(b) Obtain from the aluminum coating

manufacturer’s formulation the solids

content (liters of solids per liter of

coating, or volume fraction) of each

aluminum surface coating, including

primers, topcoats, and clear coats. Keep

records of the solids content.

(c) Compliance is based on a 3-month

rolling average calculated at the end of

every month.

(d) At the end of every month, use the

procedures in § 63.5749 to calculate the

HAP from aluminum wipe-down

solvents per liter of coating solids. Use

the procedures in § 63.5752 to calculate

the kilograms of HAP from aluminum

coatings per liter of coating solids.

(e) Keep records of the calculations

used to determine compliance.

(f) Approval of alternative means of

demonstrating compliance. You may

apply to the Administrator for

permission to use an alternative means

(such as an add-on control system) of

limiting emissions from aluminum

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43865

wipe-down solvent and coating

operations and demonstrating

compliance with the standards in

paragraphs (a) and (b) in § 63.5743.

(1) The application must include the

information listed in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)

through (iii) of this section.

(i) An engineering evaluation that

compares the emissions using the

alternative means to the emissions that

would result from using the strategy

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d)

of this section. The engineering

evaluation may include the results from

an emission test that accurately

measures the capture efficiency and

control device efficiency achieved by

the control system and the composition

of the associated coatings so that the

emissions comparison can be made.

(ii) A proposed monitoring protocol

that includes operating parameter

values to be monitored for compliance

and an explanation of how the operating

parameter values will be established

through a performance test.

(iii) Details of appropriate

recordkeeping and reporting

procedures.

(2) The Administrator will approve

the alternative means of limiting

emissions if the Administrator

determines that HAP emissions will be

no greater than if the source uses the

procedures described in paragraphs (a)

through (d) of this section to

demonstrate compliance.

(3) The Administrator’s approval may

specify operation, maintenance, and

monitoring requirements to ensure that

emissions from the regulated operations

are no greater than those that would

otherwise result from regulated

operations in compliance with this

subpart.

§ 63.5749 How do I calculate the HAP

content of aluminum wipe-down solvents?

(a) Use equation 5 to calculate the

weighted-average HAP content of

aluminum wipe-down solvents used in

the past 3 months.

HAP =

 

WD 5)

Vol D W

Vol Solids

Eq

WDi

i

n

WDi WDi

Pj Pj

j

m

( )( )( )

( )( )

=

=

∑

∑

1

1

( .

Where:

HAPWD = weighted-average HAP

content of aluminum wipe-down

solvents, kilograms of HAP per liter

of solids from aluminum primers

and clear coats applied to bare

aluminum.

n = number of different wipe-down

solvents used in the past 3 months.

VolWDi = volume of aluminum wipedown solvent i used in the past 3

months, liters.

DWDi = density of aluminum wipe-down

solvent i, kilograms per liter.

WWDi = mass fraction of HAP in

aluminum wipe-down solvent i.

m = number of different aluminum

primers and clear coats used in the

past 3 months that were applied to

bare aluminum.

VolPj = volume of aluminum primer or

clear coat j used in the past 3

months, liters.

SolidsPj = solids content of aluminum

primer or clear coat j, liter solids

per liter of coating.

(b) Compliance is based on a 3-month

rolling average. If the weighted-average

HAP content does not exceed 2.57

kilograms of HAP per liter of solids

(21.5 pounds of HAP per gallon solids),

then you are in compliance with the

emission standard specified in

§ 63.5743(a).

§ 63.5752 How do I calculate the HAP

content of aluminum boat surface

coatings?

(a) Use equation 6 to calculate the

weighted-average HAP content for all

aluminum surface coatings used in the

past 3 months.

HAP =

 

 6) SC

Vol D W Vol D W

V Vol

Eq

Ci

i

m

Ci Ci Tj

j

n

Tj Tj

Si Ci

i

m

( )( )( ) + ( )( )( )

( )( )

= =

=

∑ ∑

∑

1 1

1

( .

Where:

HAPSC = weighted-average HAP content

for all aluminum coating materials,

kilograms of HAP per liter of

coating solids.

m = number of different coatings used

in the past 3 months.

VolCi = total volume of coating i used in

the past 3 months, liters.

DCi = density of coating i, kilograms per

liter.

WCi = mass fraction of HAP in coating

i, kilograms of HAP per kilogram of

coating.

n = number of different thinners and

activators used in the past 3

months.

VolTj = total volume of thinner or

activator j used in the past 3

months, liters.

DTj = density of thinner or activator j,

kilograms per liter.

WTj = mass fraction of HAP in thinner

or activator j, kilograms of HAP per

kilogram of thinner or activator.

VSi = volume fraction of solids in

coating i, liter solids per liter

coating, from coating

manufacturer’s formulation.

