OAR Box 1415 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

32) F. R. August 2, 2001 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/15/2008 9:38:27AM Sheet 32 of 130 

P.1 
P.3 

p 

r 

WHipr 

X_, 

Thursday, 

August 2, 2001 

Part H 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reinforced 

Plastic Composites Production; Proposed 

Rule 

A" "> 
P.2 

40324 Federa l Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[FRL-7005-S] 

RIN 2060-AE79 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reinforced 

Plastic Composites Production 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION:JBroposgd rule. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for new and 

existing reinforced plastic composites 

production facilities. The proposed 

standards regulate production and 

ancillary processes used to manufacture 

products with thermoset resins and gel 

coats. Reinforced plastic composites -

production facilities emit hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP), such as styrene, 

methyl methacrylate (MMA), and 

methylene chloride (dichloromethane). 

These HAP have adverse health effects 

including headache, fatigue, depression, 

irritation of skin, eyes, and mucous 

membranes. Methylene chloride has 

been classified as a probable human 

carcinogen. These proposed standards 

will implement section 112(d) ofthe 

Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all 

major sources in this category 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 

14,500 tons per year (tpy) (65 percent). 

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on 

or before figtoberlr^OOl. 

Eublic HeanHgTlf anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by August 22, 2001, a public ' 

hearing will be held on .Jeptemberjt, 

aoot """ 

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal 

Service, send comments (in duplicate if 

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket 

and Information Center (6102), 

Attention Docket Number A=9A=5_2,_ 

U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person 

or by courier, deliver comments (in 

duplicate if possible) to: Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center (6102), Attention Docket Number 

A-94-52, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20460. We request a 

separate copy also be sent to the contact 

person listed below in the FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

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. gojgketJSTo, A-94-52 contains 

supporting information used ih° 

developing the standards. The docket is . 

located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20460 in Room 

M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), 

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

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

excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keith Barnett, Organic Chemicals 

Group, Emission Standards Division 

(MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711,19191541-

5605fcbarnett.keith@epamail.epa.gov. 

For public hearing information, contact 

^ariaNoell, Organic Chemicals Group, 

Emission Standards Division (MD-13), 

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, (919)j41-5607. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments. Comments and data may 

be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) 

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

comments must be submitted either as 

an ASCII file to avoid the use of special 

characters and encryption problems or 

on disks in WordPerfectTM version 5.1, 

6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All comments 

and data submitted in electronic form 

must note the docket number: A-94-52. 

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: Keith Barnett, 

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. 

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. 

Docket. The docket is an organized 

and complete file of the information 

considered by the EPA in the 

development of this rulemaking. The 

docket is a dynamic file because 

material is added throughout the 

rulemaking process. The docketing 

system is intended to allow members of 

the public and industries involved to 

readily identify and locate documents 

sp that they can effectively participate 

in the rulemaking process. Along with 

the proposed and promulgated 

standards and their preambles, the 

contents of the docket, excluding 

interagency review materials, will serve 

as the record in the case of judicial 

review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) ofthe 

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. 

World Wide 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 httpT/www.epajjov/ 

ttn/oarpg. The TTN^ro^HSF35"

1 

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: 
P.4 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 40325 

Category 

Industry 

Federal Government 

NAICS 

•'» code 

325211 

326122 

325991 

326191 

327991 

327993 

332998 

33312 

33651 

335311 

335313 

335312 

33422 

336211 

336112 

336211 

33651 

33653 

336399 

33612 

336213 

336413 

336214 

SIC. 

code 

2821 

3084 

3087 

3088 

3089 

3281 

3296 

3431 

3531 

3531 

3612 

3613 

3621 

3663 

3711 

3711 

3713 

3714 

3714 

3716 

3728 

3743 

3792 

3999 

Examples of regulated entitles 

Reinforced plastic composites production facilities that manufacture and/or 

repair intermediate and/or final products using HAP containing thermoset 

resins and gel coats. 

* 

Federally owned facilities that manufacture and/or repair intermediate and/ 

or final products using HAP containing thermoset resins and gel coats. 

This table is not intende d to b e 

exhaustive, but rather provide s a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determin e 

whethe r your facility is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in § 63.5785 ofth e 

propose d rule. If you hav e any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particula r entity, consult th e perso n 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Outline. Th e information presented in 

this preambl e is organized as follows: 

I. Introduction 

A. What is the source of authority for 

development of NESHAP? 

B.'What criteria are used in the 

development of NESHAP? 

C. What are the potential health effects of 

the HAP emitted by the reinforced 

plastic composites production industry? 

D. How were the proposed NESHAP 

developed? 

E. What processes and operations are 

included in the Reinforced Plastic 

Composites Production source category? 

II. Summary of Proposed NESHAP 

A. What source categories and 

subcategories are affected by this 

proposed rule? 

B. What are the primary sources of HAP 

emissions and what are the emissions? 

C. What is the affected source? 

D. What are the proposed emission limits, 

operating limits, and other standards? 

E. What is the MACT model point value 

and how is it used in these proposed 

NESHAP? 

F. When would I need to comply with 

these proposed NESHAP? 

G. What are the proposed options for 

demonstrating compliance? 

H. What are the proposed testing and 

initial compliance requirements? 

I. What are the proposed continuous 

compliance requirements? 

J. What are the proposed notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

III. Rationale for Proposed NESHAP 

A. How did we determine the source 

category to regulate? 

B. What pollutants are regulated under 

these proposed NESHAP? 

C. What is the "affected source" and how 

did EPA select the operations to be 

regulated by these proposed NESHAP? 

D. What is a new affected source? 

E. How did we determine the MACT floor 

for existing sources? 

F. How did we determine the MACT floor 

for new sources? 

G. Did we consider options more stringent 

than the MACT floor? 

H. Why are some reinforced plastic 

composites production operations not 

subject to these proposed NESHAP? 

I. How did we select the proposed 

compliance dates for existing and new 

sources? 

J. How did we select the form of these 

proposed NESHAP? 

K. How did we select the test methods for 

determining compliance with the 

proposed NESHAP? 

L. How did we determine the proposed 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements? 

M. How did we select the proposed 

notification and reporting requirements? 

N. What are some of the areas where we 

are specifically soliciting comments? 

IV. 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? 

V. Relationship of Proposed NESHAP 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. Operating Permit Program 

C. NESHAP for Plastic Parts and Products 

VI. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

G. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 
P.5 

40326 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001/Propose d Ru^gst 

I. Introduction 

A. What Is the Source of Authority for 

Development of NESHAP? 

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to 

list categories and subcategories of 

major sources and area sources of HAP 

and to establish NESHAP for the listed 

source categories and subcategories. 

Reinforced Plastic Composites 

Production (major sources only) was 

included on the initial list of source 

categories published on July 16,1992 

(57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are 

those that have the potential to emit 

greater than 10 tpy of any one HAP or 

25 tpy of any combination of HAP. 

B. What Criteria Are Used in the 

Development of NESHAP? 

The CAA requires NESHAP to reflect 

the maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions of HAP that is achievable. 

This level of control is commonly 

referred to as the MACT. 

The MACT floor is the minimum 

control level allowed for NESHAP. This 

concept appears in section 112(d)(3) of 

the CAA. For new sources, the MACT 

floor cannot be less stringent than the 

emission control that is achieved in 

practice by the best-controlled similar 

source. The MACT standards for 

existing sources can be less stringent 

than standards for new sources, but they 

cannot be less stringent than the average 

emission limitation achieved by the 

best-performing 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing 5 sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). 

In developing MACT, we also 

consider control options that are more 

stringent than the floor. We may 

establish standards more stringent than 

the floor based on the consideration of 

cost of achieving the emissions 

' reductions, any nonair quality health 

and environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. 

C. What Are the Potential Health Effects 

of the HAP Emitted by the Reinforced 

Plastic Composites Production Industry? 

Today's proposed NESHAP protect air 

quality and promote the public health 

by reducing emissions of some of the 

HAP listed in section 112(b)(1) of the 

CAA. 

The HAP emitted by the reinforced 

plastic composites production industry 

include, but are not limited to, 

approximately 20,000 tpy of styrene, 

550 tpy of methyl methacrylate, and 

1100 tpy of methylene chloride. 

Exposure to these compounds has been 

demonstrated to cause adverse health 

effects, including chronic health 

disorders (e.g., headache, fatigue, and 

depression) and acute health disorders 

(e.g., irritation of skin, eyes, and mucous 

membranes and decreased respiratory 

function). Methylene chloride has been 

classified as a probable human 

carcinogen and styrene as a possible 

human carcinogen. In general, these 

findings have only been shown with 

concentrations higher than those 

typically in the ambient air. 

We do not have the type of current 

detailed data on each of die operations 

covered by today's proposed NESHAP 

(and the people living around the 

operations) necessary to conduct an 

analysis to determine the actual 

population exposures to the HAP 

emitted from these facilities and the 

potential for resultant health effects. 

Therefore, we do not know the extent to 

which the adverse health effects 

described above occur in the 

populations surrounding these 

operations. However, to the extent the 

adverse effects do occur, the proposed 

rule will reduce emissions and 

subsequent exposures. 

1. Styrene 

Acute (short-term) exposure to styrene 

in humans results in mucous membrane 

and eye irritation and gastrointestinal 

effects. Chronic (long-term) exposure to 

styrene in humans may cause effects on 

the central nervous system (CNS) such 

as headache, fatigue, weakness, 

depression, and hearing loss. There is 

limited evidence that occupational 

exposure to styrene is associated with 

an increased frequency of spontaneous 

abortions and decreased frequency of 

births and an increased risk of leukemia, 

and lymphoma. The EPA considers this 

evidence on occupational exposure to 

styrene to be inconclusive. The 

International Agency for Research on 

Cancer has classified styrene as a Group 

2B, possible human carcinogen. The 

EPA has not classified styrene with 

respect to carcinogenicity. 

2. Methyl. Methacrylate 

Methyl methacrylate irritates the skin, 

eyes, and mucous membranes in 

humans. An allergic response to dermal 

exposure may develop. Respiratory 

effects following acute (short-term) 

exposure include chest tightness, 

dyspnea, coughing, wheezing, and 

reduced lung function. Neurological 

symptoms including headache, lethargy, 

lightheadedness, and a sensation of 

heaviness in the arms and legs have also 

been reported following acute exposure 

to MMA. Effects to the liver, kidney, 

brain, spleen, and bone marrow have 

been reported in chronic (long-term) 

animal studies of MMA inhalation. Fetal 

abnormalities have been reported in 

animals exposed to MMA by injection 

and inhalation. In several animal 

studies, no carcinogenic effects were 

observed. The EPA has classified MMA 

in Group E (not likely to be carcinogenic 

in humans). 

3. Methylene Chloride 

Acute (short-term) exposure to 

methylene chloride by inhalation affects 

the nervous system, causing decreased 

visual, auditory, and motor functions. 

These effects are reversible once 

exposure ceases. The effects of chronic 

(long-term) exposure to methylene 

chloride suggest that the CNS is a 

potential target in both humans and 

animals. Limited animal studies have 

reported developmental effects. Human 

. data are inconclusive regarding 

methylene chloride and cancer. Animal 

studies have shown increases in liver 

and lung cancer and benign mammary 

gland tumors following the inhalation of 

methylene chloride. The EPA has 

classified methylene chloride as a 

Group B2, probable human carcinogen. 

D. How Were the Proposed NESHAP 

Developed? 

We started the development of the 

proposed NESHAP by sending 

information collection request (ICR) 

surveys to facilities with applicable 

standard industries classification (SIC) 

codes. In addition to these surveys, we 

consulted with numerous members of 

the reinforced plastic composites 

industry, representatives of industry 

trade associations, and material and 

equipment vendors in developing the 

proposed NESHAP. 

We held a series of approximately 35 

meetings and visited approximately 25 

facilities over a period of 8 years. These 

meetings and site visits were held to. 

keep stakeholders informed and to 

gather additional data and information 

on issues relevant to the proposed 

NESHAP. The stakeholders helped in 

data gathering, arranged site visits, 

identified issues and provided 

information to help resolve issues in the 

rulemaking process. 

We identified the MACT floor control 

level with information obtained through 

survey responses, site visits, telephone 

contacts, and operating permits. We 

assessed control options more stringent 

than the MACT floor by identifying the 

level(s) and method(s) of control 

achieved by the best controlled sources 

in the industry and conducting analyses 

designed to determine the cost, 

economic, energy, and environmental 

impacts of implementing the more 

stringent control options. 
P.6 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 40327 

E. What Processes and Operations Are 

Included in the Reinforced Plastic * '' 

Composites Production Source 

Category? 

The Reinforced Plastic Composites 

Production source category involves the 

production of plastic products from 

cross-linking resins, usually in 

combination with reinforcing materials 

and. inorganic fillers. The production of 

products that do not contain reinforcing 

materials is also included in this 

category, as well as the production of 

intermediate compounds which are later 

used to make the final plastic products. 

These non-reinforced products were 

included because they are produced 

using the same types of resins, have 

similar emission characteristics and 

would use similar emission controls. 

This source category is limited to those 

resins which contain styrene, either by 

itself or with a combination of other 

monomers or solvents. 

There are a wide variety of operations 

that use styrene-containing resins to 

make thermoset plastics. Such 

production operations include manual 

resin application, mechanical resin 

application, filament winding, gel coat 

application, compression/injection 

molding, resin transfer molding, 

centrifugal casting, continuous 

lamination/continuous casting, polymer 

casting, pultrusion, and sheet molding 

compound (SMC) manufacturing. There 

are also ancillary operations such as 

cleaning, mixing/bulk molding 

compound (BMC) manufacturing, and 

storage that occur in conjunction with 

these production operations. Many 

facilities will use multiple operations in 

the manufacturing of their product. 

This category does not include 

facilities which repair previously 

manufactured reinforced plastic 

composites, but do not have any colocated reinforced plastic composite 

manufacturing operations. The reason is 

that we believe that repair operations 

that are co-located with manufacturing 

operations use the same materials as the 

manufacturing processes. Repair 

operations that are not co-located may 

use different materials and application 

techniques. 

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 reinforced plastic composites 

production facility. 

A. What Source Categories and 

Subcategories Are Affected by This 

Proposed Rule? 

Today's proposed rule applies to the 

Reinforced Plastic Composites 

Production source category. We 

evaluated the use of subcategories based 

on size (i.e., tpy of HAP emitted). These 

subcategories played an important role 

in defining the new source MACT 

floors. However, the available data that 

we used to develop the MACT floor for 

existing sources, do not show significant 

differences between larger-emitting 

versus smaller-emitting sources. Thus, 

we did not go through a separate 

analysis for each subcategory of existing 

sources. 

B. What Are the Primary Sources of 

HAP Emissions and What Are the 

Emissions? 

The primary source of HAP emissions 

from the Reinforced Plastic Composites 

Production source category is the 

evaporation of styrene and other organic 

liquid HAP contained in the resin 

during the application and/or curing of 

the resin. Since styrene participates in 

the curing reaction, not all of it is 

emitted. The HAP emissions also occur 

during ancillary operations such as 

deeming, mixing/BMC manufacturing, 

arid storage. 

Total baseline HAP emissions from 

the Reinforced Plastic Composites 

Production source category are 

approximately 22,200 tpy. Emissions 

from spray lay-up and gel coating 

constitute approximately 56 percent and 

19 percent of the total baseline 

emissions, respectively. The remaining 

HAP emissions are primarily from hand 

lay-up/bucket and tool application, 

compression molding/injection 

molding, filament winding, SMC 

manufacturing, and centrifugal casting., 

C. What Is the Affected Source? 

Under this proposed rule, the affected 

. source would be the combination of all 

operations regulated under these 

standards at a reinforced plastic 

composites production facility. The 

following regulated operations are 

typically performed at reinforced plastic 

composites production facilities and are 

part of the affected source: open 

molding, closed molding, centrifugal 

casting, continuous lamination/ 

continuous casting, polymer casting, 

pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, 

equipment cleaning, BMC/ 

manufacturing/mixing, and storage of 

HAP containing materials. 

D. What Are the Proposed Emission 

Limits, Operating Limits, and Other 

Standards? 

We are proposing the requirements of 

these NESHAP in the form of emission 

limits (i.e., point value, mass rate, or 

percent reduction), operating limits, and 

work practice standards. Work practice 

standards include design, equipment, 

work practices, and operational 

standards. 

In developing proposed requirements 

for reinforced plastic composites 

affected sources, we have provided an 

alternative format where possible. For 

example, a facility meeting a 95 percent 

emission reduction requirement for 

open molding processes can 

alternatively meet a point value. We 

have also provided alternatives for 

meeting the limits for continuous 

lamination and continuous casting 

processes. 

We are proposing a threshold for 

existing souroes to distinguish between 

sources that would meet the floor 

requirements, that are generally based 

on pollution prevention, and those that 

would have to meet a more stringent 

above-the-floor requirement based on 95 

percent control of HAP emissions. For 

small businesses, the threshold is 250 

tpy of combined HAP emissions for 

open molding, centrifugal casting, 

continuous lamination/casting, 

pultrusion, and SMC manufacturing. 

The definition of a small business for 

this source category ranges from 500 to 

1000 employees. More specific 

information on the definition of a small 

business may be found in the discussion 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act in the 

Administrative Requirements section of 

this preamble. For businesses that are 

not small businesses, the threshold is 

combined emissions of HAP of 100 tpy 

from the same operations. 

For all open molding operations (i.e., 

corrosion-resistant, noncorrosionresistant, tooling, and gel coat) and 

centrifugal casting (corrosion-resistant 

and noncorrosion-resistant) at existing 

sources below the threshold, and new 

sources with HAP emissions less than 

100 tpy, you must comply with a HAP 

emission limit that is calculated for your 

facility using MACT model point value 

equations for each open molding and 

centrifugal casting operation. For open 

molding and centrifugal casting ' 

operations at new sources with HAP 

emissions equal to or greater than 100 

tpy, and existing sources with HAP 

emissions equal to or greater than the 

applicable thresholds (i.e., 100 tpy for 

large businesses and 250 tpy for small 

businesses), we are proposing to require 

owners and operators to reduce 

emissions by 95 percent from these 

operations or comply with a 

corresponding HAP emission limit 

calculated using the MACT model point 

value equations. 

We are proposing to require owners 

and operators of continuous lamination/ 

continuous casting operations at 

existing sources below the above-the-
P.7 

40328 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules-; 

floor applicability thresholds, and new 

sources with HAP emissions less than 

100 tpy, to reduce emissions by 58 

percent. Other new and existing sources 

must reduce emissions by 95 percent. 

We are proposing to require owners 

and operators of pultrusion operations 

at existing sources below the above-thefloor thresholds, and new sources with 

HAP emissions less than 100 tpy, to 

reduce emissions by 60 percent. This 

reduction is based on applying a wet 

enclosure or using direct die injection to 

limit emissions. Other new and existing 

sources must reduce emissions by 95 

percent. 

We are proposing to require owners 

and operators at both new and existing 

sources using injection/compression 

molding operations to reduce HAP 

emissions through die use of a work 

practice, whereby only one charge per 

machine is uncovered, unwrapped, or 

exposed per mold cycle per • 

compression/injection molding 

machine. 

We are proposing to require owners . 

and operators of sheet molding 

compound operations at existing 

sources below the above-the-floor 

thresholds, and new sources with HAP 

emissions less than 100 tpy, to reduce 

emissions by using a nylon film, or film 

with equal or lower permeability to 

styrene, to enclose their SMC operation. 

Other new and existing sources must 

reduce emissions by 95 percent. 

We are proposing to require owners 

and operators of all new and existing 

reinforced plastic composites affected 

sources to use cleaners containing no 

HAP. 

We are proposing to require owners 

and operators of resin mixing and bulk 

molding compound operations at 

existing sources below the above-thefloor applicability thresholds, and new 

sources with HAP emissions less than 

100 tpy, to limit HAP emissions by 

covering mixers such that there are no 

visible gaps. For other new and existing 

sources, we are proposing to require that 

you reduce emissions from mixing .and 

BMC manufacturing by 95 percent. 

For existing sources that are subject to 

the above-the-floor control level of 95 

percent HAP emission reduction, we 

examined an alternative, based on 

pollution prevention, that would be 

more effective than the requirements of 

the MACT floor for existing sources. 

However, we were unable to develop an 

acceptable alternative to include in the 

proposed standards that meets the 

statutory requirements of MACT. We are 

soliciting comment on a possible 

•alternative. 

We are proposing to require all 

owners and operators at any existing or 

new affected source to keep all organic 

HAP-containing storage vessels covered, 

except during the addition or removal of 

materials. 

E. What Is the MACT^Model Point Value 

and How Is It Used in These Proposed 

NESHAP? 

The MACT model point value is a 

number calculated for each open 

molding operation and centrifugal 

casting 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 standards 

. 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 

standards to determine if your open 

molding operations are in compliance. 

The MACT model.point values have 

.units of pounds of HAP per ton 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 proposed Reinforced Plastic 

Composites Production NESHAP. The 

MACT model point value equations 

cannot be used in place of emission 

factorequations to demonstrate 

compliance with other regulations. 

The MACT model point value 

equations only account for HAP content 

and application method. Other factors 

(including curing time, part thickness, 

and operator technique) also affect 

emissions, and these factors are not 

accounted for in the MACT model point 

value equations for reasons discussed in ' 

section III-E. Determining the HAP 

content of materials and the method of 

application is relatively simple, and 

these factors are the most significant in 

affecting emissions. More information 

on the development of this model is 

available in the docket. 

F. When Would I Need To Comply With 

These Proposed NESHAP? 

We Eire proposing that all existing 

sources comply within 3 years of 

publication of the promulgated 

NESHAP in the Federal Register. New 

affected sources that startup before the 

promulgated NESHAP are published in 

the Federal Register must comply no 

later than the effective date of the 

NESHAP, which will be the same as the 

publication date. New affected sources 

that startup after the promulgated 

NESHAP are published in the Federal 

Register must comply upon startup. 

Existing area sources that increase their 

emissions or their potential to emit such 

that they become a major source of HAP 

must be in compliance within 3 years of 

the date they become a major source. 

New area sources that become major 

sources of HAP must comply upon 

becoming a major source. All open 

molding and centrifugal casting 

operations that comply by meeting a 

specified point value on a 12-month 

rolling average will have 1 year from the 

compliance date to demonstrate 

compliance. 

We are proposing to provide new and 

existing facilities 3 years to comply from 

the time their HAP emissions reach or 

exceed the applicability thresholds 

requiring the installation of add-on -

controls, if these HAP emissions 

mcreases occur after their initial 

compliance date. 

G. What Are the Proposed Options for 

Demonstrating Compliance? 

Today's proposed NESHAP provide 

several options for compliance. We are 

providing these options to afford 

industry the flexibility to decide which 

method is best suited for each particular 

situation. 

1. Open Molding and Centrifugal 

Casting Operations 

For open molding operations at 

.existing and new sources, this proposal 

would allow you to choose to comply by 

meeting the individual MACT point 

value for each operation at your affected 

source, or by meeting the weighted 

average MACT point value for all open 

molding operations at your affected 

source. Iri addition, if you have any 

combination of manual resin 

application, mechanical resin 

application, filament winding, or 

centrifugal casting operations at your 

affected source, you could comply by 

meeting the MACT point value for any 

one of these operations and by using the 

same resin for all the other operations. 

For open molding and centrifugal 

casting operations where the proposed 

rule would require you to meet a 

percent reduction, you could use an 

add-on control device to achieve the 

required reduction or you may choose to 

meet a MACT point value that 

corresponds to that particular 

operation's percent reduction. 

2. Continuous Casting/Lamination 

Operations 

For continuous casting/lamination 

operations at existing and new sources, 

we are proposing that you could 
P.8 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, NoT 149/Thursday , August 2,1 2b01/Propose d Rules 40329 

demonstrate that each continuous - »d -

casting line and each continuous H?7V 

lamination line meets the appropriate 

standard. Alternatively, you could 

average all your continuous casting and 

continuous lamination lines together, 

and demonstrate that they meet the 

appropriate standard. An additional 

alternative would be to capture your 

emissions from your wet-out area in a 

permanent total enclosure that meets 

EPA's criteria, as specified in Method 

204 in appendix M of 40 CFR part 51, 

and vent these wet-out emissions 

through a closed vent system to a 

control device achieving 95 percent 

reduction of HAP emissions. Under this 

proposed rule, diese alternatives could 

be used in combination to demonstrate 

compliance. 

3. Pultrusion Operations 

For existing and new pultrusion 

operations, under this proposed rule 

you could capture and vent your 

emissions to a control device that 

achieves the required percent reduction 

of EHAP emissions. You could also elect 

to use direct die injection pultrusion 

machines with resin drip collection 

systems that meet the criteria specified. 