(b) Compliance is based on a 3-month

rolling average. If the weighted-average

HAP content does not exceed 1.22

kilograms of HAP per liter of coating

solids (10.2 pound per gallon), then you

are in compliance with the emission

standard specified in § 63.5743(b).

§ 63.5755 How do I demonstrate

compliance with the aluminum boat surface

coating spray gun cleaning standards?

You must demonstrate compliance

with the aluminum coating spray gun

cleaning work practice standards by

meeting the requirements of paragraph

(a) or (b) of this section.

(a) Demonstrate that solvents used to

clean the aluminum coating spray guns

contain no HAP by determining HAP

content with the methods in § 63.5758.

Keep records of the HAP content

determination.

43866 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(b) For HAP-containing solvents,

comply with the requirements in

paragraph (b)(1) or (2), and (b)(3) of this

section.

(1) If you are using an enclosed spray

gun cleaner, visually inspect it at least

once per month to ensure that covers are

in place and will close properly when

the cleaner is not in use, and that there

are no leaks from hoses or fittings.

(2) If you are manually cleaning the

gun or spraying solvent into a container

that can be closed, visually inspect all

solvent containers at least once per

month to ensure that the containers

have covers.

(3) Keep records of the monthly

inspections and any repairs that are

made to the enclosed gun cleaners or

the covers.

Methods for Determining Air Pollutant

Content

§ 63.5758 How do I determine the HAP

content of materials?

(a) To determine the HAP content of

the materials used in your open molding

resin and gel coat operations, carpet and

fabric adhesive operations, or aluminum

boat surface coating operations, use EPA

Method 311 of appendix A to 40 CFR

part 63. You may use EPA Method 311,

an alternative method as provided in

paragraph (b) of this section, or any

other reasonable means for determining

the HAP content. Other reasonable

means of determining HAP content

include, but are not limited to, a

material safety data sheet (MSDS) or a

manufacturer’s hazardous air pollutant

data sheet as defined in § 63.5779. You

are not required to test the materials that

you use, but the Administrator may

require a test using EPA Method 311 (or

an approved alternative method) to

confirm the reported HAP content. If the

results of an analysis by EPA Method

311 are different from the HAP content

determined by another means, the EPA

Method 311 results will govern

compliance determinations, except as

provided in paragraph (b) of this

section.

(b) You may use an alternative to EPA

Method 311 for determining HAP

content if that method has been

approved by the Administrator

according to § 63.7(f). The

Administrator will approve alternative

methods on a case-by-case basis.

(c) If HAP content data are reported

by a material supplier or manufacturer

as a range, the upper limit of that range

will be used for determining

compliance.

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.5761 What notifications must I submit

and when?

(a) You must submit all of the

notifications in table 4 to this subpart

that apply to you, by the dates in table

4 to this subpart. The notifications are

described more fully in the sections of

40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General

Provisions, referenced in table 4 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.

63.5764 What reports must I submit and

when?

(a) You must submit the applicable

reports specified in paragraphs (b)

through (d) of this section. To the extent

possible, you must organize each report

according to the operations covered by

this subpart and the compliance

procedure followed for that operation.

(b) If your facility is not controlled by

an add-on control device (i.e., you are

complying with HAP content limits,

application equipment requirements, or

MACT model point value averaging

provisions), you must submit a

semiannual compliance report. The

semiannual reporting period is each

subsequent 6-month period after your

compliance date. Unless the

Administrator has approved a different

schedule, you must submit each report

so that it is postmarked or delivered no

later than 30 calendar days following

the end of each reporting period. The

compliance report must include the

information specified in paragraphs

(b)(1) through (8) of this section.

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Name, title, and signature of the

responsible official certifying the

accuracy of the report.

(3) A statement certifying as to the

truth, accuracy, and completeness of the

report.

(4) The date of the report and the

beginning and ending dates of the

reporting period.

(5) A description of any changes in

the manufacturing process, continuous

monitoring system, or controls since the

last compliance report.

(6) A statement or table showing, for

each regulated operation, the applicable

HAP content limit, application

equipment requirement, or MACT

model point value averaging provision

with which you are complying. The

statement or table must also show the

actual weighted-average HAP content or

weighted-average MACT model point

value (if applicable) for each operation

during each of the rolling 3-month

averaging periods that end during the

reporting period.

(7) If you were in compliance with a

standard during the reporting period,

you must include a statement to that

effect.

(8) If you were not in compliance with

a standard or identified deviations

during the reporting period, you must

also include the information listed in

paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (iv) of this

section in the semiannual compliance

report.

(i) A description of the operation that

was not in compliance with the

standard.

(ii) The quantity, HAP content, and

application method (if relevant) of the

materials not in compliance.

(iii) A description of any corrective

action you took to minimize

noncompliance and actions you have

taken to prevent it from happening

again.

(iv) A statement of whether or not

your facility was in compliance for the

3-month averaging period that ended at

the end of the reporting period.