We are also proposing an additional -

alternative only available to existing 

sources: the use of a wet-area enclosure 

with a resin drip collection system. For 

both new and existing sources, you 

could use the available options in 

combination to achieve compliance 

under this proposed rule. 

4. Ancillary Operations 

For ancillary operations at all sources, 

such as cleaning, storage, and mixing/ 

BMC operations at existing sources, the 

only option we are proposing is to 

comply with the specified work practice 

standards. 

H. What Are the Testing and Initial 

Compliance Requirements? 

We are proposing to require owners 

and operators of all affected sources 

which use a control device to 

demonstrate compliance to conduct an 

initial performance test using specified 

EPA test methods. The owner or 

operator would test at the inlet and 

oudet of the control device, and using 

these results, calculate a percent 

reduction. 

We are also proposing to require 

owners and operators that use 

permanent total enclosures to conduct a 

design evaluation as specified by EPA 

Metliod 204. If your enclosure does not 

meet the requirements for a permanent 

total enclosure, you would need to test 

the enclosure using EPA Mediods 204B 

through E to determine the capture 

efficiency. 

Prior to the initial performance test, 

owners and operators of affected sources 

would be required to install the 

parameter monitoring.equipment to be 

used to demonstrate compliance with 

the operating limits. During the initial 

performance test, the owners and 

operators would use the parameter 

monitoring equipment to establish 

operating parameter limits. 

/. What Are the Continuous Compliance 

Requirements? 

If you use an add-on control device, 

we are proposing that you monitor and 

record the operating parameters 

established during the initial 

performance test, and calculate average 

operating parameter values averaged 

over the period of time specified in 

these proposed NESHAP to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

operating limits. 

If you use the MACT point value 

system to maintain a point value less 

than or equal to the appropriate point 

value listed in today's proposed 

NESHAP, we are proposing to require 

that you calculate the point value one 

time if the resins or gel coats used in the 

operation remain the same, or if all the 

resins and gel coats used individually 

meet the required point values. You are 

required to calculate the point value on 

a 12-month rolling average each month 

if the resin or gel coat varies between 

operations or over time, and not all 

resins or gel coats taken individually 

meet the required point value. 

If you are complying with work 

practice standards, we are proposing 

that you demonstrate compliance with 

the work practice standards in today's 

proposed NESHAP by performing the 

necessary work practices and by 

keeping a record certifying that you are 

in compliance with the work practices. 

/. What Are the Proposed Notification, 

Reporting, and Recordkeeping 

Requirements? 

We are proposing that you submit 

Initial Notification, Notification of 

Performance Tests, and Notification of 

Compliance Status reports by the 

specified dates in die proposed 

NESHAP, which may vary depending 

on whether the affected source is new 

or existing. 

You would also need to submit 

semiannual compliance reports. If you 

take action that is inconsistent with 

your approved startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) plan, then you 

would need to submit SSM reports 

within 2 days of starting such action, 

and within 7 days of ending such 

action. 

We are proposing that you keep a 

copy of each notification and report, 

along with supporting documentation 

for 5 years. Of this time, tiie first 2 years 

must be on-site. You would need to 

keep records related to SSM, records of 

performance tests, and records for each 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system. Under this proposed rule, if you 

must comply with the work practice 

standards, you would also need to keep 

records certifying tiiat you are in 

compliance with the work practices for 

5 years. If you are use the MACT point 

value system to demonstrate 

compliance, you would need to keep all 

data, assumptions, and calculations 

used to determine your MACT point 

value. For new and existing continuous 

lamination/casting operations, you 

would also need to keep the following 

records when complying wi*th the 

percent reduction pr pound per ton 

requirements: All data, assumptions, 

and calculations used to determine the 

percent reduction and/or pounds per 

ton, as applicable; a brief description of 

the rationale for the assignment of an 

equation or factor to each formula; all 

data, assumptions, and calculations 

used to derive facility-specific emission 

estimations and factors; identification 

and rationale for the worst-case 

scenario; and documentation that the 

appropriate regulatory agency has 

approved all emission estimation 

equations and factors. 

EQ. Rationale for Proposed NESHAP 

A. How Did We Determine the Source 

Category To Regulate? 

Reinforced Plastic Composites 

Production was included on the initial 

list of source categories published on 

July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). In 

establishing the source category list, we 

stated that we would refine category 

descriptions during the rulemaking 

process, if necessary, based on 

additional information available. We 

did not find it necessary to refine the 

source category description for 

Reinforced Plastic Composites 

Production; However, we did define a 

number of different process groupings 

in order to develop representative 

MACT floors as described in the section 

on MACT floor development. 

B. What Pollutants Are Regulated Under 

These Proposed NESHAP? 

The proposed NESHAP regulate total 

HAP rather than individual HAP 

compounds. Standards for total HAP 

simplify compliance and enforcement 

compared with standards for individual 
P.9 

40330 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 

HAP compounds. Styrene is the HAP 

emitted in the largest magnitude. Other 

HAP emitted from reinforced plastic 

composites production facilities include 

MMA and methylene chloride. 

C. What Is the "Affected Source" and 

How Did EPA Select the Operations To 

Be Regulated by These Proposed 

NESHAP? 

To provide compliance flexibility, we 

defined the affected source as the 

combination of all reinforced plastic 

composites operations at a site. 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. 

D. What Is a New Affected Source? 

A new affected source is any 

reinforced plastic composites 

production facility that meets both of 

these criteria: 

• It commenced construction after 

today's date; and 

• It is at a site that does not presently 

contain any reinforced plastic 

composites production operations. 

In section 112 of the CAA, the 

definition of new sources also includes 

stationary sources that commence 

reconstruction after the publication date 

of a proposed NESHAP. The Small 

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) 

Panel recommended that we carefully 

review our definition of reconstruction 

for this industry. As defined in the 

General Provisions for 40 CFR part 63, 

"reconstruction" means the replacement 

of components of an affected, or a 

previously unaffected, stationary source 

to such an extent that: (1) the fixed 

capital cost of the new components 

exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital 

cost that would be required to construct 

a comparable new source; and (2) it is 

technologically and economically 

feasible for the reconstructed source to 

meet the relevant standards (as 

established by the Administrator or a 

State) pursuant to section 112 of the 

CAA. 

We envision that the types of changes 

that would typically occur at existing 

facilities would include replacement of 

spray equipment and molds. We do not 

believe that it would be technologically 

and economically feasible for an 

existing source making these types of 

changes to meet new source MACT. 

Thus, such changes do not meet the 

definition of reconstruction in the 

General Provisions and would not 

subject the sources making such 

changes to new source MACT. 

E. How Did We Determine the MACT 

Floor for Existing Sources? 

Several considerations underlie our 

MACT floor determinations. These 

considerations include: if/how the 

source category is to be subcategorized, 

how emissions types within the affected 

source are to be analyzed, and what are 

the best performing sources. 

We identified 433 facilities that are 

major sources based on their potential to 

emit or have the potential to be major 

sources based on collocation with other 

HAP-emitting processes not part of this 

source category. 

If technical differences in emissions 

characteristics, processes, control device 

applicability, or opportunities for 

pollution prevention exist within the 

source category, it may be appropriate to 

set separate floors based on these 

characteristics. In analyzing the 

available data on this source category, it 

was apparent that reinforced plastic 

composite facilities, as a whole, are 

extremely diverse in their emissions 

characteristics, control device 

applicability, and opportunities for 

pollution prevention. Therefore, we 

explored various ways of grouping the 

operations that may be present at these 

facilities. 

For existing sources, it was apparent 

that almost all of the existing source 

floors would be based on pollutionprevention techniques such as lowering 

the HAP content in resins and gel coats, 

covering baths and containers holding 

resins, and using nonatomized spray 

applications. The extent and 

performance of pollution-prevention 

techniques are dependent on the 

specific operation. For this reason, the 

data were subdivided by specific 

operation, and a floor for each operation 

was developed. 

Operations were segregated by several 

factors. The first was mold type (i.e., 

open, partially open, and closed). We 

also segregated operations by resin and 

gel coat application method; these 

include mechanical, manual, filament 

winding, and centrifugal casting. The 

type of mold and resin application 

method impacts the emission potential 

of a particular operation and also the 

effectiveness and applicability of 

different control tecliniques. We also 

segregated continuous operations such 

as pultrusion, continuous lamination, 

continuous casting, and the 

manufacture of sheet molding 

compound. 

Tne final criteria used was product 

type. The required properties of the 

final product place certain constraints 

on the raw materials that can be used. 

This, in turn, influences the limits on 

levels of EHAP in the raw materials. We 

identified several product criteria where 

the raw materials required to produce 

the product are dissimilar enough that 

a separate floor determination was 

required. The first is corrosion 

resistance. Reinforced plastic 

composites can generally be divided 

into two types—corrosion-resistant and 

noncorrosion-resistant products. 

Corrosion-resistant products require 

resins specifically formulated for 

corrosion-resistant applications. We also 

included high-strengtii applications in 

the corrosion-resistant grouping. These 

applications include products such as 

structural members and utility poles. 

These require resins with higher HAP 

contents than general purpose resins. 

The higher HAP contents for both 

corrosion-resistant and high-strength 

applications are necessary to produce a 

laminate with a greater concentration of 

styrene cross-linking. This higher level 

of cross-linking is necessary for either 

corrosion-resistance or high-strength. 

We also separated gel coats from 

resins because these materials have 

significantly different functions in the 

final product and are formulated 

differently. Gel coats were further 

subdivided into clear, white and offwhite, and other colors. Clear gel coats 

require significantly higher HAP content 

than pigmented gel coats, and are, 

therefore, unable to be formulated to the 

same HAP levels. White and off-white 

gel coats can be formulated to lower 

HAP contents on a weight-percent basis 

than other colors due to the fact that 

white pigments are heavier than other 

color pigments. 

Class 1 fire and smoke rated products 

were separated from other products 

because their unique properties require 

a resin with a significantiy higher HAP 

content than any. other products. 

Separating Class 1 fire and smoke rated 

products was also one of the 

recommendations of the SBAR Panel. 

Tooling resins and gel coats are used 

to make the molds that, in turn, are used 

to produce reinforced plastic parts. 

Molds must have different properties 

compared to the products they are used 

to produce. These include a high level 

of dimensional stability and resistance 

to heat compared to other reinforced 

plastic composites. Therefore, separate 

floors were developed for tooling resins 

and gel coats. 

Once the data were subdivided by 

specific operation, the data were ranked 

by HAP emissions. Open molding and 

centrifugal casting operations were 

ranked based on a surrogate ejnission 

factor called a point value. As 
P.10 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 4033 1 

previously discussed, point values are 

based on resin and gel coat application 

method and HAP content, and provide 

a relative measure of emissions between 

operations with varying resin and gel 

coat HAP contents and application 

methods. 

Other factors such as gel time, part 

thickness, application temperature, and 

operator technique also affect emissions. 

However, there are less data available to 

determine the effects of these factors in 

a production setting. In addition, some 

of these factors, such as part thickness, 

are inherent to the process and cannot 

be changed without changing the final 

product. For this reason, other factors 

are not included in the MACT model 

point value equations. The point value 

system was also developed to allow a 

facility to average different operations 

together to meet the applicable 

proposed standards. The ability to 

average is intended to provide 

additional compliance flexibility. 

The individual operations were then 

ranked based on the point value (for 

open molding and centrifugal casting), 

percent of emission reduction 

(pultrusion, continuous lamination/ 

casting, SMC manufacturing), covering 

open containers or exposed resin 

(storage, BMC manufacturing/mixing, 

injection/compression molding), or the 

use on non-HAP cleaning solvents 

(equipment cleaning). The median 

facility ofthe top 12 percent (or top 5 

for operations with less than 30 sources)-

was then selected as representing the 

existing source floor. 

For some of these operations, the 

available data were insufficient to 

perform a ranking. These were nonwhite pigmented gel coats, products 

with a Class 1 fire and smoke rating, and 

high-strength products. 

We identified two facilities that 

produce products that require a Class 1 

fire and smoke rating. Both facilities use 

a resin with a 60 percent EHAP content. 

We chose use of this resin as the floor. 

From a 60 percent HAP resin, we 

calculated different point values for 

mechanical, manual, and filament 

winding resin application. 

The data we used to set floors for 

pigmented gel coats were weighted 

averages reported by the facilities. This 

data included some information on 

colors, but not enough facilities reported 

color information to perform a 

meaningful ranking. Because of the 

predominance of white and off-white 

gel coats, these data are not 

representative for other colors. 

However, many facihties offer other 

colors. The pigments used in white and 

off-white gel coats are much denser than 

the pigments used in other colors. For 

that reason, weight percent EHAP in 

white and off-white gel coats tends to be 

lower. A floor based on white and offwhite gel coat HAP contents would 

preclude a facility using other colors. 

Based on industry comments and the 

recommendation of the SBAR panel, we 

determined that a HAP content of 37 

percent is the minimum that would 

provide acceptable gel coat performance 

for gel coats with colors other than 

white and off-white. In the absence of 

any other data, we adopted a 37 percent 

HAP as the floor for these gel coats. The 

37 percent HAP content was converted 

to a point value using the appropriate 

point value equation. (See the final 

report of the SBAR Panel in the docket.) 

We request comments and supporting' 

data on the appropriateness of 37 

percent as a minimum HAP content for 

acceptable performance for gel coats 

with colors other than white and offwhite. 

The data supplied by industry did not 

differentiate products that require 

higher than typical strength properties. 

Therefore, we could not determine a 

floor with the facility data base. We 

discussed this issue as part of the SBAR 

Panel with several manufacturers that 

produce high-strength products. We also 

reviewed the requirements of South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

Rule 1162. Rule 1162 specifically 

addresses high-strength products and 

contains the same requirements for 

high-strength products and corrosionresistant products. As a result, we 

determined using the data for corrosionresistant resins would be the most 

appropriate way to determine floors for 

high-strengdi products. Therefore, we 

are proposing the same floors for highstrength products and corrosionresistant products. This is consistent 

with a recommendation of the SBAR 

Panel. We solicit comments on this 

approach. 

There are many facilities that use 

multiple operations to produce a 

product. An example of this would be 

a facility producing corrosion-resistant 

tanks using filament winding to produce 

the main circular portion, mechanical 

resin application for the tank ends, and 

manual resin application to join the 

parts together. Industry representatives 

pointed out that the floors we had 

developed from the data base would 

potentially require a facility to use three 

different resins to produce a single 

product. This could potentially lead to 

problems of resin compatibility and 

product failures. The SBAR Panel report 

included a recommendation that we 

allow a facility to use the same resin for 

all processes. 

As a result, we reexamined the floors 

for facilities with multiple processes. 

We determmed that, based on the data 

available, the appropriate approach 

would be to have a provision in the 

proposed standards to allow a facility to 

select one operation, determine the 

resin they could use to meet the floor, 

and then use that same resin in all otiier 

operations. We did not have the data to 

•determine what that operation should 

be in all cases, so we are not specifying 

a particular operation in the proposed 

standards. We assumed that a facility 

would select the operation that allows 

them to use the highest HAP content 

resin. 

At the recommendation of the SBAR 

Panel, we also reexamined the floors for 

tooling resins. Several of the small 

entity representatives that advised the 

panel stated that the proposed floor for 

tooling resins will result in inferior 

quality tools. We believe that the 

current floor for tooling resins allows 

sufficient flexibility in resin HAP 

content as long as the resin can be 

applied with nonatomized spray 

technology. We are specifically 

soliciting comment on the applicability 

of nonatomized spray technology to . 

tooling resins. Based on any comments, 

we intend to further examine the floor 

for tooling resins. 

F. How Did We Determine the MACT 

Floor For New Sources? 

In developing the floor for new 

sources, we developed two 

subcategories—sources with emissions 

of 100 tpy or above and sources with 

emissions below 100 tpy. Our reason for 

examining sources with emissions 

below 100 tpy separately is that such 

facilities are likely to have more 

difficulty maintaining and operating 

add-on controls than larger-emitting 

sources, and we are unsure ofthe 

performance of add-on controls at these 

facilities. Separating the data into large 

and small HAP-emitting sources for 

developing new source MACT floors 

was also one of the recommendations of 

the SBAR Panel. 

In examining the facilities with 

emissions of 100 tpy or more, we found 

two facilities that control emissions 

from open molding and mixing by 95 

percent overall. These facilities range in 

size from approximately 100 tpy to 1000 

tpy of HAP emissions prior to the addon control device. This level of control 

was chosen as the new source MACT 

floor for open molding and mixing at 

facilities with 100 tpy or more of 

uncontrolled emissions. 

We also considered whether to 

evaluate the applicability of add-on 

controls to each of the different 
P.11 

40332 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001/Propose d Rules 

operations as was done in setting floors 

for existing sources. The two facilities 

that control emissions by 95 percent 

have operations including gel coat and 

mechanical resin application. The 

performance and cost of add-on controls 

is mainly a function of air flows and 

HAP concentration from the process. 

We have no data to suggest that the air 

flows and HAP concentrations present 

in other open molding production 

processes in this industry are not 

adequately represented by these two 

facilities. 

The two facilities produce parts that 

range in size from that of bathtubs to 

truck caps. It is possible that larger size 

parts may require larger enclosures. We 

have not identified any facilities in the 

reinforced plastic composites industry 

where processes producing large parts, 

such as storage tanks and swimming 

pools, have applied 100 percent 

efficient capture systems. However, we 

have identified facilities using 100 

percent efficient capture systems that 

apply coatings to large parts such as 

helicopters and ships. These coating 

operations have similar issues of large 

air flows (due to worker exposure 

concerns) and low outiet HAP emission 

concentrations. Based on this, we 

believe that it is technically feasible to 

apply 100 percent efficient capture 

systems to larger parts in the reinforced 

plastic composites industry. 

We evaluated the applicability of the 

95 percent control level as the new 

source floor for other operations. 

Centrifugal casting, continuous 

lamination/casting, pultrusion, and 

SMC manufacturing are similar in 

emissions characteristics to open 

molding. There are five facilities that 

have applied highly efficient add-on 

controls to these operations, with 

overall control efficiencies ranging from 

90 to 95 percent. For this reason, we 

chose 95 percent control as the new 

source MACT floor for these operatioris 

at facilities with uncontrolled emissions 

of at least 100 tpy. 

We also considered whether the new 

source MACT floor for the previously 

mentioned operations should be 

incorporation of the pollutionprevention measures that make up the 

existing source floors, combined with 95 

percent control. This approach would 

actually result in a higher overall 

emissions reduction. In addition, 

incorporating the pollution prevention 

measures would reduce the potential for 

worker exposure in situations where 

processes have to be enclosed to meet 

the 95 percent control requirement. 

However, we determined that 

selecting incorporation of pollutionprevention techniques iri addition to the 

95 percent control requirement as the 

new source floor was not appropriate 

because the facilities that incorporate 95 

percent control, which we determined 

represent the best controlled facilities, 

do not also incorporate the best 

pollution prevention techniques. 

Therefore, combining the pollutionprevention requirements with the 95 

percent control requirements would 

actually result in an overall control level 

that exceeds the levels at the best 

controlled facilities. 

We are requesting comment on 

whether the new source floor for 

facilities that must meet the 95 percent 

control requirements should also 

incorporate the pollution-prevention 

requirements. We also request that 

commentors provide any available data 

on worker exposure that would help us 

quantify the benefits of incorporating 

pollution-prevention requirements with 

the 95 percent control requirements. 

We are not proposing 95 percent 

control for closed molding, polymer 

casting, equipment cleaning, and resin 

storage, which have much lower 

emissions than the other types of 

operations. One of the facilities that sets 

the new source floor has a closed 

molding operation on site. This 

operation is not controlled through the 

use of an add-on control device. We 

attempted to identify other means of 

emissions reductions for these 

processes. For compression/injection 

molding, which is a type of closed 

molding, the only identified means of 

emission reduction was the work 

practice of uncovering one charge at a 

time. Therefore, this was chosen as the 

new source MACT floor for 

compression/injection molding. For 

polymer casting and resin transfer 

molding, we were not able to identify 

any means of reduction, either add-on 

"controls or process modifications such 

as the use of low HAP resins. Thus, the 

new source MACT floor for these 

sources is no emissions reduction. 

For equipment cleaning, the proposed 

new source floor is based on use of 

cleaners with no HAP. Ofthe 433 

facilities that reported information on 

cleaning, 353 reported using no cleaning 

materials containing HAP. However, we 

are not regulating solvents used for 

cleaning cured resin or gel coat from 

application equipment because we 

know of no means of reducing HAP 

emissions. 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. These 

proposed NESEHAP, therefore, allow 

HAP-containing solvents only for 

cleaning cured resin and gel coat from 

the application equipment. 

Over 250 facilities reported covering 

storage containers. We selected covering 

storage containers as the new source 

MACT floor for storage. We identified 

two facilities that vent the storage areas 

to a control device; however, we 

determined that the available data are 

insufficient to quantify additional 

emissions reductions that would result 

from controlling storage tanks and 

containers by 95 percent versus just 

covering the storage tanks and 

containers. 

We calculated separate floors for 

facilities with less than 100 tpy of 

emissions from open molding, 

centrifugal casting continuous 

lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC 

manufacturing, and BMC 

manufacturing/mixing. Though there 

are facilities with emissions below 100 

tpy that have add-on controls, data were 

not available to substantiate their level 

of control. Therefore, we could not state 

that they achieved a level of control 

above that achieved by the pollutionprevention techniques, and thus, meet 

the definition of best controlled 

facilities. Also, smaller-emitting 

facilities tend to operate with fewer 

shifts than larger ones. The more 

frequent startups and shutdowns could 

tend to make it more difficult to 

maintain and operate add-on controls 

compared to larger-emitting facilities. 

For these reasons, the floor for new 

sources with less than 100 tpy of 

emissions is based on pollutionprevention techniques. 

For these smaller-emitting facilities, 

we are proposing to set the new source 

MACT floor at the same level as. the 

existing source MACT floor. This 

approach was recommended by the 

SBAR Panel. We believe the existing 

source MACT floor represents the 

greatest degree of emissions reduction 

that is achievable for small facilities 

under all circumstances. For new 

sources, the CAA requires the MACT 

floor to be based on the HAP emissions 

control achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source, as determined 

by the Administrator. The reinforced 

plastic composites industry is 

extraordinarily diverse. The products 
P.12 

Federal Register /Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001 /Proposed Rules 40333 

produced, even in die same operation, ' 

can include skylights, bathtubs, and •• 

parts for automobiles. Given this 

diversity, it is difficult to identify the 

"best controlled" source. Products 

manufactured by this industry generally 

must meet certain minimal strength and 

durability requirements. The HAP 

content of the resin is a factor in 

meeting such requirements. Use of a 

resin with a given HAP content may be 

the most stringent level of control 

possible for a particular process, while 

it may be possible to use a lower-HAP 

resin in a different process without 

jeopardizing the strength or durability of 

the product. 

While some facilities are using lowerHAP materials and tecliniques than 

represented by the existing source 

MACT floor, we do not believe that 

these examples are universally 

applicable to all new reinforced plastic 

composites manufacturers. 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. 

Consequently, we have set the proposed 

floor at the most stringent level that we 

have determined all sources emitting 

less dian 100 tpy can achieve. 

We did not find that the quantity of 

HAP emissions from the source had any 

effect on its ability to incorporate 

pollution-prevention technology, or on 

the effectiveness of these technologies. 

For that reason, we did not subdivide 

the data for existing sources where the 

floors are based mainly on pollution 

prevention. 

During the SBAR Panel discussions, 

many of the small entity representatives 

expressed concern regarding the 

affordability and technical feasibility of 

add-on controls, and commented that 

they may be able to achieve similar HAP 

reductions using pollution-prevention 

measures, which tend to be lessexpensive. For example, if a facility 

could reduce its emissions by 50 

percent each year for 3 years using the 

pollution-prevention alternative, it may. 

be able to achieve reductions similar to 

thermal oxidation (nearly 90 percent 

versus 95 percent). The panel 

recommended that EPA explore with 

industry the possibility of a more 

stringent pollution-prevention option as 

an alternative to add-on controls. The 

panel believed that this option should 

be more stringent than the pollutionprevention technology present in the 

current existing source MACT floors. 

We discussed with industry the 

possibility of a pollution-prevention 

control option in lieu of add-on 

controls. We were unable to develop an 

option that we believe meets the 

statutory requirements of MACT. 