(c) If your facility has an add-on

control device, you must submit

semiannual compliance reports and

quarterly excess emission reports as

specified in § 63.10(e). The contents of

the reports and the schedule for

submitting them are specified in

§ 63.10(e).

(d) If your facility has an add-on

control device, you must complete a

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan as specified in § 63.6(e), and you

must submit the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction reports specified in

§ 63.10(e)(5).

63.5767 What records must I keep?

You must keep the records specified

in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this

section in addition to records specified

in individual sections of this subpart.

(a) You must keep a copy of each

notification and report that you

submitted to comply with this subpart.

(b) You must keep all documentation

supporting any notification or report

that you submitted.

(c) If your facility is not controlled by

an add-on control device (i.e., you are

complying with HAP content limits,

application equipment requirements, or

MACT model point value averaging

provisions), you must keep the records

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(3) of this section.

(1) The total amounts of open molding

production resin, pigmented gel coat,

clear gel coat, tooling resin, and tooling

gel coat used per month and the

weighted-average HAP contents for each

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43867

operation, expressed as weight-percent.

For open molding production resin and

tooling resin, you must also record the

amounts of each applied by atomized

and nonatomized methods.

(2) The total amount of aluminum

coating used per month (including

primers, top coats, clear coats, thinners,

and activators) and the weightedaverage HAP content as determined in

§ 63.5752.

(3) The amount of each aluminum

wipe-down solvent used per month and

the weighted-average HAP content as

determined in § 63.5749.

(d) If your facility has an add-on

control device, you must keep the

records specified in § 63.10(b) relative to

control device startup, shut down, and

malfunction events; control device

performance tests; and continuous

monitoring system performance

evaluations.

63.5770 In what form and for how long

must I keep my records?

(a) Your records must be readily

available and in a form so they can be

easily inspected and reviewed.

(b) You must keep each record for 5

years following the date that each record

is generated.

(c) You must keep each record on site

for at least 2 years after the date that

each record is generated. You can keep

the records offsite for the remaining 3

years.

(d) You can keep the records on paper

or an alternative media, such as

microfilm, computer, computer disks,

magnetic tapes, or on microfiche.

Other Information You Need to Know

63.5773 What parts of the general

provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A)

apply to me?

You must comply with the

requirements of the general provisions

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as

specified in table 5 to this subpart.

63.5777 Who implements and enforces

this subpart?

(a) If the Administrator has delegated

authority to your State or local agency,

the State or local agency has the

authority to implement and enforce this

subpart.

(b) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority of this subpart to

a State or local agency under section 40

CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities

that are retained by the Administrator of

the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to

the State or local agency are listed in

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Under § 63.6(g), the authority to

approve alternatives to the standards

listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through

(vii) of this section is not delegated.

(i) § 63.5698—Standard for open

molding resin and gel coat operations.

(ii) § 63.5728—Standards for closed

molding resin operations.

(iii) § 63.5731(a)—Standards for resin

and gel coat mixing operations.

(iv) § 63.5734—Standards for resin

and gel coat application equipment

cleaning operations.

(v) § 63.5740(a)—Standards for carpet

and fabric adhesive operations.

(vi) § 63.5743—Standards for

aluminum boat surface coating

operations.

(vii) § 63.5746(f)—Approval of

alternative means of demonstrating

compliance with the standards for

aluminum boat surface coating

operations.

(2) Under § 63.7(f), the authority to

approve alternatives to the test methods

listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv)

of this section are not delegated.

(i) § 63.5719(b)—Method for

determining whether an enclosure is a

total enclosure.

(ii) § 63.5719(c)—Methods for

measuring emissions from a control

device.

(iii) § 63.5725(d)(1)—Performance

specifications for thermal oxidizer

combustion temperature monitors.

(iv) § 63.5758—Method for

determining hazardous air pollutant

content of regulated materials.

Definitions

§ 63.5779 What definitions apply to this

subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are

defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2,

and in this section as follows:

Add-on control means an air pollution

control device, such as a thermal

oxidizer, that reduces pollution in an air

stream by destruction or removal before

discharge to the atmosphere.

Administrator means the

Administrator of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

or an authorized representative (for

example, a State delegated the authority

to carry out the provisions of this

subpart).

Aluminum boat means any marine or

freshwater vessel that meets both of the

following two criteria: the hull or the

deck is constructed primarily of

aluminum, and the vessel is designed

and manufactured for noncommercial

and nonmilitary purposes.

Aluminum boat surface coating

operation means the application of

primers or top coats to aluminum boats.

Aluminum boat surface coating

operations do not include the

application of wood coatings or

antifoulant coatings to aluminum boats.

Aluminum coating spray gun cleaning

means the process of flushing or

removing paints or coatings from the

interior or exterior of a spray gun used

to apply aluminum primers or top coats

to aluminum boats.