However, we are soliciting comment on 

a possible pollution-prevention 

alternative to the 95 percent EHAP 

reduction requirement. The specific 

information we are seeking is the 

maximum level of control that can be 

achieved by pollution prevention, and 

the time necessary to incorporate 

pollution-prevention techniques. The 

pollution-prevention techniques of 

which we are aware include low HAP 

resins and gel coats, nonatomized resin 

and gel coat applications, vapor 

suppressed resins, vacuum bagging, 

accelerated resin curing, and conversion 

of open molding processes to closed 

molding. We are soliciting information 

on other pollution-prevention 

techniques of which we are not aware, 

and information on the maximum level 

of emissions reductions achievable by 

these techniques. 

The general concept of an alternative 

would be a facility that elects to use this 

option to submit notification to the 

appropriate permitting authority of their 

intent. The facility would then have to 

submit a plan to meet specific emissions 

reductions through pollution 

prevention. The plan would outiine the 

techniques they intend to use, die 

research and testing required, and a 

schedule with annual milestones for 

achieving the goal. 

In the next step, the facility would 

calculate an overall emission factor for 

all processes at the facility that are 

required to meet the 95 percent 

emission reduction. 

Once a facility has determined a base 

year emission factor, they would be 

required to incorporate the pollutionprevention techniques outlined in the 

plan and make annual reports of 

progress. If a facility was unable to meet 

an interim milestone, they would be 

required to provide an updated plan 

within a specified time. 

We are also soliciting comment on 

determination of a base year and 

baseline emission factor, and reporting 

requirements. 

G. Did We Consider Options More . 

Stringent Than the MACT Floor? 

For existing sources, an above-the-: 

floor control level was evaluated which 

was based on the new source floor for 

sources with emissions of 100 tpy or 

more. This above-the-floor control level 

would require 95 percent control of 

HAP emissions from all open molding, 

centrifugal casting, continuous 

lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC 

manufacturing, and resin mixing/BMC 

manufacturing. 

We then looked at several options. 

These were selecting the floor level of 

control as MACT for all facilities, 

selecting the above-the-floor level as 

MACT for all facilities, or choosing an 

alternative where facilities at or above a 

certain HAP emissions quantity would 

meet the above-the-floor level, and the 

rest would meet the floor. In looking at 

this third altemative, we also evaluated 

different HAP emission thresholds. 

The option of having all facilities 

meet the above-the-floor level of control 

had an incremental cost of $4,300 per 

additional ton of HAP emission 

reduction. The economic analysis for 

this option indicated that 126 small 

businesses would be impacted at a level 

of 3 percent of sales or more, and there 

were 90 projected closures of small 

businesses. Because of the impacts on 

small businesses, we believe that the 

benefit of controlling all existing 

sources to this level is not 

commensurate with the economic 

impacts. Therefore, we are not 

proposing this alternative as MACT. 

We then looked at a combination of 

the MACT floor for facilities below a 

specified HAP emissions quantity based 

on actual emissions prior to any add-on 

controls, and the above-the-floor level of 

control for larger-emitting facilities. We 

also examined the impacts from the 

standpoint of small businesses and tiieir 

ability to obtain the capital to purchase 

pollution control equipment. We believe 

that the capital costs of the above-thefloor option for most small businesses 

would be prohibitive because they do 

not have the same access to capital as 

large businesses. The available data 

indicate that at a threshold of 250 tpy, 

none ofthe existing small businesses in 

the data base would be impacted 

significantiy by the above-the-floor 

control level. For this reason, we 

determined MACT for small businesses 

to be the floor for facilities that emit less 

than 250 tpy of HAP, and the above-thefloor control level for facilities that emit 

250 tpy or more. For large businesses, 

we determined MACT to be the floor for 

facilities that emit less than 100 tpy of 

HAP, and the above-the-floor control 

level for facilities that emit 100 tpy or 

more of HAP. The incorporation of the 

250 tpy threshold for small businesses 

was one of the recommendations of the 

SBAR Panel, and the economic impacts 

of the selected option are reasonable. 

Industry representatives 

independently developed costs for addon controls and submitted them to the 

Agency. Their analysis is in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking. The SBAR 

Panel recommended that we reconsider 

our estimates of costs for add-on 

controls in light of that study. The 
P.13 

40334 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001 /Proposed Rulesindustry cost estimates are at least three 

times higher than our cost.estimates. 

The major reason for these differences 

in cost are the design assumptions for 

the permanent total enclosures and the 

estimated air flows. Our cost estimates 

assume an inlet concentration of 100 

parts per million by volume (ppmv). 

The industry study assumes lower 

concentrations that vary based on the 

specific facility. However, available test 

data for measured concentrations in the 

exhaust streams for reinforced plastic 

composites facilities range from 61 to 

249 ppmv, with an average 

concentration of 120 and a median of 

82. Based on this, we believe our 100 

ppmv estimate is still reasonable, and 

we have decided not to revise our cost 

analysis at this time. We will review the 

industry's cost analysis in more depth 

following proposal, and make any 

appropriate changes based on our 

review and on comments we receive. 

We are soliciting comment on the cost 

and feasibility of add-on controls, data 

on design and operation of permanent 

total enclosures from this or similar 

industries, and data on typical exhaust 

EHAP concentrations and air flows for 

reinforced plastic composite facilities. 

We did not identify an above-the-floor 

option for the following operations: 

closed molding, polymer casting, and 

equipment cleaning. We were able to 

find no examples where any closed 

molding process was controlled using 

add-on controls. Therefore, we believe it 

is not technically and economically 

feasible to use add-on controls for 

closed molding processes. We do not 

believe it is technically feasible to use 

add-on controls for equipment cleaning 

operations. In any case, application of 

the floor level of control we are 

proposing would eliminate HAPcontaining cleaners, except for cases 

where cured resin has to be removed 

from application equipment. This floor 

level of control would achieve close to 

100 percent HAP emissions reductions. 

For new sources, we examined an 

above-the-floor option of requiring all 

sources to meet the 95 percent control 

requirement for open molding, 

centrifugal casting, continuous 

lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC 

manufacturing, and resin mixing/BMC 

manufacturing. We determined that, 

even if we could resolve the issues 

surrounding the performance of add-on 

control devices at the smaller-emitting 

sources, the incremental cost would be 

$15,000 per ton of additional HAP 

emissions reduction. For this reason, we 

chose the floor level of control as MACT 

for new sources. 

We also considered an even more 

stringent above-the-floor control level 

for both existing and new sources. This 

control level would require facilities to 

use add-on controls to meet a 95 percent 

HAP emission reduction, and also 

require them to incorporate pollutionprevention techniques such as the use of 

low HAP resins and gel coats, and 

nonatomized resin application 

techniques. As previously discussed, 

the benefits of tiiis apprbach would be 

that by incorporating the pollutionprevention measures in addition to the 

add-on control, the overall HAP 

emissions reduction would be 

increased. In addition, the potential for 

worker exposure in these situations 

would be reduced. However, we 

determined that this control level would 

result in approximately a 2 percent 

incremental HAP emissions reduction 

compared to the above-the-floor control 

level based on a 95 percent emissions 

reduction alone. The incremental cost of 

a control level that combines 95 percent 

HAP emissions reductions and 

pollution-prevention measures would 

be $36,900 per ton of additional HAP 

emissions reduction. Though there may 

be worker exposure benefits, we did not 

include this above-the-floor control 

level in this proposed rule. This 

possibility is still under consideration, 

and we are requesting comment. We 

also request that commentors provide 

any available data on worker exposure 

that would allow us to quantify the 

additional worker exposure benefits of 

incorporating pollution-prevention 

requirements with the 95 percent 

control requirements. 

We did not identify an above-the-floor 

option for new sources for the following 

operations: Closed molding, polymer 

casting, and equipment cleaning for the 

same reasons as discussed above for 

existing sources. 

We also examined an above-the-floor 

control option for existing sources based 

on pollution prevention. As was the 

case with the new source MACT floor, 

we are unable at this time to develop an 

alternative that we believe meets the 

statutory requirements of MACT. 

However, we are specifically soliciting 

comments on pollution-prevention 

techniques that could be used in lieu of 

the above-the-floor alternative as were 

discussed in the section on new source 

floors. 

In addition to the previous 

discussion, we also evaluated non-air 

quality environmental impacts of these 

above-the-floors options. These impacts 

are discussed in section IV, Summary of 

Environmental, Energy, and Economic 

Impacts. 

H. Why Are Some Reinforced Plastic 

Composites Production Operations Not 

Subject to These Proposed NESHAP? 

These 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. We do not have 

sufficient data to identify and prescribe 

work practices to reduce emissions from 

diese operations. Therefore, these 

proposed NESHAP do not require 

emissions reductions for these 

materials. 

For mold stripping and cleaning 

solvents, 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 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. 

/. How Did We Select the Proposed 

Compliance Dates for Existing and New 

Sources? 

The CAA instructs EPA to establish a 

compliance date or dates for existing 

sources that will provide for compliance 

"as expeditiously as practicable, but in 

no event later than 3 years after the 

effective date." For existing sources, we 

are proposing a compliance date 3 years 

from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. 

Existing sources complying with the 

point value limits, which is a pollutionprevention approach, will need to make 

changes in application equipment and 

raw materials. We believe these sources 

need the full 3-year period provided by 

the CAA in order to evaluate the effect 

of these changes on their production 

processes, particularly because they 

may need to try out different resins. In 

addition, we believe that providing the 

maximum amount of allowable time 

will provide more sources the 

opportunity to change their raw 

materials and production techniques so • 

that each resin and gel coat can meet the 

MACT specific to each process type 

rather than averaging the HAP content 
P.M 

Federal Register /Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 4033 5 

of resins across the source, thereby 

reducing the amount of records and n 

paperwork needed to demonstrate 

initial and continuous compliance. 

We are also proposing a 3-year 

compliance date for existing sources 

that must use add-on controls. We 

believe the full 3 years provided by the 

CAA is necessary for these sources as 

well to allow sufficient time for them to 

design, purchase, install, and work out 

operational problems that occur in 

trying to start up a new control device. 

In addition, if an existing source's 

emissions exceed one of the thresholds 

in the proposed rule that requires an 

add-on control device to comply, the 3-

year period would provide sufficient 

time to evaluate whether there are 

pollution-prevention approaches that 

would get them below the threshold. We 

encourage the use of pollutionprevention as a control approach, and -

pollution prevention could be a 

significant cost savings over add-on 

controls for these sources. 

The CAA instructs EPA to establish 

compliance dates for new sources that 

will provide for complianeeupon start 

up, or the effective date ofthe final rule, 

whichever is later. These are the dates 

we are proposing in this proposed rule. 

New and existing sources that comply 

by meeting point values on a 12-month 

rolling average must initiate collection 

of these data on the compliance date. 

New and existing sources that comply 

using add-on control devices must 

conduct the required performance 

testing within the 180-day time period 

as specified in the General Provisions to 

part 63. 

We are also proposing to provide 

sources 3 years to comply from the-time 

their HAP emissions reach or exceed the 

applicability thresholds requiring the 

installation of add-on controls, if these 

HAP emissions increase after their 

initial compliance date. We are 

providing this compliance time for 

sources under these circumstances 

because, as explained previously, we 

believe this is the necessary amount of 

time to get these control devices 

installed and operational. 

/. How Did We Select the Form of These 

Proposed NESHAP? 

We decided to offer several forms for 

complying with the proposed NESHAP. 

The purpose of multiple forms is to 

provide the flexibility to comply in the 

most cost-effective and efficient manner. 

We considered the following factors in 

selecting the form of the proposed 

NESHAP:. 

• The form should allow for multiple 

compliance techniques for the various . 

types of facilities in the industry. 

• The form should simplify 

compliance and ensure that tiie cost of 

compliance is not excessive. 

• The form should be enforceable. 

The form of these proposed NESHAP 

is based on a combination of emission 

limits (point values or percent 

reduction), equipment standards, and 

work practice standards. 

1. Emission Limits Based on Point 

Values v 

These proposed NESHAP for open. 

molding operations and centrifugal 

casting operations are based on point 

values which are in units of pounds of 

HAP per ton of resin used. The point 

value development has been previously 

described. This form was chosen over 

an absolute emission limit because it 

accurately determines the amount of 

.pollution-prevention control a source 

has incorporated in its process, but does 

not require a facility to perform 

emission testing. This form also allows 

for averaging across open molding 

processes or across centrifugal casting 

processes. This means that a source has 

the option to over-control some 

operations, under-control others 

(relative to the limit for that individual 

process), but still meet the overall limit 

for such operations combined. This 

allows a source to have additional 

flexibility in meeting the proposed 

standards. 

The emission limits for open molding 

and centrifugal casting for new sources 

are based ori a percent reduction using 

add-on controls. However, we have 

provided an alternative standard for 

new sources also based on point values. 

These point values were determined by 

applying the required percent reduction 

requirement to the existing source 

MACT floors. The new source floor is 

based on a control efficiency, and the 

facilities that have these controls do not 

have examples of every possible type of 

open molding or centrifugal casting 

process. Therefore, we were not able to 

use the best-controlled sources to 

directly determine a point value that is 

equivalent to the 95 percent emissions 

reductions requirement for all 

operations. For operations where we 

could directly determine a point value 

equivalent, the approach of using 

existing source floors and applying 95 

percent control is slightly more 

stringent. Therefore, we believe 

applying this approach to all open 

molding and centrifugal casting 

operations will produce a limit that is 

no less stringent, while providing 

opportunities for facilities to 

incorporate pollution prevention into 

their process, meet a percent reduction 

requirement less than 95 percent, but 

still meet the new source floor. 

2. Emission Limits Based on Percent 

Reduction 

The form of the standards for new 

open molding, centrifugal casting, SMC 

manufacturing, and resin/mixing/BMC 

manufacturing, and the standards for 

new and existing sources for pultrusion 

and SMC manufacturing are based on a 

percent reduction. These standards were 

all developed from facilities using addon controls. It is possible to design a 

control device to meet a specified 

percent reduction. But based on the data 

available, it was not possible to 

determine an uncontrolled emission 

factor for open molding, centrifugal 

casting, SMC manufacturing, and 

mixing/BMC manufacturing that was 

generally applicable. Therefore, we 

could not develop a standard based on 

an emission factor. For continuous 

lamination/casting, we were able to 

develop an absolute emission limit 

based on the facilities that set the floor. 

These absolute emission limits are 

presented as alternatives to the percent 

reduction limits. In the case of 

pultrusion operations, there are 

alternative standards based on wet-area 

enclosures or direct die injection. 

Emission testing has determined that 

using this equipment as specified in the 

proposed rule will achieve the percent 

reductions specified in the NESHAP. 

3. Emission Limits Based on 

Equipment/Work Practice Standards 

Section 112(h) ofthe 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 due to 

technological and economic 

limitations." 

The emission limits for equipment 

cleaning and storage at new and existing 

sources are based on work practice and 

equipment standards. The reason for 

choosing work practice and equipment 

standards for storage is that storage 

areas may be located outside the rest of 
40336 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No.. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001 /Proposed Rules,, 

the production area, and in some cases, 

may be located outside the building. We 

do not believe it would be practicable 

due to economic limitations to test 

storage areas, and we do not have 

sufficient data to calculate an emission 

limit for the required work practice. 

The standard for existing pultrusion 

facilities is based on the equipment 

standard combined with a work 

practice. We have proposed the 

(Standard as a percent reduction to allow 

the use of add-on controls. However, we 

do not believe it would be 

technologically or economically feasible 

to actually test facilities that choose to 

use a wet-area enclosure or direct die 

injection. 

The limits for SMC and resin mixing/ 

BMC at existing facilities are also based 

on work practices or equipment 

standards. We have no data to 

determine a specific percent reduction 

to the work practices for these 

operations. Therefore, wecould not set 

a specific emission limit. 

Cleaning operations may take place 

outside the regular production area. It 

would not be technologically or 

economically practicable to perform 

emission testing for cleaning operations. 

4. Selection of Averaging Time for 

Demonstrating Compliance 

As a reinforced plastic composites 

manufacturer, we are proposing that you 

could show compliance with the 

proposed NESHAP on a 12-month, 

rolling-average basis. A 12-month 

. rolling average is determined at the end 

ofeach month-by calculating a weighted 

average actual point value based on that 

month's resin and gel coat use, and a 

weighted average floor value based on 

that month's resin and gel coat use. The 

floor must also be calculated because 

the floors for different operations are not 

the same, and the weighted average 

floor may change based on the relative 

amounts of resin used in different 

operations. You would then sum the 

current month's weighted averages 

(floor and actual) with the monthly 

averages for each ofthe previous 11 

months, divide the resulting sums by 

12, and compare the two results. If the 

actual 12-month weighted average point 

value is less than or equal to the floor 

12-month weighted average point value, 

you are in compliance. 

We believe a 12-month averaging time' 

provides a balance between operating 

flexibility and enforceability of the 

proposed standards. The 12-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 reinforced plastiacomposites 

manufacturers already track material 

usage monthly to comply with State 

regulations and permitTequirements, so 

we'believe monthly tracking is 

consistentwith current practice. 

Tracking on a. more frequent basis, 

would be unnecessarily burdensome.for 

this particular industry. Reinforced 

plastic composites manufacturers need a 

12-month rolling-average period to 

respond to both* short-term variations in 

HAP content that are inherent in all 

chemical products, and to account for 

short-term needs for higher-HAP 

. materials due to variations in product 

mix. 

In order to calculate a 12-month 

rolling average, facilities must have 12 

months of data. For this reason, we are 

proposing to allow facilities that elect to 

use a 12-month rolling average to 

demonstrate compliance 12 months and 

30 days after the compliance date. This 

. includes the time to generate. 12 months 

of data to determine the average plus 30 

days to perform the necessary 

calculations and generate the 

compliance report. If we were to 

establish a demonstration date prior to 

this, as a practical matter, facilities 

would have to actually achieve 

compliance prior to the compliance 

date. For reasons previously-discussed, 

we believe it is reasonable and 

appropriate to give facilities the 

maximum time allowed by the. CAA to 

comply. 

K. How Did We Select the Test Methods 

for Determining Compliance With the 

Proposed NESHAP? 

The proposed NESHAP. have several 

options for achieving compliance. For 

open molding and centrifugal casting, 

:this includes meeting a specified.point 

value for existing sources, or a percent 

•reduction or point value for new 

sources. For most other processes, you 

achieve compliance by using an 

enclosure and add-on control device to 

meet a percent reduction requirement or 

an absolute emission limit. 

In order to calculate a pointvalue, 

under this proposed rule, yoii must 

determine the HAP content of the raw 

material. The method to determine 

material HAP content is the use of. the 

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) or -.. 

other product specification sheets' 

provided by the material manufacturer. 

We chose not to propose requiring 

testing! ofthe material. The data used to 

develop the standards were mainly 

based on MSDS; therefore, we believe it 

is reasonable that MSDS-be used to 

determine compliance. 

Under the proposed NESHAP, if you 

chose to use an enclosure and add-on 

control device, you would have to 

determine the capture efficiency ofthe 

enclosure and measure the HAP from 

the control device. To determine the 

capture efficiency of tiiKenclosure, you 

would 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 could assume that 

its capture efficiency is 100 percent. If 

the enclosure is not a total enclosure, 

then you would build* a total temporary 

enclosure around it that meets the 

definition of a total temporary enclosure 

in EPA Method 204.You would then 

have to measureemissions from both 

the control device and the total 

temporary enclosure and use the 

combined emissions to determine 

compliance. 

To measure*HAP,-you would be able 

to 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 

would allow you the flexibility to use a 

simpler method than EPA Method 18 

which does not speciate HAP in cases 

where measuring THC is sufficient to 

demonstrate compliance. You could 

measure THC as a surrogate for total 

HAP if most of the THC emitted from an 

enclosure were 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. 

We have not included in this 

proposed rule a test method for 

"determining the effectiveness of vapor 

suppressed resins. A draft protocol 

entitled "Vapor Suppressant 

Effectiveness Test Protocol," dated 

April 7,1999, has been developed by 

'industry and is available for review in 

.the docket for this proposed rule. The 

draft protocol is insufficiently detailed 

•s for inclusion in .this proposed rule. We 

are currently requesting additional 

details-and soliciting comment on the 

test protocol or an alternate test 

protocol. 

L. How Did We Determine the Proposed 

Monitoring and Recordkeeping 

Requirements? 

Which monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements you would meet depend 
P.16 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No.* 149/Thursday , August 2,. 2001 /Proposed Rules 40337 

on how you choos'eito-comply with J 

these proposed NESHAP. For each ani*"-* 

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). 

This section describes how to comply 

with emission limits based on point 

values, emission averaging provisions, 

' equipment and work practice standards, 

and the emission limit for an add-on 

control device. 

1. Compliance With Emission Limits 

Based on Point Values 

For all operations subject to HAP 

content limits, we are proposing four 

tasks: monitor and record the EHAP 

content ofthe material used, monitor 

and record the monthly consumption of 

the material, monitor and record which 

operations use the material, and record 

the computations to show that the 

weighted average point value over the 

past 12 months meets the proposed 

standards. 

The SBAR Panel recommended that 

we look for alternatives to simplify 

reporting and recordkeeping. We have 

identified two alternatives we believe 

simplify the reporting and 

recordkeeping process. The first is that 

an owner and operator may use 

purchase records to determine monthly 

consumption. However, an owner and 

operator can track actual material flows 

to each process if desired. We believe 

this is reasonable because facilities have 

no financial incentive to keep ' 

significant inventories of raw material 

on hand, and we have no evidence that 

keeping large amounts of raw material 

on hand is a common practice. 

Therefore, purchases and actual 

consumption should track fairly closely. 

We are requiring that the owner and 

operator have a reasonable method to 

estimate the amounts of each resin used 

by a specific operation. The second 

alternative applies where all the 

materials used in an operation result in 

a point value that meets the emission 

limit, in which case, an owner and 

operator only need to record HAP 

content and the resulting point value 

and do not need to track monthly 

consumption of each individual 

material. 

2. Compliance With Averaging 

Provisions 

To comply with the averaging 

provisions for open molding operations 

and centrifugal casting operations, you 

must monitor and record HAP content 

as well as how use of the material is 

split between different operations, and 

you must record the computations 

needed to show compliance. You must 

use diese data as well as the MACT 

model point value equations in the 

proposed NESHAP to calculate the 

point values in tiiat operation for the 

past 12 months. Compliance is then 

determined relative to the allowable 

weighted average point value calculated 

for those operations for the past 12. 

months. Compliance would be 

calculated monthly, and monthly 

purchase records may be used to 

determine resin and gel coat use. 

3. 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. You will be required to inspect 

container covers 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 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 

requires 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 are being used. Rather, 

compliance through the use of these 

methods would be determined during 

enforcement inspections. 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. 

4. Compliance for Sources Using 

Enclosures and Add-On Control Devices 

The requirements for enclosures and 

add-on control devices 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. 

We are proposing that 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 would 

also need to 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, we 

are proposing that 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 would need to 

monitor and record combustion 

temperature every 15 minutes both 

during and after the performance test. 

We are proposing that you must 

calculate the average temperature 

achieved during the test. After the test, 

you would need to 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 we are proposing that 

you must determine appropriate 

parameters to monitor and receive our 

approval to use these parameters. 

M. How Did We Select the Proposed 

Notification and Reporting 

Requirements? 

We believe that the proposed notices 

and reports are the minimum needed to 

determine if you are subject to the 

proposed NESHAP and whether you are 

in compliance. We are proposing that 

you must submit an initial notification 

stating that you are subject to the 

proposed NESHAP. After the 

compliance date for your facility, you 

would need to submit a notification of 

your compliance status. You would also 

need to submit semiannual reports of 

your compliance status. If you have an 

add-on control device and you become 

out of compliance, we are proposing 

that 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, we are 

proposing that you have additional 

preconstruction notification 

requirements. You would also have 

additional notification and reporting 

requirements if you use an add-on 

control device, including notifications 

and reports for the control device 

performance test. These proposed 

notification and reporting requirements 

are consistent with those specified in 

the General Provisions. We believe that 

these requirements are the minimum 

needed for us to determine compliance 

for sources with add-on control devices. 
P.17 

40338 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 

The SSM 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 ofthe 

materials and equipment used to 

comply with the proposed Reinforced 

Plastic Composites Production NESHAP 

. is such that malfunctions will not lead 

to excess emissions. 

N. What Are Some ofthe Areas Where 

We Are Specifically Soliciting 

Comments? 

The purpose of this section is to 

highlight particular issues of concern to 

the EPA or to other parties. We solicit 

comments on these issues, along with 

data to support the comments. 

The proposed rule requires that 

certain new and existing sources control 

HAP emissions by 95 percent. In order 

to meet this requirement, facilities will 

likely have to capture 100 percent of 

their emissions from the affected 

processes and route these emissions to 

an add-on control device. We are 

soliciting data on the technical 

feasibility of permanent total enclosures 

(PTE); factors that affect the feasibility 

of PTE such as product size, operation 

grouping, and vent stream 

concentrations and air flow from the 

processes where capture systems are 

used; and interactions of tiiese 

requirements with OSHA rules. For 

example, the feasibility of 100 percent 

emissions capture using PTE is based on 

data from two facilities. We believe that 

the process operations in these facilities 

are representative of the industry as a 

whole. However, we are soliciting 

comment on types of facilities that may 

not be able to apply PTE, along with 

data to support these comments. We 

solicit data on a facility's ability to 

maintain and operate add-on controls. 

We are especially interested in cost and 

design data from facilities in this 

industry that have successfully applied 

add-on controls. Data on control device 

inlet air flqws and HAP concentrations 

combined with worker exposure 

monitoring data would be especially 

useful. We solicit data on typical 

operating hours in this industry, 

particularly in relation to the size of 

facilities and their operations (e.g., resin 

use or number of employees) since 

operating hours affect cost effectiveness 

and the number of start-ups and 

shutdowns. 

The proposed rule sets different 

thresholds for existing source 

requirements at small versus large 

businesses, above which control of HAP 

emissions by 95 percent is required. The 

higher threshold for small businesses is 

based on concerns that it is more 

difficult for small businesses to raise the 

necessary capital to purchase add-on 

controls to comply with the 95 percent 

control level. We solicit comments on 

this conclusion, along with data on 

capital availability for large and small 

businesses and the impact of this 

threshold on large businesses. We solicit 

information and data on other factors to 

consider in evaluating control 

requirements more stringent than the 

MACT floor, including data on costs to 

the industry. 

We believe that we have captured the 

full range of processes and products in 

our proposed operation groups. We 

request comments with supporting data 

on any processes or products that might 

not be adequately represented. Along 

these lines, we have specifically 

provided separate process groups for 

products with a Class I smoke and fire 

rating, and have defined high strength 

products as part of the corrosion 

resistant process group because of 

specific product requirements that 

require specialized raw materials. We 

solicit comments on this approach and 

data on any additional processes or 

products that have unique properties 

that may require separate process 

groupings for MACT floor development. 

This proposed rule contains point 

value equations for open molding and 

centrifugal casting. We are soliciting 

comments on the data and assumptions 

used to develop MACT point value 

equations,.and information on other 

methods or emission models that could 

be used to rank facilities for the 

purposes of setting MACT. 

We also solicit information on the 

adequacy or necessity of the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements in this proposed rule. We 

specifically solicit comments on the 

recordkeeping and reporting burden 

estimates set forth in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act discussion in this 

preamble and information on ways to 

minimize respondent burden. 

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What Facilities Are Affected By the 

Proposed NESHAP? 

There are approximately 433 existing 

facilities manufacturing reinforced 

plastic composites that are major 

sources and would be subject to the 

proposed NESHAP. The rate of growth 

for the reinforced plastic composites 

industry is estimated to-be 84 new 

facilities over the next 5 years. 

B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts? 

The 1997 baseline HAP emissions 

from the reinforced plastic composites 

industry are approximately 22,200 tpy. 

The proposed NESHAP would reduce 

HAP from existing sources by 14,500 

tpy, a reduction of 65 percent. 

The proposed NESHAP would result 

in small increases in other air pollution 

emissions from combustion devices that 

will be installed in the next 5 years to 

comply- with today's proposed ruleE 

These increases result from both the 

combustion device directly, and 

estimated emissions that occur at 

electrical generating plants to generate 

the electricity necessary to operate the 

add-on controls and associated air 

handling equipment. These emissions 

are estimated to be 38 tpy of sulfur 

oxides (SOx), 69 tpy of nitrogen oxides 

(NOx), 125 tpy of carbon monoxide 

(CO), and 1.5 tpy of particulate matter 

(PM) emissions. 

C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts? 

We estimate that the proposed 

Reinforced Plastic Composites 

Production 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 would decrease the amount of 

solid waste generated by the reinforced 

plastic composites industry by 

approximately 1,400 tpy. 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 consequentiy reduces 

the amount of waste from disposable 

floor coverings, cured resin waste, and 

personal protective equipment (PPE) for 

workers. Disposable floor coverings are 

replaced pn a periodic basis to prevent 

resin buildup on the floor. We estimate 

that solid waste generation of floor 

coverings will decrease by 

approximately 360 tpy and that cured 

resin solid waste will decrease by 

approximately 1,040 tpy. 

We project that the decreased 

overspray from flowcoaters will result 

in a decreased usage of PPE, which also 

consequently reduces the amount of 

solid waste. Workers who use 

flo.wcoaters typically wear less PPE than 
P.18 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001 /Proposed Rules 4033 9 

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 would not see 

an increase under this proposed rule, 

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 do 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 currentiy 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 determined that the overall energy 

demand for operations in the Reinforced 

Plastic Composites Production source 

category could increase by.159 million 

standard cubic feet per year of natural 

gas, and 10 million kilowatt hours of 

electricity per year as a result of the 

proposed rule. We determined this net 

increase based on the additional energy 

demand for control devices installed to 

meet the proposed standards. No 

information for comparison is available 

on the baseline energy consumption for 

this source category. 

F. What Are the Cost Impacts? 

We have estimated the capital costs 

for emission control equipment, 

including equipment such as open 

container covers, resin bath enclosures, 

capture systems, and control devices as 

$73.9 million for existing sources and 

$11.7 million for new sources. The 

capital costs include the costs to 

purchase and install the control 

equipment. 

We have estimated that annual costs 

of the proposed rule are $26.0 million 

per year for existing sources and $3.2 

million for new sources. Annual costs 

include fixed annual costs, such as 

reporting, recordkeeping and capital 

amortization, and variable annual costs 

suchvas natural gas. The estimated 

average cost of the proposed rule is 

$1,600 per ton of HAP emissions 

reduction for existing sources and 

$2,200 per ton of HAP emissions 

reduction for new sources. 

As discussed elsewhere in this 

preamble, we will review in more depth 

the industry's analysis on the cost of 

this proposed rule following proposal. 

Where appropriate, we will make 

changes to our estimates of costs based 

on our review and on comments we 

receive, and make the results of our 

detailed review available in the public 

docket at promulgation. 

G. What Are the Economic Impacts? 

The Agency conducted a detailed 

economic impact analysis to determine 

the market- and industry-level impacts 

associated with the proposed rule. We 

expect the aggregate price increase for 

reinforced plastic composites would be 

only 0.3 percent, or $0.01 per pound, as 

a result of the proposed standards. We 

project that directly affected producers 

would reduce total production by 0.8 

percent, while producers not direcdy 

affected would increase their 

production by 0.3 percent. Markets for 

reinforced plastic composites used in 

general construction, corrosion-resistant 

products, and land transportation are 

expected to be more heavily impacted 

with price increases of up to 0.5 percent 

and reductions in direcdy affected 

domestic production of between 1 and 

1.5 percent. 

In terms-sf industry impacts, captive 

producers of reinforced plastic 

composites are expected to fully absorb 

their compliance costs, while merchant 

producers will attempt to pass through 

costs to their customers. Through the 

market impacts described above, the 

proposed NESHAP create both gainers 

and losers within the merchant segment. 

Some merchant facilities are projected 

to experience profit increases with the 

proposed rule; however, the majority 

that continue operating are projected to 

lose profits. Furthermore, the economic 

impact analysis indicates that 29 out of 

299 merchant facilities (9.7 percent) and 

73 out of 471 product lines (15.5 

percent) at these facilities are at risk of 

closure because of the proposed 

NESHAP. All ofthe facilities 

determined to be at risk for closure are 

believed to be small businesses. More 

information on the measures we have 

taken to minimize these impacts may be 

found in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

discussion in this preamble. 

Based on the market analysis, the 

annual social costs ofthe proposed rule 

are projected to be $25.7 million. These 

costs are distributed across the many 

consumers and producers of reinforced 

plastic composites. Producers, in 

aggregate, are expected to bear $10.6 

million annually in costs, with those 

directly affected by the proposed 

NESHAP losing $19.3 million and those 

not subject to the proposed NESHAP 

gaining $8.7 million. The consumers of 

reinforced plastic composites are 

expected to incur the remaining $15.1 

million in costs associated with the 

proposed NESHAP. For more 

information, consult the docket for this 

project. 

V. Relationship of Proposed NESHAP 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(s) 

to control emissions, you will need to 

comply with certain provisions in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS, for add-on 

controls. The standards in subpart SS 

cited by the proposed NESHAP are 

applicable to most sources using an addon control device. The proposed 

NESHAP cite these sections in subpart 

SS rather than repeating them in the 

proposed regulatory text. 

B. Operating Permit Program 

Under die operating permit program 

codified at 40 CFR parts 70 and 71, all 

major sources subject to standards 

under section 111 or 112 ofthe CAA 

must obtain an operating permit (See 

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

all major sources subject to these 

proposed NESHAP must obtain an 

operating permit. 

Some reinforced plastic composites 

production facilities may be major 

sources based solely on their potential 

to emit even though their actual 

emissions are below the major source 

level. These facilities may choose to 

obtain a federally enforceable limit on 

their potential to emit so that they are 

no longer considered major sources 

subject to the proposed NESHAP. 
P.19 

40340 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. ,149/'Thursday,'August 2, 2 DOl 7 Proposed Rules 

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 

40 CFR 70.6(b). 

C. NESHAP for Plastic Parts and 

Products 

There are currently NESHAP under 

development for proposal that will 

regulate coating of plastic parts and 

products. The SBAR Panel 

recommended that we consider the 

interaction of the Plastic Parts and 

Product NESHAP with today's proposed 

NESHAP. The Plastic Parts and 

Products NESHAP may potentially 

affect facilities that produce reinforced 

plastic parts and then apply a coating to 

the finished parts. We have coordinated 

with this project and have determined 

that there should be no overlap (i.e., 

specific operations covered by today's 

proposed NESHAP should not also be 

covered in the Plastic Parts and 

Products NESHAP). We have not 

determined any requirements of the 

proposed NESHAP that would overlap, 

conflict, or cause a duplication of effort. 

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 die requirements of the Executive 

Order. The Executive Order defines 

"significant regulatory action" as one 

that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect iri a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, tiie 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President's priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of EExecutive 

Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA 

that it considers this rulemaking a 

"significant regulatory action" within 

the meaning of the Executive Order. The 

EPA submitted this action tp OMB for 

review. Changes made in response to 

suggestions or recommendations from 

OMB are documented and included in 

the public record. 

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.) 

and a copy may be obtained from Sandy 

Farmer by mail at the Office of 

Environmental Information, Collection 

Strategies Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 

"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." 

These proposed NESHAP contain 

monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements. We believe 

that the proposed notices and reports 

are the minimum needed by us to 

determine if you are subject to the 

NESEHAP and whether you are in 

compliance. We believe the proposed 

recordkeeping requirements are the 

minimum necessary to determine initial 

and ongoing compliance. Based on 

reported information, we would decide 

which reinforced plastic composites 

facilities and what records or processes 

should be inspected. The recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements are 

consistent with the General Provisions 

of .40 CFR part 63. 

These proposed recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are specifically 

authorized by section 114 of die 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. 

- The EPA expects [these proposed 

NESHAP to affect a total of 

approximately 486 facilities over the 

first 3 years after promulgation of the 

rule. This includes 433 existing 

facilities, and 53 new reinforced plastic 

composites facilities will become 

subject to the proposed NESHAP during 

the first 3 years. 

The estimated average annual burden 

for the first 3 years after promulgation 

of these 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. 1976.01," in 

Docket No. A-94-52. 

Affected entity Total hours Labor costs Total annual 

O&M costs Total costs 

Industry 

Implementing agency 

15,122 

11,293 

$673,120 

450,972 

$17,265 

NA 

$690,385 

450,972 

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 tp 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, Office of 

Environmental Information, Collection 

Strategies Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20460; and to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 
P.20 

Federal Register/Vol• 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001 /Proposed Rules 40341 

Affairs, OMB, 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 August 2, 

.--2001, a comment to OMB is best assured 

of having its full effect if OMB receives 

it by September 4, 2001. 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." 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. No reinforced 

plastic composites production facilities 

subject to these 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, these proposed NESHAP 

do not require these governments to take 

on any newresponsibilities. Thus, the 

requirements of section 6 of the 

Executive Order do not apply to this 

proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does:not apply to this rule. 

In the spirit-of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

D..Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

"Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure "meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications." "Policies that have, tribal 

implications" is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have "substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes." 

. This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects ori tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal-government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

-power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175, 

because we are not aware of any Indian 

tribal governments or communities 

affected by the proposed rule. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and tribal governments, EPA 

specifically solicits: additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104-4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

theit regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of die 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 therule. 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 

proposed.xule 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 $29.2 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 ofthe 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 (RFA), as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to-prepaire a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act. 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today's proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as (1) a 

small business ranging from 500-1,000 

employees; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction^ that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

specialxiistrict with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. The table below 

presents the size threshold for small 

businesses by SIC Code. 
P.21 

4034 2 " Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001/Propose d Rules 

Category 

Manufacturing 

SIC codes 

3621 

3711 

3716 

3728 

3743 

2821 

3296 

3431 

3531 

3612 

3613 

3663 

3714 

All other identified SIC 

Codes in this source category. 

NAICS codes 

335312 

336211, 336112. 

33612. 

336213. 

336413. 

33651. 

325211 

327993. 

332998. 

33312,33651. 

335311. 

335313. 

33422. 

33653, 336399. 

All other identified NAICS Codes in this source category. 

Maximum 

number of 

employees 

to be considered a 

small business 

1000 

750 

500 

In accordance with section 603 of the 

RFA, EPA prepared an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines 

the impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities along with regulatory 

alternatives that could reduce that 

impact. The IRFA is available for review 

in the docket and is summarized below. 

Section 112 ofthe CAA requires us to 

list categories and subcategories of 

major sources and, in some cases, area 

sources of HAP and to establish 

NESHAP for the listed source categories 

and subcategories. Reinforced plastic 

composites production (major sources 

only) was included on the initial list of 

source categories published on July 16, 

1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of 

HAP are those tiiat have the potential to 

emit greater than 10 tpy of any one HAP 

or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. 

The objective of this proposed rule is 

tp apply standards based on maximum 

achievable control technology to all 

major sources in this source category. 

The criteria used to establish MACT are 

contained in section 112 (d) of the CAA. 

Based on SBA size definitions and 

reported sales and employment data, 

EPA identified 278 ofthe 356 

companies owning reinforced plastic 

composites facilities as small 

businesses. Although small businesses 

represent almost 80 percent of the 

companies within the source category, 

they are expected to incur only 31 

percent of the total industry compliance 

costs of $26.0 million. The average total 

annual compliance cost is projected to 

be $30,000 per small company as 

compared to the industry average of 

$70,000 per company. Under the 

proposed standards, the mean annual 

compliance cost, as a share of sales, for 

small businesses is 0.7 percent, and the 

median is 0.4 percent, with a range of 

0.01 to 7.5 percent. The EPA estimates 

that 17 percent of small businesses (or 

47 firms) may experience an impact 

greater than 1 percent of sales, but only 

3 percent of small businesses (or 8 

firms) may experience an impact greater 

than 3 percent of sales. 

The Agency also performed an 

economic impact analysis (EIA) that 

accounted for firm behavior to provide 

an estimate of the facility and market 

impacts of the regulation. This industry 

is characterized by profit margins of 3 

to 4 percent. Small businesses were 

found to have higher per-unit 

production costs under baseline 

conditions and incur slightly higher perunit compliance costs. As a result of 

these factors, the economic analysis 

indicates that almost 10 percent of 

facilities owned by small business are at 

risk of closure because of this proposed ' 

rule. 

Although any facility closures are 

cause for concern, the number of 

facilities at risk for closure would be the 

same if this proposed rule required only 

the MACT floor level of control for all 

facilities. The MACT floor is the least 

stringent level allowed by statute. As 

discussed below, this proposed rule 

contains a significant number of 

accommodations for small business. 

Without additional data, we do^not 

believe we can make the proposed rule 

any less stringent and comply -with the 

objectives of the CAA. In this regard, we 

have requested data and comment 

elsewhere in this preamble on issues 

relevant to this industry. 

The EPA's efforts to minimize smallbusiness impacts have materially 

improved today's proposal. Economic 

analysis of provisions under earlier ' 

consideration for inclusion in this 

proposed rule indicated greater impacts 

on small businesses than those 

proposed today. In earlier versions, 

almost 42 percent of the toted industry 

compliance costs would have been 

incurred by small businesses (compared 

with 31 percent of costs incurred by 

small businesses in today's proposal).' 

The average total annual compliance 

cost would have been roughly $50,000 

per small company (compared with 

$30,000 in today's proposal). About 22 

percent of small businesses (or 60 firms) 

would have experienced an impact 

greater than 1 percent of sales 

(compared with 17 percent of small 

businesses in today's proposal). And 7 

percent of small businesses (or 19 firms) 

would have experienced impacts greater 

than 3 percent of sales (compared with 

3 percent of small businesses in today's 

proposal). The reduction in smallbusiness costs from earlier versions of 

this proposed rule is attributable to 

EPA's outreach and accommodation for 

small firms in keeping with both RFA 

and CAA requirements, including the 

conduct of a SBAR Panel, as discussed 

further below. 

The proposed reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for these 

small businesses include initial 

notifications, startup notifications and 

compliance reports. These requirements 

were discussed in more detail under the 

discussion of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act above. We estimate that 302 existing 

facilities owned by small businesses 

will be impacted by these requirements, 

and 53 new facilities will be impacted 

in the first three years. The professional 
P.22 

Federal Register/Afofe 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001/Propose d Rules 40343 

skills required to complete diese reports 

include the ability to calculate ' 

. emissions and resin use and read and 

follow report format guidance. All 

facilities impacted by this proposed rule 

should have personnel with the 

necessary skills because they would 

need these skills to comply with other 

regulatory requirements such as Toxic 

Release Inventory (TRI) reporting. 

Provisions to minimize the reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements on 

small business have been incorporated 

into this proposed rule. These 

provisions include allowing: The 

facility to substantiate resin and gel coat 

HAP contents with Material Safety Data 

Sheets rather then requiring testing of 

each resin and gel coat; use of resin 

purchase records to determine resin use; 

and exemption of facilities that can 

demonstrate that all their resin and gel 

coats comply with the required HAP 

content limits from the requirement to 

keep records of resin use and calculate 

point value averages. These provisions 

have also been extended to all 

companies subject to today's proposed 

NESHAP. 

These facilities may. also be subject to 

the NESHAP being developed for plastic 

parts and products. There should be no 

duplication of effort as a result of this 

proposed rule and the Plastic Parts and 

Products NESHAP being developed 

because these NESHAP will cover 

different operations. Facilities subject to 

this proposed rule are also subject to 

emissions estimate reporting under the 

TRI requirements. In this proposed rule, 

we could determine no ways to combine 

TRI and the reporting requirements of 

the proposed NESHAP because the 

objectives and statutory authorities of 

these requirements are different. 

However, we invite comments from all 

interested parties on ways to combine 

these reports and still meet the statutory 

requirements of the CAA. 

As indicated above, we have 

incorporated significant alternatives 

into the proposed rule to minimize the 

impact on small business but still meet 

the objectives of the CAA. 

As required by section 609(b) of the 

RFA, EPA conducted outreach to small 

entities and convened a SBAR panel to 

review advice and recommendations 

from representatives of the small 

entities that potentially would be 

subject to the proposed rule 

requirements. The panel convened on 

April 6, 2000 and was comprised of 

representatives from OMB, the SBA 

Office of Advocacy, the EPA Small 

Business Advocacy Chair, and the 

Emission Standards Division of the 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards of EPA. The panel solicited 

advice from 17 small entity 

representatives (SER) from a crosssection of the different industry sectors 

likely to be directly regulated by this 

action. On April 18, 2000, the panel 

distributed a package of descriptive and 

technical materials explaining the rulein-progress to the SER. On May 2, 2000, 

the panel met with the SER to hear tiieir 

comments on preliminary options for 

regulatory flexibility and related 

information. The panel also received 

written comments from the SER in 

response to both the outreach materials 

and the discussions at the meeting. 

Consistent with RFA/SBREFA 

requirements, the panel evaluated the 

assembled materials and small-entity 

comments oh issues related to the 

elements of the IRFA. A copy of the 

panel report is included in the docket 

for this proposed rule. 

The panel considered numerous 

regulatory flexibility options in 

response to concerns raised by the SER. 

The major concerns included the 

affordability and technical feasibility of 

add-on controls, the resin and gel coat 

HAP contents required to meet some of 

the MACT floors, and the regulatory 

treatment of speciality products. 

These are the major panel 

recommendations and EPA's response 

in today's proposal: 

• Recommend setting higher 

thresholds than EPA had initially 

considered for requirements to use addon controls. 

Response: In today's action, EPA 

proposes to allow facilities owned by 

small firms to emit 250 tpy (as distinct 

from the 100 tpy limit for facilities 

owned by large firms) before installing 

add-on controls. 

• Recommend setting the new source 

floor for small-owned sources at the 

level of the existing source floor. 

Response: Today's proposal includes 

this provision. 

• Recommend establishing separate 

floors for speciality products. 

Response: Today's proposal includes 

this provision. 

• Explore pollution-prevention 

alternatives to add-on controls. 

Response: The EPA did explore this 

possibility with industry sources. 

Although we could not devise a 

workable pollution-prevention / 

alternative to include in today's 

proposal, the Agency is requesting 

comment on how such a mechanism 

might be structured within the 

requirements of the CAA. 

• Recommend allowing individual 

facilities to use the same resin in all 

resin application processes. 

Response: Today's proposal includes 

this provision. 

• Reconsider the resin HAP content 

requirement for tooling resins. 

Response: Today's proposal includes 

a revised provision. 

• Recommend separate floors for 

white and non-white gel coats. 

Response: Today's proposal includes 

this provision. 

• Reconsider the Agency's estimates 

ofthe cost of add-on controls. 

Response: Even though today's 

proposal eliminates the likelihood that 

existing small-owned facilities will be 

subject to add-on controls, EPA has 

reconsidered its cost estimates in light 

of those offered by the industry. As 

discussed elsewhere in this preamble, 

EPA continues to believe our estimates 

are realistic. Nevertheless, as mentioned 

in section III-M, we are soliciting 

comments on all data and assumptions 

that affect add-on control costs. 

Moreover, as mentioned previously, we 

will review in more depth the industry's 

analysis on the cost of this proposed 

rule following proposal. Where 

appropriate, we will make changes to 

our estimates of costs based on our 

review and on comments we receive, 

and make the results of our detailed 

review available in the public docket at 

promulgation. 

• Recommend grouping high-strength 

applications with corrosion-resistant 

operations. 

Response: Today's proposal includes 

this provision. 

Detailed information on all these 

recommendations is contained in the 

panel report in the docket for this 

proposed rule. 

G. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) ofthe National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 

104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in their regulatory and 

procurement activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, 

business practices) developed or 

adopted by one or more voluntary 

consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs 

EPA to provide Congress, through 

annual reports to OMB, with 

explanations when an agency does not 

use available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. The EPA proposes 

in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, IA, 

2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4,18, 

25, 25A, 204, and 204B, C, D, E. 
40344 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001 /Proposed Rules 

Consistent witii the NTTAA, the EPA 

conducted searches to identify 

voluntary consensus standards in 

addition to these EPA methods. One 

voluntary consensus standard was 

identified as applicable and EPA 

proposes to use this standard in this 

proposed rule. 

The one consensus standard, ASTM 

D6420-99, Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Organic 

Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 

Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases 

described below for inclusion in this 

proposed rule in addition to the 

currently available EPA Method 18 

codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 

Similar to EPA's performance based 

Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also a 

performance based method for 

measurement of gaseous organic 

compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 

was written to support the specific use 

of highly portable and automated GC/ 

MS. While offering advantages over the 

traditional Method 18, the ASTM 

method does allow some less stringent 

criteria for accepting GC/MS results 

than required by Method 18. Therefore, 

ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable 

alternative to Method 18 where: (1) The 

target compound(s) are those listed in 

Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, and (2) 

the target concentration is between 150 

parts per billion (volume) and 100 

ppm(v). 

For target compound(s) not listed in 

Table 1.1 of ASTMD6420-99, but 

potentially detected by mass 

spectrometry, the regulation specifies 

that the additional system continuing 

calibration check after each run, as 

detailed in section 10.5.3 of the ASTM 

method, must be followed, met, 

documented, and submitted with the 

data report even if there is no moisture 

condenser used or the compound is not 

considered water soluble. 