Aluminum wipe-down solvents means

solvents used to remove oil, grease,

welding smoke, or other contaminants

from the aluminum surfaces of a boat

before priming or painting. Aluminum

wipe-down solvents contain no coating

solids; aluminum surface preparation

materials that contain solids are

considered coatings for the purpose of

this subpart and are not wipe-down

solvents.

Antifoulant coating means any

coating that is applied to the underwater

portion of a boat specifically to prevent

or reduce the attachment of biological

organisms and that is registered with

EPA as a pesticide under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (7 U.S.C. section 136, et seq.). For

the purpose of this subpart, primers

used with antifoulant coatings to

prepare the surface to accept the

antifoulant coating are considered

antifoulant coatings.

Atomized resin application means a

resin application technology in which

the resin leaves the application

equipment and breaks into droplets or

an aerosol as it travels from the

application equipment to the surface of

the part. Atomized resin application

includes, but is not limited to, resin

spray guns and resin chopper spray

guns.

Boat means any type of vessel, other

than a seaplane, that can be used for

transportation on the water.

Boat manufacturing facility means a

facility that manufacturers the hulls or

decks of boats from fiberglass or

aluminum or assembles boats from

premanufactured hulls and decks or

builds molds to make fiberglass hulls or

decks. A facility that manufacturers

only parts of boats (such as hatches,

seats, or lockers) or boat trailers, but no

boat hulls or decks or molds for

fiberglass boat hulls or decks, is not

considered a boat manufacturing facility

for the purpose of this subpart.

Carpet and fabric adhesive means any

chemical material that permanently

attaches carpet, fabric, or upholstery to

any surface of a boat.

Clear gel coat means gel coats that are

clear or translucent so that underlying

colors are visible. Clear gel coats are

used to manufacture parts for sale. Clear

gel coats do not include tooling gel coats

used to build or repair molds.

Closed molding means any molding

process in which pressure is used to

distribute the resin through the

43868 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

reinforcing fabric placed between two

mold surfaces to either saturate the

fabric or fill the mold cavity. The

pressure may be clamping pressure,

fluid pressure, atmospheric pressure, or

vacuum pressure used either alone or in

combination. The mold surfaces may be

rigid or flexible. Closed molding

includes, but is not limited to,

compression molding with sheet

molding compound, infusion molding,

resin injection molding (RIM), vacuumassisted resin transfer molding

(VARTM), resin transfer molding (RTM),

and vacuum-assisted compression

molding. Processes in which a closed

mold is used only to compact saturated

fabric or remove air or excess resin from

the fabric (such as in vacuum bagging),

are not considered closed molding.

Open molding steps, such as application

of a gel coat or skin coat layer by

conventional open molding prior to a

closed molding process, are not closed

molding.

Cured resin and gel coat means resin

or gel coat that has been catalyzed and

changed from a liquid to a solid.

Deviation means any instance in

which an affected source subject to this

subpart or an owner or operator of such

a source:

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or

obligation established by this subpart,

including, but not limited to, any

emission limit, operating limit, or work

practice requirement;

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition

which is adopted to implement an

applicable requirement in this subpart

and which is included in the operating

permit for any affected source required

to obtain such permit; or

(3) Fails to meet any emission limit,

operating limit, or work practice

requirement in this subpart during any

startup, shutdown, or malfunction,

regardless of whether or not such failure

is permitted by this subpart.

Enclosure means a structure, such as

a spray booth, that surrounds a source

of emissions and captures and directs

the emissions to an add-on control

device.

Fiberglass assembly adhesive means

any chemical material used in the

joining of one fiberglass part to another

to form a temporary or permanently

bonded assembly. Assembly adhesives

include, but are not limited to,

methacrylate adhesives and putties

made from polyester or vinylester resin

mixed with inert fillers or fibers.

Fiberglass boat means a vessel in

which either the hull or deck is built

from a composite material consisting of

a thermosetting resin matrix reinforced

with fibers of glass, carbon, aramid, or

other material.

Fiberglass hull and deck coatings

means coatings applied to the exterior

or interior surface of fiberglass boat

hulls and decks on the completed boat.

Polyester and vinylester resins and gel

coats used in building fiberglass parts

are not fiberglass hull and deck coatings

for the purpose of this subpart.

Gel coat means a thermosetting resin

surface coating containing styrene

(Chemical Abstract Service or CAS No.

100–42–5) or methyl methacrylate (CAS

No. 80–62–6), either pigmented or clear,

that provides a cosmetic enhancement

or improves resistance to degradation

from exposure to the elements.

Hazardous air pollutant or HAP

means any air pollutant listed in, or

added to the list in section 112(b) of the

Clean Air Act.