For target compound(s) not listed in 

Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, and not 

amenable to detection by mass 

spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 does not 

appfyAs a result, EPA proposes to 

incorporate by reference (IBR) ASTM 

6420-99 into 40 CFR 63.14 for 

application with proposed subpart 

WWWW of part 63. The EPA will also 

cite Method 18 as a gas chromatography 

(GC) option in addition to ASTM 

D6420-99. This will allow the 

continued use of other GC 

configurations. 

In addition to the voluntary 

consensus standards EPA proposes to 

use in this proposed rule, the search for 

emissions monitoring procedures 

identified 17 other voluntary consensus 

standards. The EPA determined that 13 

of these 17 standards identified for 

measuring emissions of the HAP or 

surrogates subject to emission standards 

in the proposed rule would not be 

practical due to lack of equivalency, 

detail, and/or quality assurance/quality 

control requirements. The remaining 

four ofthe 17 consensus standards 

identified are under development or 

under EPA review. Therefore, we do not 

propose to use these voluntary 

consensus standards in this proposed 

rulemaking. More information on the 

reasons we chose not to propose to use 

these standards is available in the 

docket for this proposed rule. 

The EPA takes comments on proposed 

compliance demonstration requirements 

in this proposed rulemaking and 

specifically invites the public to identify 

potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. Commentors 

should also explain whythis proposed 

rule should adopt these voluntary 

consensus standards in lieu of or in 

addition to EPA's methods. 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). 

Table 6 of proposed subpart WWWW 

lists the EPA test methods and 

performance standards. Most of the 

standards have been used by States and 

industry for more than 10 years. 

Nevertheless, under § 63.7(f), the 

proposal also allows any State or source 

to apply to EPA for permission to use 

an alternative methods in place of any 

of die EPA testing methods or 

performance standards listed in the 

proposed NESHAP. 

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 Executive 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous air 

pollutants, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: June 22, 2001. 

Christine Todd Whitman, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of the 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.& 7401 et seq. 

2. Section 63.14 is proposed to be 

amended by adding paragraph (b)(21) to 

read as follows: 

§63.14 Incorporation's by reference 

* * * * * 

(b)* * * 

(21) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Gaseous 

Organic compounds by Direct Interface 

Gas Chromatography-Mass 

spectrometry, IBR approved for 

§63.5798 and §63.5850. 

**** * 

3. Part 63 is proposed to be amended 

by adding subpart WWWW to read as 

follows: 

Subpart WWWW—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic 

Composites Production 

Sec. 

What This Subpart Covers 

63.5780 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

63.5785 Am I subject to diis subpart? 

63.5790 What parts of my plant does tiiis 

subpart cover? 

63.5795 How do I know if my reinforced 

plastic composites production facility is 

a new affected source or an existing 

affected source? 

63.5797 What are model point values and 

how are they used in this subpart? 

63.5798 How do I determine my facility's 

HAP emissions on a tons per year (tpy) 

basis? 
P.24 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 40345 

63.5800 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

Standards 

63.5805 What standards must I meet to 

- comply with this subpart? 

Options for Meeting Standards 

63.5810 What are my options for meeting 

the standards for new and existing open • 

molding and centrifugal casting 

operations? 

63.5820 What are my options for meeting 

the standards for continuous lamination/ 

casting operations? 

63.5825 What are my options for meeting -

the standards for new pultrusion 

operations? 

63.5830 What are my options for meeting 

the standards for existing pultrusion 

operations? 

General Compliance Requirements 

63.5835 What are my general requirements 

for complying with this subpart? 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

63.5840 By what date must I conduct a 

performance test or other initial 

compliance demonstration? 

63.5845 When must I conduct subsequent 

performance tests? 

63.5850 How do I conduct performance 

tests, performance evaluations, and 

design evaluations? 

63.5855 What are my monitor installation 

and operation requirements? 

63.5860 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance witii the standards? 

Additional Compliance Calculation 

Procedures for Continuous Lamination/ 

Casting Operations 

63.5865 What data must I generate to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

standards for continuous lamination'/ 

casting operations? 

63.5870 How do I calculate annual 

uncontrolled and controlled emissions 

from my wet-out area(sj and from my 

oven(s)? 

63.5875 How do I determine the capture 

• ' efficiency of the enclosure on my wetout area and die capture efficiency of my 

oven(s)? 

63.5880 How do I determine how much 

neat resin plus is applied to die line and 

how much neat gel coat plus is applied 

to the line? 

63.5885 How do I calculate percent 

reduction to demonstrate compliance? 

63.5890 How do I calculate an emission 

factor to demonstrate compliance? 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

63.5895 How do I monitor and collect data 

to demonstrate continugus compliance? 

63.5900 How do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance widi die standards? 

Notifications, Reports, and Records 

63.5905 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

63.5910 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

63.5915 What records must I keep? 

63.5920 In what form and how long must I 

keep my records? 

Other Requirements and Information 

63.5925 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

63.5930 Who implements and enforces this 

subpart? 

63.5935 What definitions apply tq this 

subpart? 

Tables to Subpart WWWW of Part 63 

table 1 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63— 

Model Equations to Calculate Point 

Values for Specific Open Molding and 

Centrifugal Casting Process Streams 

Table 2 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63— 

Compliance Dates for New and 

Existing Reinforced Plastic 

Composites Facilities 

Table 3 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63— 

Emission Limits for Existing Small 

Business Sources Emitting Less-Than 

250 TPY of HAP, or Other Sources 

Emitting Less Than 100 TPY of HAP 

Table 4 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63— 

Work Practice Standards 

Table 5 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63— 

Alternative Emission Limits for Open 

Molding and Centrifugal Casting 

Operations Where the Standard Is 

Based on a Percent Reduction 

Requirement 

Table 6 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63— 

Basic Requirements for Performance 

Tests, Performance Evaluations, and 

Design Evaluations for New and 

Existing Sources Using Add-On 

Control Devices 

Table 7 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63— 

Options Allowing Use of the Same 

Resin Across Different Operations 

That Use the Same Resin Type 

Table 8 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63— 

Initial Compliance With Emission 

Limits 

Table 9 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63— 

Initial Compliance With Work 

Practice Standards for Existing 

Table 10 to Subpart WWWW of Part 

63—Data Requirements for New and 

Existing Continuous Lamination Lines 

and Continuous Casting Lines 

Complying with a Percent Reduction 

Limit on a Per Line Basis 

Table 11 to Subpart WWWW of Part 

63—Data Requirements for New and 

Existing Continuous Lamination and 

Continuous Casting Lines Complying 

with a Percent Reduction Limit or a 

Lbs/Ton Limit on an Averaging Basis 

Table 12 to Subpart WWWW of Part 

63—Data Requirements for New and 

Existing Continuous Lamination Lines 

and Continuous Casting Lines 

Complying with a Lbs/Ton on a Per 

0 Line Basis 

Table 13 to Subpart WWWW of Part 

63—Applicability and Timing of 

Notifications 

Table 14 to Subpart WWWW of Part 

63—Requirements for Reports 

Table 15 to Subpart WWWW of Part 

63—Applicability of General 

Provisions (Subpart A) to Subpart 

WWWW of Part 63 

What This Subpart Covers 

§ 63.5780 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart establishes national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for reinforced 

plastic composites production. This 

subpart also establishes requirements to 

demonstrate initial and continuous 

compliance with the emission 

standards. 

§ 63.5785 Am I subject to this subpart? 

You are subject to this subpart if you 

own or operate a reinforced plastic 

composites production facility that is 

located at a major source of hazardous 

air pollutants (HAP) emissions. 

Reinforced plastic composites 

production consists of operations in 

which reinforced and/or nonreinforced 

plastic composites or plastic molding 

compounds are manufactured. These 

operations use thermoset resins and/or 

gel coats that contain styrene and/or 

methyl methacrylate to produce plastic 

composites, which contain materials 

designed to enhance the chemical, 

physical, and/or thermal properties of 

the product. Reinforced plastic 

composites production also includes 

cleaning, mixing, and material storage 

associated with the production of 

plastic composites. Facilities that only 

repair previously manufactured 

reinforced plastic composites are not 

covered by this subpart. 

§ 63.5790 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

(a) This subpart applies to each new 

or existing affected source at reinforced 

plastic composites production facilities. 

(b) The affected source consists of all 

parts of your facility engaged in the 

following operations: Open molding, 

closed molding, centrifugal casting, 

continuous lamination, continuous 

casting, polymer casting, pultrusion, 

sheet molding compound (SMC) 

manufacturing, bulk molding compound 

(BMC) manufacturing, mixing, cleaning 

of equipment used in reinforced plastic 

composites manufacture, material 

storage, any other plastic composites 

operations. 

§63.5795 How do I know if my reinforced 

plastic composites production facility Is a 

new affected source or an existing affected 

source? 

(a) A reinforced plastic composites 

production facility is a new affected 
40346 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001 / Proposed Rules 

source if it meets all the criteria in 

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

(1) You commence construction of the 

affected source after August 2, 2001. 

(2) When you commence 

construction, no other reinforced plastic 

composites production affected source 

exists at that site. 

(b) For the purposes of this subpart, 

an existing affected source is any 

affected source that is not a new affected 

source. 

§ 63.5797 What are model point values and 

how are they used in this subpart? 

The model point value is a number 

calculated using the equations in Table 

1 to this subpart. Equations are available 

for each open molding operation and 

centrifugal casting operation. The model 

point values have units of pounds (lbs) 

of HAP per ton of resin or gel coat 

applied. Point values are used in this 

subpart to determine compliance with 

certain emission limits in Tables 3 and 

5 of this subpart. The model point 

values are surrogates for emissions, and 

the model point value equations are 

used only for determining compliance 

with this subpart. The model point 

value equations cannot be used in place 

of emission factor equations to 

demonstrate compliance with other 

regulations. 

§ 63.5798 How do I determine my facility's 

HAP emissions on a tons per year (tpy) 

basis? 

To determine your facility's HAP 

emissions, you must use the procedures 

in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section and calculate the combined HAP 

emissions in tpy from the following 

operations: Open molding, centrifugal 

casting, continuous lamination, 

continuous casting, pultrusion, sheet 

molding compound manufacturing, 

mixing, and bulk molding compound 

manufacturing. 

(a) For existing facilities, you may use 

the procedures in either paragraph (a)(1) 

or (2) of this section. 

(1) Use point value equations or 

emission factors. Calculate a weighted 

average emission factor on a lbs/ton of 

resin and gel coat basis. Base the 

weighted average on the 12 months of 

operation prior to the effective date of 

this subpart. Multiply the weighted 

average emission factor by resin and gel 

coat use over the same period. You may 

calculate this emission factor based on 

the point value equations in Table 1 of 

this subpart, or you may use any 

emission factor approved by us such as 

factors from the Compilation of Air 

Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: 

Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP42). This calculation must be repeated 

and reported annually. 

(2) Conduct performance testing. 

Perform performance testing using the 

methods specified in this subpart to 

determine a facility-specific emission 

factor in lbs of HAP emissions per ton 

of resin and gel coat used. The test 

should be performed under conditions 

expected to result in the highest 

possible HAP emissions, or the facility 

must stay within 10 percent ofthe same 

mix of operations that occurred during 

testing. Multiply this factor by annual 

resin and gel coat use to determine 

annual emissions. 

(b) For new facilities, calculate a 

weighted average emission factor on a 

lbs/ton of resin and gel coat basis. Base 

the weighted average on your projected 

operation for the 12 months subsequent 

to facility startup. Multiply the 

weighted average emission factor by 

projected resin use over the same 

period. You may calculate this emission 

factor based on the point value 

equations in Table 1 of this subpart, or 

you may use any emission factor 

approved by us, such as factors from 

AP-42, or emission test data from 

similar facilities. This calculation must 

be repeated and reported annually. 

§ 63.5800 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

(a) You must initially comply with the 

standards in this subpart by the dates 

specified in Table 2 to this subpart. 

Facilities meeting an emissions standard 

based on a 12-month rolling average 

must begin collecting data on the 

compliance date in order to demonstrate 

compliance.; 

(b) If your facility is a new affected 

source and emits less than 100 tpy of 

HAP at the time of initial compliance 

with this subpart, and subsequently 

increases its actual HAP emissions to 

100 tpy or more, then your facility must 

subsequentiy meet the standards in 

§ 63.5805(d). You must be in -

compliance with these more stringent 

standards within 3 years of the.date 

your facility meets or exceeds the 100 

tpy threshold. 

(c) If your facility is an existing 

affected source and emits less than 250 

tpy of HAP (if you are a small business) 

or less than 100 tpy of HAP (if you are 

not a small business) at the time of 

initial compliance with this subpart, 

and subsequentiy increases its actual 

HAP emissions to 250 tpy or more 

(small business) or to 100 tpy or more 

(non-small business), then your facility 

must subsequently meet the standards at 

§ 63.5805(b). You must be in 

compliance with these more stringent „ 

standards within 3 years of the date 

your facility meets or exceeds the 250 

tpy or 100 tpy threshold. 

Standards 

§ 63.5805 What standards must I meet to 

comply with this subpart? 

All facilities must meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) through 

(f) of this section that apply. There are 

options to meeting these standards 

described in §§ 63.5810 through 

63.5830. 

(a) If you have an existing facility that 

is a small business, as defined by die 

Small Business Administration's 

(SBA's) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201, 

and emits less than 250 tpy of HAP, or 

a facility that is not a small business and 

tiiat emits less than 100 tpy of HAP from 

the combination of all open molding, 

centrifugal casting, continuous 

lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC 

manufacturing, and mixing/BMC 

manufacturing, you must meet the 

annual average emission limits in Table 

3 of tiiis subpart and the work practice 

standards in Table 4 of this subpart diat 

apply to you. 

(b) If you have an existing facility that 

is a small business as defined by the 

SBA regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 and 

emits 250 tpy or more of EHAP, or if you 

have a facility that is not a small 

business and emits 100 tpy or more of 

HAP from the combination of all open 

molding, centrifugal casting, continuous 

lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC 

manufacturing, and mixing/BMC 

manufacturing operations, you must 

reduce the total HAP emissions from 

these operations by at least 95 percent 

by weight and meet any applicable work 

practice standards in Table 4 of this 

subpart that apply to you. As an 

alternative to meeting 95 percent by 

weight, you may meet the emission 

limits in Table 5 of this subpart. If you 

have a continuous lamination/casting 

operation, tiiat operation may 

alternatively meet an emission limit of 

1.47 lbs of HAP per ton of neat resin 

plus and neat gel coat plus applied. 

(c) If you have a new facility that 

emits less than 100 tpy of HAP from the 

combination of all open molding, 

centrifugal casting, continuous 

lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC 

manufacturing, and mixing/BMC 

manufacturing, you must meet the 

annual average emission.limits in Table 

3 of this subpart and the work practice 

standards in Table 4 of this subpart that 

apply to you. ^ 

(d)If you have a new facility that 

emits 100 tpy or more of HAP from the 

combination of all open molding, 

centrifugal casting, continuous 

lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC 

manufacturing, and mixing/BMC 

manufacturing, you must reduce the 

total HAP emissions from these 
P.26 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001/Propose d Rules 4034 7 

operations by at least 95 percent by 

weight.and meet any applicable work 

practice standards in Table .4 of this 

subpart that apply to you. As an 

alternative to meeting 95 percent by 

weight, you may meet the emission 

limits in Table 5 of this subpart. If you 

have a continuous lamination/casting 

operation, that operation may 

alternatively meet an emission limit of 

1.47 lbs of HAP per ton of neat resin 

plus and neat gel coat plus applied. 

(e) If you use an add-on control device 

to comply with this subpart, you must 

meet all requirements contained in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS. 

Options for Meeting Standards 

§ 63.5810 What are my options for meeting 

the standards for new and existing open 

molding and centrifugal casting 

operations? 

You must use one of the following 

methods in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section to meet the standards in 

§ 63.5805. The necessary calculations 

must be completed within 30 days after . 

the end of the each month. 

(a) Meet the individual model point 

values for each operation. Demonstrate 

that you meet the individual model 

point values for each open molding 

operation and for each centrifugal 

casting operation in Table 3 or 5 of this 

subpart that apply to you. This is done 

in two steps. First, determine a point 

value for each individual resin and gel 

coat, application method, and control 

method you use in a particular 

operation. Then, calculate a weighted 

average of .those point values based on 

resin and gel coat use. These 

calculations shall be performed 

monthly, and within 30 days of the end 

of the month. You must eitiier be at or 

below the applicable point value in 

Table 3 or 5 of this subpart each month, 

or at or below the applicable point value 

in Table 3 or 5 of this subpart, based on 

a 12-month rolling average. The 

procedures are described in paragraphs 

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

(1) Calculate your actual point values 

for each different process stream within 

each operation. Process streams within 

operations are different from each other 

if any of the following three 

characteristics vary: The neat resin plus 

or neat gel coat plus HAP content, the 

application technique, or the control 

technique. You must calculate the 

different process stream point values by 

using the appropriate model point value 

equations in Table 1 of this subpart for 

open molding and for centrifugal 

casting. If you want to use vapor 

suppressants to meet the point value for 

open molding, you must determine the 

vapor suppressant effectiveness by • 

conducting testing to demonstrate the 

vapor suppressant effectiveness. If you 

want to use an add-on control device to 

meet the point value, you must 

determine the add-on control factor by 

conducting capture and control 

efficiency testing as indicated in Table 

6 of this subpart. The point value 

calculated from the equations in Table 

1 of this subpart is multiplied by the 

add-on control factor to calculate the 

point value after control. Use Equation 

1 of this section to calculate the add-on 

control factor used in the model point 

value equations. 

Add-on Control Factor = 1 -

. % Control Efficiency 

100 

(Eq. 1) 

Where: 

% Control Efficiency = a value calculated 

from emission test measurements made 

according to the requirements of Table 6 of 

this subpart 

(2) Calculate your actual operation 

point value for each calendar month fbr 

each open molding operation and for 

each centrifugal casting operation by 

calculating the weighted average of the 

individual process stream point values, 

within each respective operation. To do 

this, sum the product of your actual 

process stream point values and the 

amount of neat resin plus and neat gel 

coat plus used in each process stream 

and divide the numerator by the total 

amount of neat resin plus and neat gel 

coat plus used in the process streams. 

Use Equation 2 of this section to 

calculate your actual individual point 

value for each operation. 

Y (Actual Process Stream PV * Material,) 

Actual *->r 

Operation =

 J2 i

 (Eq. 2) 

Point Value £ Material, 

i=l 

Where: 

Actual Process Stream PVi = actual point 

value from process stream i, lbs/ton 

Materiali = neat resin plus or neat gel coat 

plus used during die calendar month for 

process stream i, tons 

n = number of process streams where you 

calculated a point value 

(b) Point value averaging option. 

Demonstrate each month that you meet 

the weighted average point value ofthe 

open molding operations and the 

weighted average point value of the 

centrifugal casting operations in Table 3 

or 5 of tiiis subpart that apply to you. 

When using this averaging option, do 

not apply the procedures across open 

molding and centrifugal casting 

operations. 

(1) Each month calculate the weighted 

average point value for your facility for 

that month to determine which point 

value you must meet. To do this, you 

must sum the product of the individual 

point values in Table 3 or 5 of this 

subpart, and the amount of neat resin 

plus or neat gel coat plus used in each 

operation and divide the numerator by 

the total amount of neat resin plus and 

neat gel coat plus used in the operation. 

Use Equation 3 of this section to 

calculate the weighted average point 

value. 
410348 Federal* Register /Vol. 66, No:-149/Thursday^, August 2-,) 2064/ Proposed' Rules 

X ( P V i * Material;) 

Weighted Average Point Value = ——- (Eq. 3) 

^Material; 

i=l ' 

VWiere: 

PVi = point value from operation i, lbs/ton 

from Table 3 or 5 of this subpart 

Materiali = neat resin plus or neat gel coat 

plus used during the calendar month for 

operation i, tons 

n = number of operations 

(2) Each month calculate your actual 

weighted average point value. Do this by 

summing the product of your actual 

operation point values and the amount 

of neat resin plus and neat gel coat plus 

used in each operation and dividing the 

numerator by the total amount of neat 

resin plus and neat gel coat plus used 

in the operation groupings. You must 

calculate your actual individual point 

values for each operation as described 

in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 

section. Use Equation 4 of this section 

to calculate your actual weighted 

average point value. 

Actual Y (Actual Operation PV * Material:) 

Weighted & ra ^ 

Average = — 5 : ' . " (Eq- 4) 

Point Value £ Material; 

i=l 

VWiere.-

Actual Individual PVi = Actual point value 

from operation i, lbs/ton 

Materiali = neat resin plus or neat gel coat 

plus used during the calendar month for 

operation i, tons 

n = number of operations 

(3) Calculate a 12-month weighted 

average floor point value and actual 

point value by summing the values 

calculated in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 

this section with the values calculated 

in the previous 11 months and dividing 

the result by 12. If the actual value 12-

month rolling average is less than or 

equal to the floor 12-month rolling 

average, then you are in compliance. 

(c) Select one resin point value for 

multiple operations. If you have any 

combination of manual resin 

application, mechanical resin 

application, filament winding, or 

centrifugal casting, you may elect to 

meet the point value for any one of 

these operations and use that 

operation's same resin in all of the resin 

operations listed in this paragraph (c). If 

you select this option, for purposes of 

assigning point values and determining 

compliance, use Table 7 of this subpart 

which presents the possible 

combinations based on a facility 

selecting the application process that 

results in the highest allowable EHAP 

content resin. The averaging provisions 

in paragraph (b) of this section may still 

be used, but you must use the point 

value(s) according to this paragraph (c) 

to calculate compliance. 

§ 63.5820 What are my options for meeting 

the standards for continuous lamination/ 

casting operations? 

You must use one or more of the 

options in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section to meet the standards in 

§63.5805. Use the calculation 

procedures in § 63.5865. 

(a) Compliant line option. 

Demonstrate that each continuous 

lamination line and each continuous 

casting line complies with the 

applicable standard. 

(b) Averaging option. Demonstrate 

that all continuous lamination and 

continuous casting lines combined 

comply witii the applicable standard. 

(c) Add-on control device option. If 

your operation must meet the 58.5 

weight percent emission limit in Table 

3 of tiiis subpart, you have the option 

of demonstrating that you achieve 95 

percent control of all wet-out area 

emissions. 

(d) Combination option. Use a 

combination of options in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section or, for affected 

sources at existing facilities, a 

combination of options in paragraphs 

(a), (b), and (c) of this section (in which 

one or more lines meet the standards on 

their own, two or more lines averaged 

together meet the standards, and one or 

more lines have their wet-out areas 

controlled to a level of 95 percent). 

§ 63.5825 What are my options for meeting 

the standards for new pultrusion 

operations? 

You must use one or more of the 

options in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section to meet the 95 percent 

emission reduction standard in 

§63.5805. 

(a) Add-on control device option. 

Capture the emissions and vent them to 

a control device or any combination of 

control devices that achieves a 95 

percent reductioii'of HAP emissions. 

Conduct capture and destruction 

efficiency testing as indicated in Table 

6 of this subpart to determine the 

percent emission reduction. 

(b) Direct die injection with resin drip 

collection option. Use direct die 

injection pultrusion machines with 

resin drip collection systems that meet 

the following criteria in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (3) of this section: 

(1) All the resin that is applied to the 

reinforcement is delivered directly to 

the die. 

(2) No exposed resin is present except 

at the face of the die. 

(3) Resin drip is captured in closed 

piping and recycled directly to the resin 

injection chamber. 

(c) Combination option. Use a 

combination of options in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of tiiis section in which some 

lines meet the standards by complying 

with paragraph (a) of this section, and 

the remaining lines meet the standards 

by complying with paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

§ 63.5830 What are my options for meeting 

the standards for existing pultrusion 

operations? 

You must use one or more of the 

options in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section to meet the 60 weight 

percent emission limit in Table 3 of this 

subpart as required in § 63.5805. 

(a) Add-on control device option. 

CaEpture the emissions and vent them to 

a control device or any combination of 

. control devices that achieves a 60 
P.28 

Federal Register / Vol;-66,_No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 40349 

weight percent reduction of HAP 

emissions. Conduct capture and 

destruction efficiency testing as 

indicated in Table 6 of this subpart to 

determine the percent EHAP emission 

reduction. 

(b) Wet area enclosure with resin drip 

collection option. Design, install, and 

operate wet area enclosures and resin 

drip collection systems on pultrusion 

machines that meet the criteria in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (11) of this 

section. 