Hazardous air pollutant content or

HAP content means the amount of HAP

contained in a regulated material at the

time it is applied to the part being

manufactured. If no HAP is added to a

material as a thinner or diluent, then the

HAP content is the same as the HAP

content of the material as purchased

from the supplier. For resin and gel

coat, HAP content does not include any

HAP contained in the catalyst added to

the resin or gel coat during application

to initiate curing. For filled resins, HAP

content is the fraction of HAP contained

in the resin before any filler is added.

Hazardous air pollutant data sheet

(HDS) means documentation furnished

by a material supplier or an outside

laboratory to provide the HAP content

of the material by weight, measured

using EPA Method 311, manufacturer’s

formulation data, or an equivalent

method. For aluminum coatings, the

HDS also documents the solids content

by volume, determined from the

manufacturer’s formulation data. The

purpose of the HDS is to help the

affected source in showing compliance

with the HAP content limits contained

in this subpart. The HDS must state the

maximum total HAP concentration, by

weight, of the material. It must include

any HAP concentrations equal to or

greater than 0.1 percent by weight for

individual HAP that are carcinogens, as

defined by the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration Hazard

Communication Standard (29 CFR part

1910), and 1.0 percent by weight for all

other individual HAP, as formulated.

The HDS must also include test

conditions if EPA Method 311 is used

for determining HAP content.

Maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) model point value

means a number calculated for open

molding operations that is a surrogate

for emissions and is used to determine

if your open molding operations are in

compliance with the provisions of this

subpart. The units for MACT model

point values are kilograms of HAP per

megagram of resin or gel coat applied.

Manufacturer’s certification means

documentation furnished by a material

supplier that shows the HAP content of

a material and includes a HDS.

Mold means the cavity or surface into

or on which gel coat, resin, and fibers

are placed and from which finished

fiberglass parts take their form.

Mold sealing and release agents

means materials applied to a mold to

seal, polish, and lubricate the mold to

prevent parts from sticking to the mold.

Mold sealers, waxes, and glazing and

buffing compounds are considered mold

sealing and release agents for the

purposes of this subpart.

Mold stripping and cleaning solvents

means materials used to remove mold

sealing and release agents from a mold

before the mold surface is repaired,

polished, or lubricated during normal

mold maintenance.

Month means a calendar month.

Nonatomized resin application means

any application technology in which the

resin is not broken into droplets or an

aerosol as it travels from the application

equipment to the surface of the part.

Nonatomized resin application

technology includes, but is not limited

to, flowcoaters, chopper flowcoaters,

pressure fed resin rollers, resin

impregnators, and hand application (for

example, paint brush or paint roller).

Open molding resin and gel coat

operation means any process in which

the reinforcing fibers and resin are

placed in the mold and are open to the

surrounding air while the reinforcing

fibers are saturated with resin. For the

purposes of this subpart, open molding

includes operations in which a vacuum

bag or similar cover is used to compress

an uncured laminate to remove air

bubbles or excess resin, or to achieve a

bond between a core material and a

laminate.

Pigmented gel coat means opaque gel

coats used to manufacture parts for sale.

Pigmented gel coats do not include

tooling gel coats used to build or repair

molds.

Production resin means any resin

used to manufacture parts for sale.

Production resins do not include tooling

resins used to build or repair molds, or

fiberglass assembly adhesives as defined

in this section.

Recycled resin and gel coat

application equipment cleaning solvent

means cleaning solvents returned to the

supplier or another party to remove

resin or gel coat residues so that the

solvent can be reused.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43869

Resin means any thermosetting resin

containing styrene (CAS No. 100–42–5)

or methyl methacrylate (CAS No. 80–

62–6) and used to encapsulate and bind

together reinforcement fibers in the

construction of fiberglass parts.

Resin and gel coat application

equipment cleaning means the process

of flushing or removing resins and gel

coats from the interior or exterior of

equipment that is used to apply resin or

gel coat in the manufacture of fiberglass

parts.

Resin and gel coat mixing operation

means any operation in which resin or

gel coat is combined with additives that

include, but are not limited to, fillers,

promoters, or catalysts.

Roll-out means the process of using

rollers, squeegees, or similar tools to

compact reinforcing materials saturated

with resin to remove trapped air or

excess resin.

Skin coat is a layer of resin and fibers

applied over the gel coat to protect the

gel coat from being deformed by the

next laminate layers.

Tooling resin means the resin used to

build or repair molds (also known as

tools) or prototypes (also known as

plugs) from which molds will be made.

Tooling gel coat means the gel coat

used to build or repair molds (also

known as tools) or prototypes (also

known as plugs) from which molds will

be made.

Vacuum bagging means any molding

technique in which the reinforcing

fabric is saturated with resin and then

covered with a flexible sheet that is

sealed to the edge of the mold and

where a vacuum is applied under the

sheet to compress the laminate, remove

excess resin, or remove trapped air from

the laminate during curing. Vacuum

bagging does not include processes that

meet the definition of closed molding.

Wood coatings means coatings

applied to wooden parts and surfaces of

boats, such as paneling, cabinets,

railings, and trim. Wood coatings

include, but are not limited to, primers,

stains, sealers, varnishes, and enamels.

Polyester and vinylester resins or gel

coats applied to wooden parts to

encapsulate them or bond them to other

parts are not wood coatings.

Tables To Subpart VVVV

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART VVVV.—COMPLIANCE DATES FOR NEW AND EXISTING BOAT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES

If your facility is * * * and * * * then you must comply by this date:

1. An existing source ............................... is a major source on or before the promulgation date of the rule.3 years after the promulgation date of the rule.

2. An area source .................................... becomes a major source after the promulgation date of the rule.1 year after becoming a major source or 3 years after the

promulgation date of the rule, whichever is later.

3. A new source ....................................... is a major source at startup a ................ upon startup or the promulgation date of the rule, whichever is later.

aYour facility is a major source if it is a stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common

control that emits or can potentially emit, considering controls, in the aggregate, 9.1 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year of a single hazardous air pollutant or 22.7 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year of a combination of hazardous air pollutants.

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART VVVV.—ALTERNATIVE HAP CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN MOLDING RESIN AND GEL COAT

OPERATIONS

For this operation * * * And this application method * * * You must not exceed this weighted-average

HAP content (weight percent) requirement:

1. Production resin operations ........................... Atomized (spray) .............................................. 28 percent.

2. Production resin operations ........................... Nonatomized (nonspray) .................................. 35 percent.

3. Pigmented gel coat operations ...................... Any method ...................................................... 33 percent.

4. Clear gel coat operations ............................... Any method ...................................................... 48 percent.

5. Tooling resin operations ................................. Atomized (spray) .............................................. 30 percent.

6. Tooling resin operations ................................. Nonatomized (nonspray) .................................. 39 percent.

7. Tooling gel coat operations ............................ Any method ...................................................... 40 percent.

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART VVVV.—MACT MODEL POINT VALUE EQUATIONS FOR OPEN MOLDING OPERATIONS a

For this operation * * * And this application method * * *

Use this formula to calculate the MACT

model plant value for each resin and

gel coat

1. Production resin, tooling resin ............. (i) Atomized ........................................................................... 0.014 × (Resin HAP%) 2.425

(ii) Atomized, plus vacuum bagging with roll-out .................. 0.01185 × (Resin HAP%) 2.425

(iii) Atomized, plus vacuum bagging without roll-out ............ 0.00945 × (Resin HAP%) 2.425

(iv) Nonatomized ................................................................... 0.014 × (Resin HAP%) 2.275

(v) Nonatomized, plus vacuum bagging with roll-out ........... 0.0110 × (Resin HAP%) 2.275

43870 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART VVVV.—MACT MODEL POINT VALUE EQUATIONS FOR OPEN MOLDING OPERATIONS a—Continued

For this operation * * * And this application method * * *

Use this formula to calculate the MACT

model plant value for each resin and

gel coat

(vi) Nonatomized, plus vacuum bagging without roll-out ...... 0.0076 × (Resin HAP%) 2.275

2. Pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat,

tooling gel coat.

All methods ........................................................................... 0.445 × (Gel coat HAP%) 1.675

aEquations calculate MACT model point value in kilograms of HAP per megagrams of resin or gel coat applied. The equations for vacuum

bagging with roll-out are applicable when a facility rolls out the applied resin and fabric prior to applying the vacuum bagging materials. The

equations for vacuum bagging without roll-out are applicable when a facility applies the vacuum bagging materials immediately after resin application without rolling out the resin and fabric. HAP% = HAP content expressed as a weight-percent value between 0 and 100%.

TABLE 4. TO SUBPART VVVV—APPLICABILITY AND TIMING OF NOTIFICATIONS

If your facility * * * You must submit * * * By this date * * *

1. Is an existing source subject to this subpart .. an initial notification containing the information specified in § 63.9(b)(2).no later than the dates specified in

§ 63.9(b)(2).2.

2. Is a new source subject to this subpart .......... the notifications specified in § 63.9(b)(3) to (5) no later than the dates specified § 63.9(b)(4)

and (5).

3. Qualifies for a compliance extension as specified in § 63.9(c).a request for a compliance extension as

specified in § 63.9(c).

no later than the dates specified in § 63.6(i).

4. Is complying with HAP content limits, application equipment requirements, or MACT model

point value averaging provisions.

a notification of compliance status as specified in § 63.9(h).no later than 30 calendar days after the end

of the first 3-month averaging period after

your facility’s compliance date.

5. Is complying by using an add-on control device.(i) a notification of intent to conduct a performance test as specified in § 63.9(e).no later than the date specified in § 63.9(e).

(ii) a notification of the date for the continuous

monitoring system performance evaluation

as specified in § 63.9(g).

with the notification of intent to conduct a performance test.