(1) The enclosure must cover and 

enclose the open resin bath and the 

forming area.in which reinforcements 

- are pre-wet or wet-out and moving 

. toward the die(s). The surfaces ofthe 

enclosure must be closed except for 

openings to allow material to enter and 

exit the enclosure. 

(2) For pultrusion machines with a 

• iradio frequency pre-heat unit, the 

enclosure must extend from the 

beginning of the resin bath to within 

12.5iinches or less ofthe entrance ofthe 

radio frequency pre-heat unit. If the 

stock that is within 12.5 inches or less 

ofthe entrance to the radio frequency 

pre-heat unit has'any'drip, it must be 

enclosed. The stock exiting the radio 

frequency pre-heat unit is not required 

to-be in an enclosure if the stock has no 

drip between the exit of the radio 

frequency pre-heat unit to within 0.5 

inches of the entrance of the die. 

(3) For open bath pultrusion machines 

without a radio frequency pre-heat unit, 

the enclosure must extend from the 

beginning ofthe resin bath to within 0.5 

inches or less ofthe die entrance. 

- (4) For pultrusion lines with a pre-wet 

area prior fo direct die injection, the 

enclosure must extend from the point at 

which the resin is applied to the 

reinforcement to within 12.5 inches or 

less of the entrance of the die(s). If the 

stock that is within 12.5 inches or less 

of the entrance to the die has any drip, 

it must be enclosed. 

(5) The enclosure can only be 

constructed high enough to clear the 

highest part of the pultrusion line that 

must be inside the enclosure. 

(6) The total open area df the 

enclosure must not exceed 2 times the 

cross sectional area of the puller 

window(s) and must comply with the 

requirements in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(i) All areas which are open need to 

be included in the total open area 

calculation with the exception of access 

panels, doors, and/or hatches that are 

part of the enclosure. 

(ii) The area which is displaced by 

entering reinforcement or exiting 

product is considered open. 

(iii) Areas that are covered by brush 

covers are considered closed. 

(7) Open areas for level control 

devices, monitoring devices, agitation 

shafts, and/or fill hoses must have no 

more than 1.0 inch clearance. 

(8) The access panels, doors, and/or 

hatches that are part ofthe enclosure 

must close tightly to avoid vapor 

leakage. Damaged access panels, doors, 

and/or hatches that allow vapor leakage 

must be replaced. 

(9) The enclosure may not be removed 

from the pultrusion line and access 

panels, doors, and/or hatches that are 

part of the enclosure must remain 

closed whenever resin is in the bath 

except for the time period discussed in 

paragraph (b)(10).of this section. 

(10) The maximum length of time the 

enclosure, may be removed from the 

pultrusion line or the access panels, 

doors, and/or hatches and may beopen 

is 30 minutes per 8 hour shift (or 45 

minutes per 12 hour shift). 

(11) No fans, blowers, and/or air lines 

may be allowed within the enclosure. 

•The enclosure must nothe ventilated. 

(c) Direct die injection with resin drip 

collection option. Use direct die 

injection pultrusion machines with 

resin dripcollection systems that meet 

all the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (3) of this section. 

(1) All the resin that is applied to the 

reinforcement is delivered directly to 

the die. 

(2) No exposed resin is present except 

at the face of the.die. 

(3) Resin drip is captured in closed 

-piping and recycled directly to the resin 

injection chamber. 

[d}~Combination option. Use a 

combination of options in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section in which 

different pultrusion lines comply with 

different options described in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 

section. 

'General Compliance Requirements 

§ 63.5835 What are my general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

(a) You must be in compliance at all 

times with the work practice standards 

in Table 4 of this subpart, as well as 

emission limits in Table 3 or 5 of this 

subpart, as applicable, that you are 

meeting without the use of add-on 

controls. 

(b) You must be in compliance with 

all emission limits in this subpart that 

you meet using add-on controls, except 

during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction. 

(c) You must always operate and 

maintain your affected source, including 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, according to the provisions 

in§63.6(e)(l)(i). 

(d) you .must develop and implement 

a written staErtup,. shutdown, and 

malfunction plan according to the 

provisions in § 63.6(e)(3) for any 

emission limits you meet using an addon control. 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 63.5840 By what date must I conduct a 

performance test or other initial compliance 

demonstration? 

You must conduct performance tests, 

performance evaluations, design 

evaluations, capture efficiency testing, 

and other initial compliance 

demonstrations by the compliance date 

specified in Table 2 of this subpart with 

two exceptions. Open molding and 

centrifugal casting operations that elect 

to meet a point value on a 12-month 

rolling average must initiate collection 

of the required data on the compliance 

date, and demonstrate compliance 1 

year and 30 days after the compliance 

date. New and existing sources that are 

required to use add-on controls to 

initially meet compliance must 

demonstrate compliance 180 days after 

the compliance date. 

§ 63.5845 When must I conduct 

subsequent performance tests? 

You must also conduct a performance 

test every 5 years following the initial 

performance test for any standards you 

meet with an add-on control device. 

§63.5850 How.do I conduct performance 

-tests, performance evaluations, and design 

evaluations? 

(a) If you are using any add-on 

controls to meet an emission limit in 

this subpart, you must conduct each 

performance test, performance 

evaluation, and design evaluation in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS, that applies to 

you. 

(b) Each performance test must be 

conducted according to the 

requirements in § 63.7(e)(1) and under 

the specific conditions that 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SS, specifies. 

(c) Each performance evaluation must 

be conducted according to the 

requirements in § 63.8(e) and under the 

specific conditions that 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS, specifies. 

. (d) You may not conduct performance 

tests or performance evaluations during 

.periods of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction, as specified in § 63.7(e)(1). 

(e) You must conduct three separate • 

test runs for each performance test 

required in this section, as specified in 

§ 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at 

least 1 hour. 
40350 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 

(f) You must conduct a design 

evaluation of any permanent total . 

enclosures as specified by EPA Method 

204. If your enclosure does not meet the 

Method 204 design and operation 

requirements for a permanent total 

enclosure, you must test the enclosure 

to determine the capture efficiency by 

Methods 2B through E or an alternative 

method that meets the data quality 

objectives and lower confidence limit 

approaches contained in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart KK. Test runs for Methods 2B 

through E or alternative test methods 

must be at least 3 hours. 

§ 63.5855 What are my monitor installation 

and operation requirements? 

You must monitor and operate all 

add-on control devices according to the 

procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SS. 

§63.5860 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the standards? 

(a) You must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each emission 

standard in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

§ 63.5805 that applies to you, as shown 

in Tables 8 and 9 of this subpart. 

(b) If using an add-on control device, • 

you must establish each site-specific 

operating limit in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS, that applies to you. 

Additional Compliance Calculation 

Procedures For Continuous Lamination/ 

Casting Operations 

§ 63.5865 What data must I generate to 

demonstrate compliance with the standards 

for continuous lamination/casting 

operations? 

(a) For continuous lamination/casting 

affected sources complying with a 

percent reduction requirement, you 

must generate the data identified in 

Tables 10 and 11 of this subpart for each 

data requirement that applies to your 

facility. 

(b) For continuous lamination/casting 

affected sources complying with a lbs/ 

ton limit, you must generate the data 

identified in Tables 11 and 12 of this 

subpart for each data requirement that 

applies to your facility. 

§ 63.5870 How do I calculate annual 

uncontrolled and controlled emissions from 

my wet-out area(s) and from my oven(s)? 

To calculate your annual uncontrolled 

and controlled emissions from your wetout areas and from your ovens, you 

must develop uncontrolled and 

controlled wet-out area and 

uncontrolled and controlled oven 

emission estimation equations or factors 

to apply-to each formula applied on 

each line, determine how much of each 

formula for each end product is applied 

each year on each line, and assign 

uncontrolled and controlled wet-out 

area and uncontrolled and controlled 

oven emission estimation equations or 

factors to each formula. You must 

determine the overall capture efficiency 

using the procedures in Table 6 of this 

subpart. 

(a) To develop uncontrolled and 

controlled emission estimation 

equations and factors, you must, at 

minimum, do the following as specified 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 

section: 

(1) Identify each end product and the 

thickness of each end product produced 

on the line. Separate end products into 

the following end product groupings, as 

applicable: corrosion-resistant gel 

coated end products, noncorrosionresistant gel coated end products, 

corrosion-resistant nongel coated end 

products, and noncorrosion-resistant 

nongel coated end products. This step 

creates end product/thickness 

combinations. 

(2) Identify each formula used on the 

line to produce each end product/ 

thickness combination. Identify the 

amount of each such formula applied 

(need to specify a time frame). Rank 

each formula used to produce each end 

product/thickness combination 

according to usage within each end 

product/thickness combination. 

(3) For each end product/thickness • 

combination being produced, select the 

formula with the highest usage rate for 

testing. 

(4) If not already selected, also select 

the worst-case formula (likely to be 

associated with the formula with the 

highest HAP content, type of HAP, 

application of gel coat, thin product, 

low line speed, higher resin table 

temperature) amongst all formulae. (You 

may use the results of the worst-case 

formula test for all formulae if desired 

to limit the amount of testing required.) 

(5) For each'fonriula selected for 

testmg, conduct at least one test 

(consisting of three runs). During the 

test, track information on HAP content 

and type of HAP, end product thickness, 

line speed, and resin temperature on the 

wet-out area table. 

(6) Using the test results, develop 

uncontrolled and controlled emission 

estimation equations (or factors) or 

series of equations (or factors) that best 

fit the results for estimating 

uncontrolled and controlled emissions, 

taking into account the HAP content 

and type of HAP, end product thickness, 

line speed, and resin temperature on the 

wet-out area table. 

(b) In lieu of using the method 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

for developing uncontrolled and 

controlled emission estimation 

equations and factors, you may use any 

of the methods specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (4) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(1) For either uncontrolled or 

controlled emission estimates, you may 

use previously established, facilityspecific emission equations or factors, 

provided they allow estimation of both 

wet-out area and oven emissions, where 

necessary, and have been approved by 

the regulatory agency. If a previously 

established equation or factor is specific 

to the wet-out area only or to the oven 

only, then you must develop the 

corresponding uncontrolled or 

controlled equation or factor for the 

other emission source. 

(2) For uncontrolled (controlled) 

emission estimates, you may use 

controlled (uncontrolled) emission 

estimates and control device destruction 

efficiency to calculate your uncontrolled 

(controlled) emissions provided the 

control device destruction efficiency 

was calculated at the same time you 

collected the data to develop your 

facility's controlled (uncontrolled) 

emission estimation equations and 

factors. 

(c) Assign to each formula an 

uncontrolled emission estimation 

equation or factor based on the end 

product/ thickness combination for 

which that formula is used. 

(d)(1) To calculate your annual 

uncontrolled emissions from wet-out 

areas that do not have any capture and 

control from wet-out areas that are 

captured by an enclosure but are vented 

to the atmosphere and not to a control 

device, multiply each formula's annual 

usage by its appropriate emission 

estimation equation or factor and sum 

the individual results. 

(2) To calculate your annual 

uncontrolled emissions that escape from 

the enclosure on the wet-out area, 

multiply each formula's annual usage by 

its appropriate uncontrolled emission 

estimation equation or factor, sum the 

individual results, and multiply the 

summation by 1 minus the percent 

capture (expressed as a fraction). 

(3) To calculate your annual 

uncontrolled oven emissions, multiply 

each formula's annual usage by its 

appropriate uncontrolled emission 

estimation equation or factor and sum 

the individual results. 

(4) To calculate your annual 

controlled emissions, multiply each 

formula's annual usage by its 

appropriate emission estimation 

equation or factor and sum the 

individual results to obtain total annual 

controlled emissions. 

(e) Where a facility is calculating both 

uncontrolled and controlled emission 
P.30 

Federal Register/Vjok 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001 /Proposed Rules 40351 

estimation equations and factors, you 

must test the same formulae. In 

addition, you must develop botii sets of 

equations and factors from the same 

tests. 

§ 63.5875 How do I determine the capture 

efficiency of the enclosure on my wet-out 

area and the capture efficiency of my 

oven(s)? 

(a) The capture efficiency of a wet-out 

area enclosure is assumed to be 100 

percent if it meets the design and 

operation requirements for a permanent 

total enclosure specified in EPA Method 

204.. If a permanent total enclosure does 

not exist, then a temporary total 

enclosure must be constructed and 

verified using Method 204, and capture 

efficiency testing must be determined . 

using Methods 204B through E. 

(b) The capture efficiency of an oven 

is to be considered 100 percent . 

provided the oven is operated under 

negative pressure. 

§ 63.5880 How do I determine how much 

neat resin plus is applied to the line and 

how much neat gel coat plus is applied to 

the line? 

Use the following procedures to 

determine how much neat resin plus 

and neat gel coat plus is applied to the 

line each year. 

(a) Track formula usage by end 

product/thickness combinations. 

(b) Use in-house records to show 

usage. This may be either from 

automated systems or manual records. 

(c) Record daily the usage of each 

formula/end product combination on 

each line. This is to be recorded at the 

end of each run (i.e., when a changeover 

in formula or product is made) and at 

the end of each shift. 

(d) Sum the amounts from the daily 

records to calculate annual usage of 

each formula/end product combination 

by line. 

§ 63.5885 How do I calculate the percent 

reduction to demonstrate compliance? 

(a) Compliant line option. If all of 

your wet-out areas have permanent 

enclosures that meet the requirements of 

Method 204 for a permanent total 

enclosure, and all of your wet-out area 

emissions and oven emissions are 

vented to an add-on control device, use 

Equation 1 of this section to 

demonstrate compliance. In all other 

situations, use Equation 2 of this section 

to demonstrate compliance. 

PR: 

(Inlet)-(Outlet) 

X100 (Eq. 1) 

(Inlet) 

VWiere.* 

PR = percent reduction 

Inlet = emissions entering the control device, 

lbs per year 

Outlet = emissions exiting the control device 

to the atmosphere, lbs per year 

(WAEU + O u ) - (WAEC + Oc ) 

PR = ^ —.—^—i r-£ ^xl0 0 

WAE u + O u 

(Eq. 2) 

VWiere: Ou = uncontrolled oven emissions, lbs per Oc = controlled oven emissions, lbs per year 

PR = percent reduction ,A,Jeai „ _, . . (b) Averaging Option. Use Equation 3 

WAEU = uncontrolled wet-out area emissions, WAEC = controlled wet-out area emissions, o f ^ sectio n t 0 ca l c u l a t e percent 

lbs per year lbs per year reduction. 

PR = 

[ tn " I 

£wAEui+XOuj 

i=i j=i 

P 1 XWAEci+£0cj 

.i=i j=i 

[ m n | 

XWAEui+]TOujl 

x 100 (Eq. 3) 

i=l j=l 

VWiere.-

PR = percent reduction 

WAEUi = uncontrolled emissions from wetout area i, lbs per year 

OUJ ^uncontrolled emissions from oven j , lbs 

per year 

WAEci = controlled emissions from wet-out 

area i, lbs per year 

OCJ = controlled emissions from oven j , lbs 

per year 

i = number of wet-out areas 

j = number of ovens 

m = number of wet-out areas uncontrolled 

n = number of ovens uncontrolled 

o = number of wet-out areas controlled 

p = number of ovens controlled 

(3) Add-on control device option. Use 

Equation 1 of this section to calculate 

percent reduction. 

(4) Combination option. Use 

Equations 1 through 3 of this section, as 

applicable, to calculate percent 

reduction. 

§ 63.5890 How do I calculate an emission 

factor to demonstrate compliance? 

(a) Compliant line option. Use 

Equation 1 of this section to calculate an 

emission factor in lbs/ton. 

WAE B +WAE c + O u + O C)(10( ) 

(R + G) 

(Eq. 1) 

VWiere: 

E = emission factor in lbs/ton of resin and gel 

coat 

WAEU = uncontrolled wet-out area emissions, 

lbs per year 

WAEC = controlled wet-out area emissions, 

lbs per year 

Ou = uncontrolled oven emissions, lbs per 

year 

Oc = controlled oven emissions, lbs per year 

R = total usage of neat resin plus, tpy 

G = total usage of neat gel coat plus, tpy 

(b) Averaging option. Use Equation 2 

of this section to demonstrate 

compliance. 
P.31 

4035 2 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001 / Proposed Rules 

£wAEui +£WAEci +JT puj +XOcj" 

E = 

i=l i=l H H 

(R + G) 

• x 100 (Eq. 2) 

VWiere: 

E = emission factor in lbs/ton of resin and gel 

coat 

WAEUi = uncontrolled emissions from wetout area i, lbs per year 

WAECi = controlled emissions from wet-out 

area i, lbs per year 

= uncontr 

per year 

= controlli 

per year 

i = number of wet-out areas 

j = number of ovens 

m = number of wet-out areas uncontrolled 

n = number of ovens uncontrolled 

o = number of wet-out areas controlled 

p = number of ovens controlled 

R = total usage of neat resin plus, tpy 

G = total usage of neat gel coat plus, tpy 

(c) Combination option. Use 

Equations 1 and 2 of this section, as 

applicable, to demonstrate compliance. 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§ 63.5895 How do I monitor and collect 

data to demonstrate continuous 

compliance? 

(a) You must collect and keep a record 

of data as indicated in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS. 

(b) You must monitor and collect data 

as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(4) of this section. 

(1) Except for monitoring 

malfunctions, associated repairs, and 

required quality assurance or control 

activities (including, as applicable, 

calibration checks and required zero 

and span adjustments), you must 

conduct all monitoring in continuous 

operation (or collect data at all required 

intervals) at all times that the affected 

source is operating. 

(2) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring malfunctions, 

associated repairs, and required quality 

assurance or control activities for 

purposes of this subpart, including data 

averages and calculations, or fulfilling a 

minimum data availability requirement, 

if apphcable. You must use all the data 

collected during all other periods in 

assessing the operation of the control 

device and associated control system. 

(3) At all times, you must maintain 

necessary parts for routine repairs of the 

monitoring equipment. 

(4) A monitoring malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable failure of the monitoring 

equipment to provide valid data. 

Monitoring failures that are caused in 

part by poor maintenance or careless 

operation are not malfunctions. 

(c) You must collect and keep records 

of resin and gel coat use, HAP content, 

and operation where the resin is used if 

you are meeting any emission limits 

based on a point value. Resin use 

records may be based on purchase 

records if you can reasonably estimate 

how the resin is applied. The HAP 

content records may be based on 

Material Safety Data Sheets or on resin 

specifications supplied by the resin 

supplier. 

(d) If you initially demonstrate that all 

resins and gel coats meet the applicable 

point value emission limits, then resin 

and gel coat use records are not 

required. If after this initial 

demonstration, you change to a higher 

HAP resin or gel coat, or increase the 

resin or gel coat HAP content, or change 

to a higher emitting resin or gel coat 

application method, then you must 

either again demonstrate that" all resins 

and gel coats still meet the applicable 

point value emission limits, or begin 

collecting resin use records and 

calculate compliance on a 12-month 

rolling average. 

(e) You must record all times that wet 

area enclosures on any pultrusion 

machines are open, and resin is present 

in the resin bath. 

§ 63.5900 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the standards? 

(a) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each standard in 

§ 63.5805 that applies to you according 

to the methods specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) Compliance with emission limits 

for sources using add-on control devices 

is demonstrated following the 

procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SS. Sources using add-on controls may 

also use continuous emission monitors 

to demonstrate continuous compliance 

as an altemative to control parameter 

monitoring. 

(2) Compliance with emission limits 

using the point value system is 

demonstrated by maintaining a point 

Value less than or equal to the 

appropriate point value listed in Table 

3 or 5 of this subpart, on a 12-month 

rolling average, or by including in each 

compliance report a certification that all 

resins and gel coats meet the 

appropriate point value limits, as 

discussed in § 63.5895(d). 

(3) Compliance with the work practice 

standards in Table 4 of this subpart is 

demonstrated by performing the work 

practice required for your operation. 

' (b) You must report each deviation 

from each standard that applies to you 

in § 63.5805. The deviations must be 

reported according to die requirements 

in §63.5910. 

(c) With the exception provided in 

paragraph (d) of this section, during 

periods of startup, shutdown or 

malfunction, you must meet the 

emission limits and work practice 

standards that apply to you. 

(d) During periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction, you do not 

need to meet the standard(s) in 

§ 63.5805 that require an add-on control 

device, but you must operate your . 

affected source in accordance with the 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

plan and meet all standards that do not 

require the operation of the add-on 

control device. .-,,, ..<• Hj, . 

(e) Consistent with,§§ 63.6(e) and 

63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during 

a period of malfunction for those, 

affected sources and standards specified 

in paragraph (d) of this section are not 

violations if you demonstrate to the 

Administrator's satisfaction that you 

were operating in accordance with the 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

plan. The Administrator will determine 

whether deviations that occur during a 

period of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction are violations, according to 

the provisions in § 63.6(e). 

Notifications, Reports, And Records 

§ 63.5905 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

(a) You must submit all of the 

notifications in Table 13 of this subpart 

that apply to you, by the dates in Table 

13 of this subpart. The notifications are 

described more fully in subpart A, 

General Provisions, referenced in Table 

13. 

(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. 

§ 63.5910 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

(a) You must submit each report in 

Table 14 of this subpart that applies to 

• you. 

(b) Unless the Administrator has 

approved a different schedule for 

submission of reports under § 63.10(a), 
P.32 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001/Propose d Rules 40353 

you must submit each report by the date 

in Table 14 of this subpart and 

according to paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(5) of this section. 

(1) The first compliance report must 

cover the period beginning on the 

compliance date that is specified for 

your affected source in § 63.5800 and 

ending on June 30 or December 31, 

whichever date is the first date 

following the end of the first calendar 

half after the compliance date that is 

specified for your source in § 63.5800. 

(2) The first compliance report must 

be postmarked or delivered no later than 

July 31 or January 31, whichever date 

follows the end of the first calendar half 

after the compliance date that is 

specified for your affe'cted source in 

§63.5800. 

(3) Each subsequent compliance 

report must cover the semiannual 

reporting period from January 1 through 

June 30 or the semiannual reporting 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(4) Each subsequent compliance 

report must be postmarked or delivered 

no later than July 31 or January 31, 

whichever date is the first date 

following die end of the semiannual 

reporting period. 

(5) For each affected source that is 

subject to permitting requirements 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71,' and 

if the permitting authority has 

established dates for submitting 

semiannual reports pursuant to 

§ 70.6(3)(iii)(A) or § 71.6(3)(iii)(A), you 

may submit the first and subsequent 

compliance reports according to tile 

dates the permitting authority has 

established instead of according to the 

dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(c) The compliance report must 

contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (6) of this section: 

(1) Company name and address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official 

with that official's name, title, and 

signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, 

and completeness of the content of the 

report. 

(3) Date of the report and beginning 

and ending dates of the reporting 

period. 

(4) If you had a startup, shutdown or . 

malfunction during the reporting period 

and you took actions consistent with 

your startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction plan, the compliance report 

must include the information in 

§63.10(d)(5)(i). 

(5) If there are. no deviations from any 

emission limitations (emission limit and 

operating limit) that applies to you, and 

there are no deviations from the 

requirements for work practice 

standards in Table 4 of this subpart, a 

statement that there were no deviations 

from the emission limitations or work 

practice standards during the reporting 

period. 

(6) If there were no periods during 

which the continuous monitoring 

system (CMS), including a continuous 

emission monitoring system (CEMS), 

and operating parameter monitoring 

systems was out of control as specified 

in § 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there 

were no periods during the which the 

CMS was out of control during the 

reporting period. 

(d) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation (i.e., emission limit, 

operating limit) and for each deviation 

from tiie requirements for work practice 

standards that occurs at an affected 

source where you are not using a CMS 

to comply with the emission limitations 

or work practice standards in this 

subpart, the compliance report must 

contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (4) of this section and in 

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

This includes periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction. 

(1) The total operating time of each 

affected source during tiie reporting 

period. 

(2) Information on the number, 

duration, and cause of deviations 

(including unknown cause, if 

applicable), as applicable, and the -

corrective action taken. 

(e) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation (i.e., emission limit 

and operating limit) occurring at an 

affected source where you are using a 

CMS to comply with the emission 

limitation in this subpart, you must 

include the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (4) of this section and in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (12) of this 

section. This includes periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

(1) The date and time tiiat each 

malfunction started and stopped. 

(2) The date and time that each CMS 

was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(3) The date, time and duration that 

each CMS was out of control, including 

the information in § 63.8(c)(8).. 

(4) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

a period of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction, or during another period. 

(5) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviation during the reporting 

period and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(6) A breakdown of the total duration 

of thedeviations during the reporting 

period into those that are due to startup, 

shutdown, control equipment problems, 

process problems, other known causes, 

and other unknown causes. 