(iii) a notification of compliance status as

specified in § 63.9(h).

no later than 60 calendar days after the completion of the add-on control device performance test and continuous monitoring

system performance evaluation.

TABLE 5.—TO SUBPART VVVV.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART

VVVV

Citation Requirement Applies to subpart

VVVV Explanation

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(4) ..................... General Applicability .................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(a)(5) ........................... ...................................................................... No ............................. [Reserved].

§ 63.1(a)(6)–(8) ..................... ...................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(a)(9) ........................... ...................................................................... No ............................. [Reserved].

§ 63.1(a)(10)–(14) ................. ...................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(b) ................................ Initial Applicability Determination ................ Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(1) ........................... Applicability After Standard Established ..... Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(2) ........................... ...................................................................... Yes ........................... Area sources are not regulated by subpart

VVVV.

§ 63.1(c)(3) ........................... ...................................................................... No ............................. [Reserved].

§ 63.1(c)(4)–(5) ..................... ...................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(d) ................................ ...................................................................... No ............................. [Reserved].

§ 63.1(e) ................................ Applicability of Permit Program ................... Yes.

§ 63.2 .................................... Definitions .................................................... Yes ........................... Additional definitions are found in

§ 63.5779.

§ 63.3 .................................... Units and Abbreviations .............................. Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(3) ..................... Prohibited Activities ..................................... Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(4) ........................... ...................................................................... No ............................. [Reserved].

§ 63.4(a)(5) ........................... ...................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.4(b)–(c) ......................... Circumvention/Severability .......................... Yes.

§ 63.5(a) ................................ Construction/Reconstruction ....................... Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(1) ........................... Requirements for Existing, Newly Constructed, and Reconstructed Sources..Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(2) ........................... ...................................................................... No ............................. [Reserved].

§ 63.5(b)(3)–(6) ..................... ...................................................................... Yes.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 43871

TABLE 5.—TO SUBPART VVVV.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART

VVVV—Continued

Citation Requirement Applies to subpart

VVVV Explanation

§ 63.5(c) ................................ ...................................................................... No ............................. [Reserved].

§ 63.5(d) ................................ Application for Approval of Construction/

Reconstruction.

Yes.

§ 63.5(e) ................................ Approval of Construction/Reconstruction .... Yes.

§ 63.5(f) ................................. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction

Based on prior State Review.

Yes.

§ 63.6(a) ................................ Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements—Applicability.Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(5) ..................... Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources.Yes ........................... § 63.5695 specifies compliance dates.

§ 63.6(b)(6) ........................... ...................................................................... No ............................. [Reserved].

§ 63.6(b)(7) ........................... ...................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ..................... Compliance Dates for Existing Sources ..... Yes ........................... § 63.5695 specifies compliance dates.

§ 63.6(c)(3)–(c)(4) ................. ...................................................................... No ............................. [Reserved].

§ 63.6(c)(5) ........................... ...................................................................... Yes ........................... Any area source that becomes a major

source must comply by the date in

§ 63.5695 for existing sources or by the

date 1 year after becoming a major

source, whichever is later.

§ 63.6(d) ................................ ...................................................................... No ............................. [Reserved].

§ 63.6(e)(1)–(2) ..................... Operation and Maintenance Requirements No ............................. Operating requirements for open molding

operations with add-on controls are

specified in § 63.5725.

§ 63.6(e)(3) ........................... Startup, Shut Down, and Malfunction Plans Yes ........................... Only sources with add-on controls must

complete startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans.

§ 63.6(f) ................................. Compliance with Nonopacity Emission

Standards.

Yes.

§ 63.6(g) ................................ Use of an Alternative Nonopacity Emission

Standard.

Yes.

§ 63.6(h) ................................ Compliance with Opacity/Visible Emissions

Standards.

No ............................. Subpart VVVV does not specify opacity or

visible emission standards.

§ 63.6(i)(1)–(14) .................... Extension of Compliance with Emission

Standards.

Yes.

§ 63.6(i)(15) .......................... ...................................................................... No ............................. [Reserved].

§ 63.6(i)(16) .......................... ...................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(j) ................................. Exemption from Compliance with Emission

Standards.

Yes.

§ 63.7 .................................... Performance Test Requirements ................ Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(1)–(2) ..................... Monitoring Requirements—Applicability ...... Yes ........................... All of § 63.8 applies only to sources with

add-on controls. Additional monitoring requirements for sources with add-on controls are found in § 63.5725.

§ 63.8(a)(3) ........................... ...................................................................... No ............................. [Reserved].

§ 63.8(a)(4) ........................... ...................................................................... No ............................. Subpart VVVV does not refer directly or indirectly to § 63.11.

§ 63.8(b)(1) ........................... Conduct of Monitoring ................................. Yes.

§ 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ..................... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Continuous

Monitoring Systems (CMS).