(7) A summary of the total duration of 

CMS downtime during the reporting 

period and the total duration of CMS 

downtime as a percent of the total 

source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(8) An identification of each 

hazardous air pollutant that was 

monitored at the affected source. 

(9) A brief description of the process 

units. 

(10) A brief description of the CMS. 

(11) The date ofthe latest CMS 

certification or audit. 

(12) A description of any changes in 

CMS, processes, or controls since the 

last reporting period. 

(f) Each affected source that has 

obtained a title V operating permit 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must 

report all deviations as defined in this 

subpart in the semiannual monitoring 

report required by § 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 

§ 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source 

submits a compliance report pursuant to 

Table 14 of this subpart along with, or 

as part of, the semiannual monitoring 

report required by § 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 

§ 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance 

report includes all required information 

concerning deviations from any 

emission limitation (including any 

operating limit) or work practice 

requirement in this subpart, submission 

of the compliance report shall be 

deemed to satisfy any obligation to • 

report the same deviations in the 

semiannual monitoring report. 

However, submission of a compliance 

report shall not otherwise affect any 

obligation the affected source may have 

to report deviations from permit 

requirements to the permit authority. 

(g) You should submit compliance 

reports and startup, shutdown, 

malfunction reports based on the 

requirements in Table 14 of this subpart. 

You do not need to consider the 

requirements in § 63.999 when 

submitting these reports. 

§ 63.5915 What records must I keep? 

(a) You must keep the records listed 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) A copy of each notification and 

report that you'submitted to comply 

with this subpart, including all 

documentation supporting any Initial 

Notification or Notification of 

Compliance Status'that you submitted, 

according to the requirements in 

§63.10(b)(2)(xiv). 

(2) The records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) 

through (v) related to startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction. 
40354 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001 /Proposed Rules 

(3) Records of performance tests, 

design, and performance evaluations as 

required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii). 

(b) If you use an add-on control 

device, you must keep all records 

required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, 

to show continuous compliance with 

this subpart. 

(c) You must keep all data, 

assumptions, and calculations used to 

determine point values for operations 

listed in Tables 3 and 5 of this subpart. 

(d) You must keep a certified 

statement that you are in compliance 

with the work practice requirements in 

Table 4 of this subpart, as applicable. 

(e) For a new or existing continuous 

lamination/ casting operation, you must 

keep the records listed in paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (4) of this section, when 

complying with the percent reduction 

and/or lbs/ton requirements specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 63.5805. 

(1) You must keep all data, 

assumptions, and calculations used to 

determine percent reduction and/or lbs/ 

ton as applicable; 

(2) You must keep a brief description 

of the rationale for the assignment of an 

equation or factor to each formula; 

(3) When using facility-specific 

emission estimation equations or 

factors, you must keep all data, 

assumptions, and calculations used to 

derive the emission estimation 

equations and factors and identification 

and rationale for the worst-case formula; 

and 

(4) For all emission estimation 

equations and emission factors, you 

must keep documentation that the 

appropriate regulatory agency has 

approved them. 

§ 63.5920 In what form and how long must 

I keep my records? 

(a) You must maintain all applicable 

records in such a manner that they can 

be readily accessed and are suitable for 

inspection according to § 63.10(b)(1). 

(b) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you 

must keep each record for 5 years 

following the date of each occurrence, 

measurement, maintenance, corrective 

action, report, or record. 

(c) You must retain your records of 

the most recent 2 years onsite, or your 

records must be accessible to an 

inspector while onsite. Your records of 

the remaining 3 years may be retained 

offsite. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 63,5925 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

Table 15 of this subpart shows which 

parts of the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. 

§63.5930 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be administered 

by us, the EPA, or a delegated authority 

such as your State, local, or tribal 

agency. If the EPA Administrator has 

delegated authority to your State, local, 

or tribal agency, then that agency has 

the authority to administer and enforce 

this subpart. You should contact your 

EPA Regional Office to find out if this 

subpart is delegated to your State, local, 

or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a State, local, or tribal agency under 

section 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the 

authorities contained in paragraph (c) of 

this section are not delegated. 

(c) The authorities that will not be 

delegated to State, local, or tribal 

agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (4) of this section: 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

emission standards in § 63.5805 under 

§ 63.6(g). 

(2) Approval of major alternatives to 

test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(a) and 

(f) and as defined in § 63.90. 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as 

defined in §63.90. 

(4) Approval of major alternatives to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. 

§ 63.5935 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40 CFR 

63.2, the General Provisions, and in this 

section as follows: 

Atomized mechanical application 

means application of resin or gel coat 

with spray equipment that separates the 

liquid into a fine mist. This fine mist 

may be created by forcing the liquid 

under high pressure through an 

elliptical orifice, bombarding a liquid 

stream with directed air jets, or a 

combination of these techniques. 

Bulk molding compound (BMC) 

means a putty-like molding compound 

that contains resins, catalysts, fillers, 

and reinforcements in a form that-is 

ready to mold. Bulk molding compound 

can be used in compression molding 

and injection molding operations to 

manufacture reinforced plastic 

composites products. 

BMC manufacturing means a process 

that involves the preparation of BMC. 

BMC manufacturing/mixing means a 

grouping of processes that involves . 

BMC manufacturing and/or mixing. 

Centrifugal casting means a process 

for fabricating cylindrical composites, 

such as pipes, in which composite 

materials are positioned inside a 

rotating hollow .mandrel and held in 

place by centrifugal forces until the part 

is cured. 

Charge means the amount of SMC or 

BMC that is placed into a compression 

or injection mold to complete one mold 

cycle. 

Cleaning means removal of composite 

materials, such as cured and uncured 

resin from equipment, finished surfaces, 

floors, hands of employees, or any other 

surfaces. 

Clear production gel coat means an 

unpigmented, unfilled, quick-setting 

resin used to improve the surface 

appearance and/or performance of 

composites. It can be used to form the 

surface layer of any composites other 

than those used fofmolds in tooling 

operations. 

Closed molding means a grouping of 

processes for fabricating composites in a 

way that HAP-containing materials are 

not exposed to the atmosphere except 

during the material loading stage (e.g., 

compression molding, injection 

molding, and resin transfer molding). 

Composite means a shaped and cured 

part produced by using composite 

materials. 

Composite materials means a 

combination ofthe following materials: 

resin, gel coat, monomer, catalyst, 

pigment, filler, and reinforcement. 

Compression molding means a closed 

molding process for fabricating 

composites in which composite 

materials are placed inside matched 

metal dies that are used to cure the 

materials under heat and pressure 

without exposure to the atmosphere. 

The composite materials used in this 

process are generally SMC or BMC. 

Compression/injection molding 

means a grouping of processes that 

involves the use of compression 

molding and/or injection molding. 

Continuous casting means a 

continuous process for fabricating 

composites in which composite 

materials are placed on an in-line 

conveyor belt to produce cast sheets that 

are cured in an oven. 

Continuous lamination means a 

continuous process for fabricating 

composites in which composite 

materials are typically sandwiched 

between plastic films, pulled through 

compaction rollers, and cured in an 

oven. This process is generally used to 

produce flat or corrugated products on 

an in-line conveyor. 

Continuous lamination/casting means 

a grouping of processes that involves the 

use of continuous lamination and/or 

continuous casting. 

Controlled emissions means those 

emissions that are vented from a control 

device to the atmosphere. 
P.34 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2,- 2001/Proposed Rules 4035 5 

Corrosion-resistant end-use 

applications means applications where 

the product is manufactured specifically 

for an application that requires a level 

of chemical inertness or resistance to 

chemical attack above that required for 

typical reinforced plastic composites 

products. These applications include, 

but are not limited to, chemical 

processing and storage; pulp and paper 

production; sewer and wastewater 

treatment; power generation; potable -

water transfer and storage; food and 

drug processing; pollution or odor 

control; metals production "and plating; 

semiconductor manufacturing; 

petroleum production, refining, and 

storage; mining; textile production; 

nuclear materials storage; swimming 

pools; and cosmetic production, as well 

as end-use applications that require 

high strengtii resins. 

Corrosion-resistant industry standard 

includes the following standards: ASEME 

RTP-1 or Sect. X; ASTM D5364, D3299, 

D4097, D2996, D2997, D3262, D3517, 

D3754, D3840, D4024, D4160, D4161, 

D4162, D4184, D3982, or D3839; ANSI/ 

AWWA C950; UL 1316 or UL 1746, or 

written customer requirements for 

resistance to specified chemical 

environments. 

Corrosion-resistant product means a 

product made with a corrosion-resistant 

resin and is manufactured to a 

corrosion-resistant industry standard, or 

a food contact industry standard, or is 

manufactured for corrosion-resistant 

end-use applications involving 

continuous or temporary chemical 

exposures. 

Corrosion-resistant resin means a 

resin that either: (1) Displays substantial 

retention of mechanical properties when 

undergoing ASTM C-581 coupon 

testing, where the resin is exposed for 

6 months or more to one of the 

following materials: material with a pH 

> 12.0 or < 3.0, oxidizing or reducing 

agents, organic solvents, or fuels or fuel 

additives as defined in 40 CFR 79.2. In 

the coupon testing, the exposed resin 

needs to demonstrate a minimum of 50 

percent retention of the relevant 

mechanical property compared to the 

same resin in unexposed condition. In 

addition, the exposed resin needs to 

demonstrate an increased retention of 

the relevant mechanical property of at 

least 20 percent when compared to a 

similarly exposed general-purpose resin. 

For example, if the. general-purpose 

resin retains 45 percent of the relevant 

property when tested as specified above, 

then a corrosion-resistant resin needs to 

retain at least 65 percent (45 percent 

plus 20 percent) of its property. The 

general-purpose resin used in the test . 

needs to have an average molecular 

weight of greater than 1,000, be 

formulated with a 1:2 ratio of maleic 

anhydride to phthalic anhydride and 

100 percent diethylene glycol, and a 

styrene content between 43 to 48 

percent; or 

(2) Complies with industry standards • 

that require specific exposure testing to 

corrosive media, such as UL 1316, UL 

1746, or ASTM F-1216. 

Doctor box means the box or trough 

on an SMC machine into which the 

liquid resin paste is delivered before it 

is metered onto the carrier film. 

Filament winding means an open 

molding process for fabricating 

composites in which reinforcements are 

fed through a resin bath and wound 

onto a rotating mandrel. The materials 

on the mandrel may be rolled out or 

worked by using nonmechanical tools 

prior to curing. Resin application to the 

reinforcement on the mandrel by means 

other than the resin bath, such as spray 

guns, pressure-fed rollers, flow coaters, 

or brushes is not considered filament 

winding. 

Filled means that fillers have been 

added to a resin such that the amount 

of inert substances is at least 10 percent 

by weight of the total resin plus filler 

mixture. 

Fillers means inert substances 

dispersed throughout a resin, such as 

calcium carbonate, alumina trihydrate, 

hydrous aluminum silicate, mica, 

feldspar, wollastonite, silica, and talc. 

Materials that are not considered to be 

fillers are glass fibers or any type of 

reinforcement and microspheres. 

Fluid impingement technology means 

a spray gun that produces an expanding 

non-misting curtain of liquid by the 

impingement of low-pressure 

uninterrupted liquid streams. 

Food contact industry standard 

means a standard related to food contact 

application contained in Food and Drug 

Administration's regulations at 21 CFR 

177.2420. 

Gel coat application means a process 

. where either clear production, 

pigmented production or tooling gel 

coat is applied. 

High strength resins means polyester 

resins which have a casting tensile 

strength of 10,000 pounds per square 

inch or more and which are used for 

manufacturing products that have high 

strength requirements such as structural 

members and utility poles. 

Injection molding means a closed 

molding process for fabricating 

composites in which composite 

materials are injected under pressure 

into a heated mold cavity that 

represents the exact shape of the 

product. The composite materials are 

cured in the heated mold cavity. 

Manual resin application means an 

open molding process for fabricating 

composites in which composite 

materials are applied to the mold by 

pouring or by using hands and 

nonmechanical tools, s.uch as brushes 

and rollers. Materials are rolled out or 

worked by using nonmechanical tools 

prior to curing. The use of pressure-fed 

rollers and flow coaters to apply resin 

is not considered manual resin 

application. 

Material storage means an ancillary 

process which involves keeping HAPcontaining materials, such as resins, gel 

coats, catalysts, monomers, and 

cleaners, in containers for any length of 

time. Containers may include bulk 

storage terminals, tanks, totes, vessels, 

and buckets. 

Mechanical resin application means 

an open molding process for fabricating 

composites in which composite 

materials (except gel coat) are applied to 

the mold by using mechanical tools 

such as spray guns, pressure-fed rollers, 

and flow coaters. Materials are rolled 

out or worked by using nonmechanical 

tools prior to curing. 

Mixing means the blending or 

agitation of any HAP-containing 

materials in vessels that are 5.00 gallons 

(18.9 liters) or larger. Mixing may 

involve the blending of resin, gel coat, 

filler, reinforcement, pigments, 

catalysts, monomers, and any other 

additives. 

Model point value equations means 

algebraic expressions that were derived 

to estimate the quantity of HAP emitted 

based on parameters that can be 

regulated. Parameters that can be 

regulated include resin and gel coat 

HAP content. Model point value 

. equations were derived for open 

molding and centrifugal casting 

processes. They are used to calculate 

point values that reflect the relative 

emission control status of a process. 

Model point value equations are not to 

be used to estimate actual emissions 

because not all parameters that are 

known to affect emissions are 

incorporated into the equations. 

Mo7d means a cavity or matrix into or 

onto which the composite materials are 

placed and from which the product 

takes its form. 

Neat gel coat plus means gel coat plus 

any organic HAP-containing materials 

that are added to the gel coat by the 

supplier or the facility, excluding 

catalysts and promoters. Neat gel coat 

plus does include any additions of 

styrene or methyl methacrylate 

monomer in any form, including in 

catalysts and promoters. 

Neat resin plus means neat resin plus 

any organic HAP-containing materials 
40356 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday , August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 

that are added to the resin by the 

supplier or the facility. Neat resin plus 

does not include any added filler, 

reinforcements, catalysts, or promoters. 

Neat resin does include any additions of 

styrene or methyl methacrylate 

monomer in any form, including in 

catalysts and promoters. 

Non-atomized mechanical 

application means the use of 

application tools otiier than brushes to 

apply resin and gel coat that do not 

create a fine liquid mist. Examples 

include flow coaters, pressure fed 

rollers, and fluid impingement 

technology spray guns. 

Noncorrosion-resistant resin means 

any resin other than a corrosionresistant resin or a tooling resin. 

Noncorrosion-resistant product means 

any product other than a corrosionresistant product or a mold. 

Operation means a specific process 

typically found at a reinforced plastic 

composites facility. Examples of 

operations are noncorrosion-resistant 

manual resin application, corrosionresistant mechanical' resin application, 

pigmented gel coat application, mixing 

and storage. 

Operation Group means a grouping of 

individual operations based primarily 

on mold type. Examples are open 

molding, closed molding, and 

centrifugal casting. 

Open molding means a process for 

fabricating composites in a way that 

HAP-containing materials are exposed 

to the atmosphere. Open molding 

includes processes such as manual resin 

application, mechanical resin 

application, filament winding, and gel 

coat application. 

Pigmented production gel coat means 

a pigmented quick-setting resin used to 

improve surface appearance and/or 

performance of composites. It can be 

used to form the surface layer of any 

composites other dian those used for 

molds in tooling operations. 

Point value means a relative measure 

of the use of emissions reductions 

techniques and their effectiveness. 

Model point value equations were 

developed for each open molding and 

centrifugal casting process to calculate 

point values, which have units of lbs of 

HAP emissions per ton of neat resin 

plus or neat gel coat plus used. Point 

values are calculated by using the 

appropriate model point value equation 

•for a given process, multiplied by any 

applicable control factors. Control 

factors are used to incorporate 

emissions reductions achieved from 

add-on control devices. 

Polymer casting means a process for 

fabricating composites in which 

composite materials are ejected from a 

casting machine or poured into an open; 

partially open, or closed mold and 

cured. After the composite materials are 

poured into the mold, they are not 

rolled out or worked prior to curing. 

The composite materials may or may 

not include reinforcements. Products 

produced by the polymer casting 

process include cultured marble 

products and polymer concrete. 

Pultrusion means a continuous 

process for manufacturing composites 

that have a uniform cross-sectional 

shape. The process consists of pulling a 

fiber-reinforcing material through a 

resin impregnation chamber or bath and 

through a shaping die, where the resin 

is subsequently cured. There are several 

types of pultrusion equipment, such as 

open bath, resin injection', and direct die 

injection equipment.' 

Resin transfer molding means a 

process for manufacturing composites 

whereby catalyzed resin is transferred or 

injected into a closed mold in which • 

fiberglass reinforcement has been 

placed. 

Sheet molding compound (SMC) 

means a ready-to-mold putty-like 

molding compound processed into sheet 

form. The molding compound is 

sandwiched between a top and a bottom 

film, and it contains resins, catalysts, 

fillers, chemical thickeners, mold 

release agents, reinforcements, and . 

other ingredients. Sheet molding 

compound can be used in compression 

molding to manufacture reinforced 

plastic composites products. 

SMC manufacturing means a process 

which involves the preparation of SMC. 

Tooling means mold production or 

repair. ' 

Tooling gel coat means a gel coat that 

is used to form the surface layer of 

molds. Tooling gel coats generally have 

high heat distortion temperatures, low 

shrinkage, high barcol hardness, and 

high dimensional stability. 

Tooling resin means a resin that is 

used to produce molds. Tooling resins 

generally have high heat distortion 

temperatures, low shrinkage, high 

barcol hardness, and high dimensional 

stability. 

Uncontrolled oven emissions means 

those emissions emitted from the oven 

through closed vent systems to the 

atmosphere and not to a control device. 

These emissions do not include 

emissions that may escape into the 

workplace through the opening of • 

panels or doors on the ovens or other 

similar fugitive emissions in the 

workplace. 

Uncontrolled wet-out area emissions 

means any or all of the following: 

Emissions from wet-out areas that do 

not have any capture and control, 

emissions that escape from wet-out area 

enclosures, and emissions from wet-out 

areas that are captured by an enclosure 

but are vented to the atmosphere and 

not to an add-on control device. 

Unfilled means that there has been no 

addition of fillers to a resin or that less 

than 10 percent of fillers by weight of 

the total resin plus filler mixture has 

been added. 

Vapor suppressant means an additive, 

typically a wax, that migrates to the 

surface of the resin during curing and 

forms a barrier to seal in the styrene and 

reduce styrene emissions. 

Vapor-suppressed resin means a resin 

containing a vapor suppressant added 

for the purpose of reducing styrene 

emissions during curing. 

Tables to Subpart WWWW of Part 63 

As required in §§ 63.5797, 

63.5798(a)(1) and (b), and 63.5810(a)(1), 

to calculate model point values for 

specific open molding and centrifugal 

casting process streams you must use 

the equations in the following table: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—MODEL EQUATIONS TO CALCULATE POINT VALUES FOR SPECIFIC OPEN 

MOLDING AND CENTRIFUGAL CASTING PROCESS STREAMS 

It your operation type is a new 

or existing . . . 

And you use . With . 

Use this Model Point Value (PV) 

Equation

 abc

. . . 

1. Open molding operation . a. Manual resin application i. Nonvapor-suppressed resin 

ii. Vapor-suppressed resin 

iii. Vacuum bagging/closed-mold curing with roll out. 

iv. Vacuum bagging/closed-mold curing without roll-out. 

PV = 0.028 x (%HAP)2-275 

PV = 0.028 x (%HAP)2275 x 

(1 - (0.5419 x VSR test value)) 

PV = 0.028 x (%HAP)2-275 x 

(1-0.2133) 

PV = 0.028 x (%HAP)"75 x 

(1-0.4554) 
P.36 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001 /Proposed Rules 40357 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—MODEL EQUATIONS TO CALCULATE POINT VALUES FOR SPECIFIC OPEN 

MOLDING AND CENTRIFUGAL CASTING PROCESS STREAMS—Continued 

If your operation type is a new 

or existing . . . 

And you use . With Use this Model Point Value (PV) 

Equation

 u|"=. . . 

b. Mechanical resin application. 

c. Filament winding 

2. Centrifugal casting operation. 

d. Gel coat application 

Centrifugal casting ...... 

i. Nonvapor-suppressed resin and 

atomized application. 

ii. Vapor-suppressed resin and 

atomised application. 

iii. Vacuum bagging/closed-mold curing with roll-out and atomized application. 

iv. Vacuum bagging/closed-mold curing without roll-out and atomized 

application. 

v. Nonvapor-suppressed resin and 

nonatomized application. 

vi. Vapor-suppressed resin and nonatomized application. 

vii. Closed-mold curing with roll-out 

and non atomized application. 

viii...Vacuum bagging/closed-mold curing without roll-out and nonatomized application. 

i. Nonvapor-suppressed resin 

ii. Vapor-suppressed resin 

Nonvapor-suppressed gel coat 

Nonvapor-suppressed resin 

PV = 0.028 x (%HAP)2-*-» 

PV = 0.028 x (%HAP)2-»-» 

(1 -(0.4559 x VSR test value)) 

PV = 0.028 x (%HAP)-»-«« 

(1-0.1535) 

PV = 0.028 

(1-0.3261) 

x (%HAP)2«5 x 

PV = 0.028 x (%HAP)"75 

PV = 0.028 x (%HAP)"75 ,; 

• (1 - (0.5419 x VSR test value)) 

PV = 0.028 x (%HAPp-"5 x 

(1-0.2133) 

PV = 0.028 x (%HAP)"TM x 

(1-0.4554) 

PV.= 1.675 x(%HAP)'-2" 

PV = 1.675 x (%HAP)'"' x 

(1 -(0.4693 x VSR test value)) 

PV = 0.890 x (%HAP)i"5 

PV= 11.16x(%HAP) 

a

To obtain, the model point value for an operation with an add-on control device multiply the PV above by the add-on control factor calculated 

using Equation 1 of §63.5810: The model point values have limits of lbs of HAP per ton of resin or gel coat applied. 

b

 Percent HAP means total weight percent of HAP in-1he resin or gel coat prior to the addition of fillers, catalyst, and promoters. 

<=VSR test value means the percent reduction in HAP. emissions expressed, as a decimal measured by the VSR test method. 

As required in §§63.5800 and 63.5840 you must demonstrate• compliance with the standards by the dates in the 

following table: 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PARTT63.^COMPLIANCE DATES FOR NEW AND EXISTING REINFORCED PLASTIC 

COMPOSITES FACILITIES 

if your facility is . And. Then you must comply by this date: 

1. An existing source 

2. An existing source that is an area source 

3. A new source ,.. 

4. A new source ... 

Is a major-source on or before the publication 

date of the final rule. 

Becomes a major source after the publication 

i '"date of the final rule. 

Is a major source at startup 

Is an area source at startup and becomes .a 

major source. 

i. [Date 3 years after the publication date of 

the final rule], or 

ii. You must.accept and meet an enforceable 

HAP emission limit below the major source 

threshold prior to [date 3 years after the 

publication date of final rule]. 

3 years after becoming a major source or 

[date 3 years after the publication date of 

the final rule], whichever is later. 

Upon startup or [publication date of the final 

rule], whichever is later. 

Immediately upon becoming a major source. 

As required in §§63.5805 (a) and (c), 63.5810(a) through (b), 63.5820(c), 63.5830, 63.5835, and 63.5900(a)(2), you 

must meet the appropriate emission limits in the following table: 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING SMALL BUSINESS SOURCES EMITTING .LESS 

THAN 250 TPY OF HAP, OR OTHER SOURCES EMITTING LESS THAN 100 TPY OF HAP 

If your operation type is . . . 

1. Open molding—corrosion-resistant (CR)b ..... 

2. Open molding—non-CR 

3 Open molding—tooling 

And you use . . . 

a. Mechanical resin application 

b. Filament winding '. 

c. Manual resin application 

a. Mechanical resin application-unfilled 

b.. Mechanical resin application-filled 

c. Filament winding 

d. Manual resin application 

a..Mechanical resin application 

b. Manual resin application 

Your emission limit is u. . . 

190 lb/ton. 

163 lb/ton. 

124 lb/ton. 

110 lb/ton. 

144 lb/ton. 

178 lb/ton. 

83 lb/ton. 

256 lb/ton. 

123 lb/ton. 
P.37 

40358 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING SMALL BUSINESS SOURCES EMITTING LESS 

THAN 250 TPY OF HAP, OR OTHER SOURCES EMITTING LESS THAN 100 TPY OF HAP—Continued 

If your operation type is . And you use . Your emission limit is a

, 

4. Open molding—products that require class 1 

fire and smoke ratings. 