Yes ........................... Applies to sources that use a CMS on the

control device stack.

§ 63.8(c)(1)–(4) ..................... Continuous Monitoring System Operation

and Maintenance.

Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(5) ........................... Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems

(COMS).

No ............................. Subpart VVVV does not have opacity or

visible emission standards.

§ 63.8(c)(6)–(8) ..................... Continuous Monitoring System Calibration

Checks and Out-of-Control Periods.

Yes.

§ 63.8(d) ................................ Quality Control Program .............................. Yes.

§ 63.8(e) ................................ CMS Performance Evaluation ..................... Yes.

§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ...................... Use of an Alternative Monitoring Method ... Yes.

§ 63.8(f)(6) ............................ Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test ......... Yes ........................... Applies only to sources that use continuous

emission monitoring systems (CEMS).

§ 63.8(g) ................................ Data Reduction ............................................ Yes.

§ 63.9(a) ................................ Notification Requirements—Applicability ..... Yes.

§ 63.9(b) ................................ Initial Notifications ....................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(c) ................................ Request for Compliance Extension ............. Yes.

§ 63.9(d) ................................ Notification That a New Source Is Subject

to Special Compliance Requirements.

Yes.

§ 63.9(e) ................................ Notification of Performance Test ................. Yes ........................... Applies only to sources with add-on controls.

§ 63.9(f) ................................. Notification of Visible Emissions/Opacity

Test.

No ............................. Subpart VVVV does not have opacity or

visible emission standards.

43872 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 5.—TO SUBPART VVVV.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART

VVVV—Continued

Citation Requirement Applies to subpart

VVVV Explanation

§ 63.9(g)(1) ........................... Additional CMS Notifications—Date of CMS

Performance Evaluation.

Yes ........................... Applies only to sources with add-on controls.

§ 63.9(g)(2) ........................... Use of COMS Data ..................................... No ............................. Subpart VVVV does not require the use of

COMS.

§ 63.9(g)(3) ........................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Testing .... Yes ........................... Applies only to sources with CEMS.

§ 63.9(h)(1)–(3) ..................... Notification of Compliance Status ............... Yes.

§ 63.9(h)(4) ........................... ...................................................................... No ............................. [Reserved].

§ 63.9(h)(5)–(6) ..................... Notification of Compliance Status (continued).Yes.

§ 63.9(i) ................................. Adjustment of Deadlines ............................. Yes.

§ 63.9(j) ................................. Change in Previous Information .................. Yes.

§ 63.10(a) .............................. Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability ..... Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(1) ......................... General Recordkeeping Requirements ....... Yes ........................... §§ 63.5767 and 63.5770 specify additional

recordkeeping requirements.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(xi) ............... Recordkeeping Relevant to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Periods and CMS.Yes ........................... Applies only to sources with add-on controls.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii)–(xiv) ........... General Recordkeeping Requirements ....... Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(3) ......................... Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability Determinations.Yes ........................... Specifies applicability determinations for

non-major sources.

§ 63.10(c) .............................. Additional Recordkeeping for Sources with

CMS.

Yes ........................... Applies only to sources with add-on controls.

§ 63.10(d)(1) ......................... General Reporting Requirements ............... Yes ........................... § 63.5764 specifies additional reporting requirements.

§ 63.10(d)(2) ......................... Performance Test Results ........................... Yes ........................... § 63.5764 specifies additional requirements

for reporting performance test results.

§ 63.10(d)(3) ......................... Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations No ............................. Subpart VVVV does not specify opacity or

visible emission standards.

§ 63.10(d)(4) ......................... Progress Reports for Sources with Compliance Extensions.Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(5) ......................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports.Yes ........................... Applies only to sources with add-on controls

§ 63.10(e)(1) ......................... Additional CMS Reports-General ................ Yes ........................... Applies only to sources with add-on controls.

§ 63.10(e)(2) ......................... Reporting Results of CMS Performance

Evaluations.

Yes ........................... Applies only to sources with add-on controls.

§ 63.10(e)(3) ......................... Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports.Yes ........................... Applies only to sources with add-on controls.

§ 63.10(e)(4) ......................... COMS Data Reports ................................... No ............................. Subpart VVVV does not specify opacity or

visible emission standards.

§ 63.10(f) ............................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver ............... Yes.

§ 63.11 .................................. Control Device Requirements—Applicability No ............................. Facilities subject to subpart VVVV do not

use flares as control devices.

§ 63.12 .................................. State Authority and Delegations ................. Yes ........................... § 63.5776 lists those sections of subpart A

that are not delegated.

§ 63.13 .................................. Addresses .................................................... Yes.

§ 63.14 .................................. Incorporation by Reference ......................... No ............................. Subpart VVVV does not incorporate any

material by reference.

§ 63.15 .................................. Availability of Information/ Confidentiality ... Yes.

[FR Doc. 00–15505 Filed 7–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P