5. Open molding—gel coat 

6. Centrifugal castings—CR 

7. Centrifugal casting—non-CR .. 

8. Pultrusion 

9. Continuous lamination/casting 

a. Mechanical resin application 

b. Filament winding 

c. Manual resin application 

a. Tooling gel coating 

b. White/off white pigmented gel coating 

c. All other pigmented gel coating 

d. Clear production gel coating 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A : 

575 lb/ton. 

253 lb/ton. ' 

311 lb/ton. 

394 lb/ton. 

265 lb/ton. 

377 lb/ton. 

504 lb/ton. 

536 lb/ton. 

396 lb/ton. 

Reduce total HAP emissions by at least 60 

weight percent. 

Reduce total HAP emissions by at least 58.5 

weight percent or not exceed an emission 

limit of 15.7 lbs of HAP per ton of neat 

resin plus and neat gel coat plus. 

a

 Emission limits for open molding and centrifugal casting expressed as lb/ton are point values calculated using the equations shown in Table 1 

of this subpart. You must be at or below these values based on a 12-month rolling average. 

b

 Corrosion-resistant applications also include high-strength products. 

As required in §63.5805 (a) through (d) you must meet the appropriate work practice standards in the following 

table: 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS 

For. You must. 

1. A new or existing closed molding operation using compression/injection molding. 

2. A new or existing cleaning operation 

3. A new or existing materials storage operation 

4. An existing pultrusion operation using a wet-area enclosure 

5. An existing SMC manufacturing operation 

6. An existing SMC manufacturing operation 

7. An existing SMC manufacturing operation 

8. A new or existing BMC manufacturing/mixing operation" 

9. An existing BMC manufacturing/mixing 

10. A new or existing BMC manufacturing/mixing operation0 

Uncover, unwrap or expose only one charge per mold cycle per compression/injection molding machine. 

Not use cleaning solvents that contain HAP. 

Keep containers that store HAP materials closed or covered except 

during the addition or removal of materials. 

Keep access panels, doors, and/or hatches closed whenever resin is in 

the bath, except that access panels, doors, and/or hatches may be 

open 30 minutes per 8-hour shift, or 45 minutes per 12-hour shift. 

Close or cover the doctor box on each SMC manufacturing machine. 

Fold or seal edges of SMC prior to storage and/or transport. 

Use a nylon film or a film with an equal or tower permeability to styrene 

than nylon to enclose SMC. 

Use mixer covers with no visible gaps present in the mixer covers. 

Not actively vent mixers to the atmosphere. 

Keep the mixer covers closed during mixing except when adding materials to the mixing vessels. 

"Containers of 5 gallons or less may be open when active mixing is taking place, or during periods when they are in process (i.e., they are actively being used to apply resin). For polymer casting mixing operations, containers of 21 gallons or less may be open while active mixing is taking place. 

As specified in §63.5805 (b) and (d), as an alternative to tiie 95 percent HAP emission reduction requirement, 

you may meet the appropriate emission limits in the following table: 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—ALTERNATIVE EMISSION LIMITS FOR OPEN MOLDING AND CENTRIFUGAL 

CASTING OPERATIONS WHERE THE STANDARD IS BASED ON A PERCENT REDUCTION REQUIREMENT 

If your operation type is . . . 

1. Open molding—corrosion-resistant (CR) 

2. Open molding—non-CR 

3. Open molding—tooling 

4. Open molding—products that require Class 1 Fire and Smoke 

Ratings. 

And you use .. . 

a. Mechanical resin application 

b. Filament winding 

c. Manual resin application 

a. Mechanical resin application-unfilled 

b. Mechanical resin application-filled 

c. Filament winding 

d. Manual resin application 

a. Mechanical resin application 

b. Manual resin application .: 

a. Mechanical resin application 

b. Filament winding 

c. Manual resin application 

Your emission limit 

isa . . 

10 lb/ton. 

9 lb/ton. 

7 lb/ton. 

8 lb/ton. 

6 lb/ton. 

9 lb/ton. 

4 lb/ton. 

13 lb/ton. 

7 lb/ton. 

29 lb/ton. 

13 lb/ton. 

16 lb/ton. 
P.38 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 40359 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—ALTERNATIVE EMISSION LIMITS FOR OPEN MOLDING AND CENTRIFUGAL 

CASTING OPERATIONS WHERE THE STANDARD IS BASED ON A PERCENT REDUCTION REQUIREMENT—Continued 

If your operation type is . . . 

5. Open molding—gel coat 

6. Centrifugal Casting—CR 

7. Centrifugal Casting—Non-CR 

And you use . . . 

a. Tooling gel coating 

b. White/off white pigmented gel coating 

c. All other pigmented gel coating 

d. Clear production gel coating 

N/A 

N/A 

Your emission limit 

is0 . . . 

20 lb/ton. 

14 lb/ton. 

19 lb/ton. 

26 lb/ton. 

27 lb/ton. 

20 lb/ton. 

•

 aThe emission limits are calculated using the equations shown in Table 1 of this subpart. You must be at or below these values based on a 

12-month rolling average. 

b

 Corrosion-resistant applications also include-high-strength products. 

As required in §§63.5810(a)(1), 63.5825(a),.63.5830(a), and 63.5870, you must conduct performance tests, performance 

evaluations, and design evaluation according to the requirements in the following table: 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS, PERFORMANCE 

EVALUATIONS, AND DESIGN EVALUATIONS FOR NEW AND EXISTING SOURCES USING ADD-ON CONTROL DEVICES 

For. You must. Using . According to the following requirements 

1. Each enclosure used to 

collect and route HAP 

emissions to an add-on 

control device. 

a. Determine the capture 

efficiency of each enclosure used to capture 

HAP emissions to sent to 

an add-on control device. 

EPA methods 204 and 204B through 

E in Appendix M of 40 CFR part 51, 

or. 

. An alternative test method that meets 

the data quality objectives and lower 

confidence limit approaches for alternative capture efficiency protocols 

and test methods confined in 40 CFR 

part 63 subpart KK, appendix A. 

. Each control device used 

to comply with an percent 

reduction requirement, or a 

point value limit. 

. Each control device used 

to comply with a emission 

factor limit for continuous 

lamination/continuous casting. 

Determine the control efficiency of each control device used to control HAP 

emissions. 

a. Determine the control efficiency of each control 

device used to control 

HAP emissions, or determine the mass HAP 

emission rate at the control device outlet. 

The appropriate test methods specified 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. 

The appropriate test methods specified 

in 40 CFR part 63 subpart SS. 

(1) Enclosures that meet the requirements for a permanent total enclosure are assumed to have a capture 

efficiency of 100%. Enclosures that 

do not meet permanent total enclosure requirements must determine 

the capture efficiency by constructing 

a temporary total enclosure according 

to the requirements of EPA Method 

204 and measuring the mass flow 

rates of the HAP in the exhaust 

streams going to the atmosphere and 

to the control device, or, 

(2) Use an alternative test method that 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix M. Follow the requirements in l.a.i (1) and (2) of this 

table. 

Testing and evaluation requirements 

are contained in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS. 

Testing and evaluation requirements 

are contained in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS. 

As required in § 63.5810(c), when selecting one resin point value for multiple operations you must use the values 

in the following table: 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—OPTIONS ALLOWING USE OF THE SAME RESIN ACROSS DIFFERENT 

OPERATIONS THAT USE THE SAME RESIN TYPE 

If your facility has the following resin application 

operation .. . 

The highest resin weight percent HAP content you can 

use for . . 

The point 

value 

assignd to 

all uses of 

this resin 

is . . . 

1. Corrosion-resistant (CR) nonatomized mechanical 

2. CR centrifugal casting 

a. CR mechanical 

b. CR filament winding ... 

c. CR manual 

d. CR centrifugal casting 

a. CR filament winding ... 

b. CR manual 

c. CR centrifugal casting 

48.3 

48.3 

48.3 

48.3 

48 

48 

48 

190 

190 

190 

190 

536 

536 

536 
40360 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—OPTIONS ALLOWING USE OF THE SAME RESIN ACROSS DIFFERENT 

OPERATIONS THAT USE THE SAME RESIN TYPE—Continued 

If yourfacility has the following resin application 

operation . . . 

The highest resin weight percent HAP content you can 

use for .. . 

42 

42 

45 

45 

45 

144 

144 

144 

110 

110 

35.5 

35.5 

33.9 

33.6 

55.1 

43 

The point 

value 

assignd to 

all uses of 

this resin 

IS . . . 

163 

163 

178 

178 

178 

42.8 

42.8 

42.8 

38 

38 

396 

396 

144 

83 

256 

256 

3. CR filament winding 

4. Non-CR filament winding 

5. Non-CR nonatomized filled mechanical ... 

6. Non-CR nonatomized unfilled mechanical 

7. Non-CR centrifugal casting 

8. Non-CR atomized filled mechanical 

9. Non-CR manual 

10. Tooling nonatomized mechanical 

11. Tooling atomized mechanical 

a. CR filament winding 

b. CR manual 

a. Non-CR mechanical (filled or unfilled 

b. non-CR manual .' .'. 

c. non-CR centrifugal casting 

a. non-CR nonatomized unfilled mechanical 

b. non-CR manual 

c. non-CR centrifugal casting 

a. non-CR manual 

b. non-CR centrifugal casting 

a. non-CR manual 

b. non-CR atomized filled mechanical 

a. non-CR manual 

a. Non-CR atomized unfilled mechanical .... 

a. tooling manual :..:... 

a. tooling manual 

As required in § 63.5860(b), you must demonstrate initial compliance with emission limits as specified in the following 

table: 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS 

For. 

That must meet the following emission 

limit. . . 

.You have demonstrated initial 

compliance 

if. . . 

1. Open molding and centrifugal casting operations. 

2. Open molding, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/casting, SMC manufacturing 

mixing/BMC manufacturing operations. 

3. Continuous lamination/casting operations ... 

4. Continuous lamination/casting operations 

a. A point value emission limit shown in Table 

3 or 5 of this subpart. 

Reduce total HAP emissions by.at least 95 

percent by weight. 

a. Reduce total HAP emissions by at least 

58.5 weight percent or. 

b. Not exceed an emission limit of 15.7 lbs. of 

HAP per ton of neat resin plus and neat gel 

coat plus 95 percent by weight. 

a. Reduce total HAP emissions by at least 95 

weight percent or. 

i. You have met the appropriate point value 

for these operations as calculated using the 

procedures in §63.5810 on a 12-month rolling average 1 year plus 30 days after the 

appropriate compliance date, or, 

ii. You demonstrate by using the appropriate 

point value model equations in Table 1 that 

all resins and gel coats considered,individually meet the appropriate point value emission limit. 

Total HAP emissions, based on the results of 

the capture efficiency and destruction efficiency testing specified in Table 6 of this 

subpart, are reduced by at least 95 percent 

• by weight. 

Total HAP emissions, based on the results of 

the capture efficiency and destruction efficiency testing specified in Table 6 of this 

subpart and the calculation procedures 

specified in §§63.5865 through 63.5890, 

. are reduced by at least 58.5 percent by 

weight. 

Total HAP emissions, based on the results of 

the capture efficiency and destruction efficiency testing specified in Table 6 of this 

subpart and the calculation procedures 

specified in §§63.5865 through 63.5890, do 

not exceed 15.7 lbs. of HAP per ton of neat 

resin plus and neat gel coat plus. 

Total HAP emissions, based on the results of 

the capture efficiency and destruction efficiency testing specified in Table 6 of this 

subpart and the calculation- procedures 

specified in §§63.5865 through 63.5890, 

are reduced by at least 95 percent by 

' weight or, 
P.40 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 40361 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS—Continued 

For. . . 

5. Pultrusion operations 

6. Pultrusion operations 

That must meet the following emission 

limit. . . 

b. Not exceed an emission limit of 1.47 lbs. of 

HAP per ton of neat resin plus and neat gel 

coat plus 95 percent by weight. 

a. Reduce total HAP emissions by at least 60 

percent by weight. 

a. Reduce total HAP emissions by at least 95 

percent by weight. 

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance 

if. . . 

Total HAP emissions, based on the results of 

the capture efficiency and destruction efficiency testing specified in Table 5 and the 

calculation procedures specified in 

§§63.5865-63.5890, do not exceed 1.47 

lbs. of HAP per ton of neat resin plus an 

neat gel coat plus. 

i. Total HAP emissions, based on the results 

of the capture efficiency and add-on control 

device destruction efficiency testing specified in Table 6 of this subpart, are reduced 

by at least 60 percent by weight, or 

ii. As part of the notification of initial compliance status, the owner/operator submits a 

certified statement that all pultrusion lines 

not controlled with add-on control device 

are using direct die injection and/or wetarea enclosures that meet • the criteria of 

§63.5825. 

i. Total HAP emissions, based on the results 

of the capture efficiency and add-on control 

device destruction efficiency testing specified in Table 6 of this subpart, are reduced 

by at least 95 percent by weight, or, 

ii. As part of the notification of initial compliance status, the owner/operator submits a 

certified statement that all pultrusion lines 

not controlled by an add-on control device 

are using direct die injection that meet the 

criteria of §63.5825. 

As required in § 63.5860(b), you must 

demonstrate initial compliance with 

work practice standards as specified in 

the following table: 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS 

For. That must meet the following standard . 

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance 

if. . . 

1. A new or existing closed molding operation 

using compression/injection molding. 

2. An existing SMC manufacturing operation 

3. An existing SMC manufacturing operation 

4. An existing SMC manufacturing operation 

5. A new or existing BMC manufacturing/mixing 

operation. 

6. An existing BMC manufacturing/mixing operation. 

Uncover, unwrap or expose only one charge 

per mold cycle per compression/injection 

molding machine. 

Close or cover the doctor box on each SMC 

manufacturing machine. 

Fold edges of SMC prior to storage and/or 

transport. 

Use nylon film or a film with an equal or lower 

permeability to styrene than nylon to enclose SMC. 

Use mixer covers with no visible gaps present 

in the mixer covers. 

Keep the mixer covers closed during mixing 

except when adding materials to the mixers. 

The owner or operator submits a certified 

statement in the notice of compliance status 

that only one charge is uncovered, unwrapped or exposed per mold cycle per 

compression/injection molding machine. 

The onwner or operator submits a certified 

statement in the notice of compliance status 

that the doctor box on each SMC manufacturing machine is closed or covered. 

The owner or operator submits a certified 

statement in the notice of compliance status 

that the edges of SMC are folded prior to 

storage and/or transport. 

The owner or operator submits a certified 

statement in the notice of compliance status 

that a nylon film or film with an equal or 

lower permeability to styrene than nylon is 

used to enclose SMC. 

The owner or operator submits a certified 

statement in the notice of compliance status 

that each mixer is equipped with a cover 

that does not contain any visible gaps. 

The owner or operator submits a certified 

statement in the notice of compliance status 

that mixer covers are closed during mixing 

except when adding materials to the mixers. 
40362 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 

P.41 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued 

For.: . 

7. An existing BMC manufacturing/mixing 

That must meet the following standard . . . 

Not actively vent mixers to the atmosphere .... 

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance 

if. . . 

The owner or operator submits a certified 

statement in the notice of compliance status 

. that mixers are not actively vented to the 

atmosphere. 

As required in § 63.5865(a), in order to comply with a percent reduction limit for continuous lamination lines 

and continuous casting lines you must determine the data in the following table: 

TABLE 10 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING CONTINUOUS LAMINATION 

LINES AND CONTINUOUS CASTING LINES COMPLYING WITH A PERCENT REDUCTION.LIMIT ON A PER LINE BASIS 

For each line where the wet-out ^rea And the oven You must determine . 

1. Has an enclosure that is riot a PTE and the 

captured emissions are controlled by an addon control device. 

a. Is uncontrolled 

2. Has an enclosure that is a PTE and the captured emissions are controlled by an add-on 

control device. 

a. Is uncontrolled 

3. Is uncontrolled a. Is controlled by an add-on control device 

4. Has an enclosure that isnot a PTE and the 

captured emissions are controlled by an addon control device. 

a. Is controlled by an add-on control device 

5. Has an enclosure that is a PTE and the captured emissions are controlled by an add-on 

control device. 

a. Is controlled by an add-on control device 

i. Annual uncontrolled wet-out area emissions; 

ii. Annual controlled wet-out area emissions; 

iii. Annual uncontrolled oven emissions; 

iv. The capture efficiency of the wet-out area 

enclosure; 

v. The" destruction efficiency of the add-on 

control device; and * 

vi. The amount of neat resin plus and neat gel 

coat plus applied, 

i. Annual uncontrolled wet-out area emissions;' 

ii. Annual controlled wet-out area emissions; 

iii. Annual uncontrolled oven emissions; 

iv. That the wet-out area enclosure meets the 

requirements of Method 204 for a PTE; 

v. The destruction efficiency of the add-on 

control device; and 

vi. The amount of neat resin plus and neat gel 

coat plus applied, 

i. Annual uncontrolled wet-out area emissions; 

ii. Annual uncontrolled oven emissions; 

iii. Annual controlled oven emissions; 

iv. The capture efficiency of the oven; 

v. The destruction efficiency of the add-on 

control device; and 

vi. The amount"of neat resin plus and neat gel 

coat plus applied, 

i. Annual uncontrolled wet-out area emissions; 

ii. Annual controlled wet-out area emissions; 

iii. Annual uncontrolled oven emissions; 

iv. Annual controlled oven emissions; 

v. The capture efficiency of the wet-out area 

enclosure; 

vi. Inlet emissions to the add-on control device; 

vii. Outlet emissions from the add-on control 

device; and 

viii. fhe amount of neat resin plus and neat 

gel coat plus applied 

i. That the wet-out area enclosure meets the 

requirements of Method 204 for a PTE; 

ii. The capture efficiency of the oven; and 

iii. The destruction efficiency of the add-on 

control device. 

As required in §63.5865, in order to comply with a percent reduction limit or a lbs/ton limit on an averaging 

basis for continuous lamination lines and continuous casting lines you must determine the data in the following table: 

TABLE 11 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING CONTINUOUS LAMINATION 

AND CONTINUOUS CASTING LINES COMPLYING WITH A PERCENT REDUCTION LIMIT OR A LBS/TON LIMIT ON AN AVERAGING BASIS 

. For each .. . 

1. Wet-out area 

That. . . 

Is uncontrolled 

You must determine 

Annual uncontrolled wet-out area emissions. 
P.42 

Federal Register/Vol,. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 40363 

TABLE 11 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING CONTINUOUS LAMINATION 

AND CONTINUOUS CASTING LINES COMPLYING WITH A PERCENT REDUCTION LIMIT OR A LBS/TON LIMIT ON AN AVERAGING BASIS—Continued 

For each -. . . 

2. Wet-out area ;....-..... 

3. Wet-out area 

4. Oven 

5. Line 

6. Add-on control device 

That. 

a. Has an enclosure that is not a PTE 

Has an enclosure that is a PTE 

Is uncontrolled ..: 

a. Is controlled or uncontrolled 

N/A '. 

You must determine 

i. The capture efficiency of the enclosure; and 

ii. Annual emissions that escape the enclosure. 

That the enclosure meets the requirements of 

Method 204 for a PTE. 

Annual uncontrolled oven emissions. 

J . The amount of neat resin plus applied; and 

ii. The amount of neat gel coat plus applied. 

Total annual inlet emissions; and total annual 

on outlet emissions. 

As required in § 63.5865(b), in order to comply witjh a lbs/ton emission limit for continuous lamination lines and 

continuous casting lines you must determine the data in the following table: 

TABLE 12 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING CONTINUOUS LAMINATION 

LINES AND CONTINUOUS CASTING LINES COMPLYING WITH A LBS/TON ON A PER LINE BASIS 

For each line where the wet-out area And the oven You must determine . 

1. Is uncontrolled. 

2. Has an enclosure that-is not a PTE, and the 

captured emissions are controlled by an addon control device. 

a. Is uncontrolled 

a. Is uncontrolled 

3. Has an enclosure that is a PTE, and the 

captured emissions are controlled by an addon control device. 

a. Is uncontrolled 

4. Is uncontrolled a. Is controlled by an add-on control device 

5. Has an enclosure that is not a PTE and the 

captured emissions are controlled by an addon control device. 

a. Is controlled by an add-on control device 

6. Has an enclosure that is a PTE, and the 

captured emissions are controlled by ari addon control device. 

a. Is controlled by an add-on control device 

i. Annual uncontrolled wet-out area emissions; 

ii. Annual uncontrolled oven emissions; and 

iii. Annual neat resin plus and neat gel coat 

plus applied, 

i. Annual uncontrolled wet-out area emissions; 

ii. Annual controlled wet-out area emissions; 

iii. Annual uncontrolled oven emissions; 

iv. The capture efficiency of the wet-out area 

controlled enclosure; 

v. The destruction efficiency of the add-on 

control device; and 

vi. The amount of neat resin plus and neat gel 

coat plus applied, 

i. Annual uncontrolled wet-out area emissions; 

ii. Annual controlled wet-out area emissions; 

iii. Annual uncontrolled oven emissions; 

iv. That the wet-out area enclosure meets the 

requirements of Method 204 for a PTE; 

v. The destruction efficiency of the add-on 

control device; and 

vi. The amount of neat resin plus and neat gel 

coat plus applied, 

i. Annual uncontrolled wet-out area emissions; 

ii. Annual uncontrolled oven emissions; 

iii. Annual controlled oven emissions; 

iv. The capture efficiency of the oven; 

v. The destruction efficiency of the. add-on 

control device; and 

vi. The amount of neat resin plus and neat gel 

coat plus applied, 

i. Annual uncontrolled wet-out area emissions; 

ii. Annual controlled wet-out area emissions; 

iii. Annual uncontrolled oven emissions; 

iv. Annual controlled oven emissions; 

v. The capture efficiency of the wet-out area 

control enclosure; 

vi. The capture efficiency of the oven; 

vii. The destruction efficiency of the add-on 

control device; and 

viii. The amount of neat resin plus and neat 

gel coat plus applied, 

i. That the wet-out area enclosure meets the 

requirements of Method 204 for a PTE; 

ii. The capture efficiency of the oven; 

iii. Inlet emissions to the add-on control are 

device; and 

iv. Outlet emissions from the add-on control 

control device. 
P.43 

40364 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 

As required in §63.5905, you must determine the applicable notifications and submit them by the dates shown 

in the following table: -

TABLE 13 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY AND TIMING OF NOTIFICATIONS 

If your facility . 

1. Is an existing source subject to this regulation. 

2. Is a new source subject to this regulation 

3 as . Qualifies for a compliance extension 

specified in § 63.9(c) of subpart A. 

4. Is complying with model point value averaging provisions. 

5. Is complying with HAP content limits, application equipment requirements, or emission 

limit other than model point value averaging. 

6. Is complying by using an add = on control 

device. 

You must submit 

An Initial Notification containing the information specified in § 63.9(b)(2). 

The notifications specified in § 63.9(b)(3) to 

(5). 

A request for a compliance extension as 

specified in § 63.9(c). 

A Notification of Compliance Status as specified in § 63.9(h)." 

A Notification of Compliance Status as specified in § 63.9(h). 

a. A notification of intent <to conduct a performance test as specified in § 63.9(e). 

b. A notification of the date for the CMS performance evaluation as specified in 

§ 63.9(g). 

c. A Notification of Compliance Status as 

specified in § 63.9(h). 

By this date . 

No later than the dates specified in 

§ 63.9(b)(2). 

No later than the dates specified in 

§63.9(b)(4)and(5). 

No later than the dates specified in § 63.9(i). 

No later than 1 year plus 30 days after your 

facility's compliance date. 

No later than 30 calendar days after facility's 

compliance date. 

No later than the date specified in §63.9(e). 

The date of submission of notification of intent 

to conduct a performance, test. 

No later than 60 calendar days after the completion of the add-on control device performance test and CMS performance evaluation. 

I 

As required in § 63.5910(a) through (b) and (f) through (g), you must submit reports on the schedule shown in 

the following table: 

TABLE 14 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS 

You must submit a(n) 

1. Compliance report 

2. An immediate startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction 

report if you had a startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction 

during the reporting period 

that is not consistent with 

your startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction plan. 

The report must contain 

a. A statement that there were no deviations during that 

reporting period if there were no deviations from any 

emission limitations (emission limit, operating limit, 

opacity limit, and visible emission limit) that apply to 

you and there were no deviations from the require-

' ments for work practice standards in Table 4 of this 

subpart that apply to you. If there were no periods 

during which the CMS, including CEMS, and operating parameter monitoring systems, was out of control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the report must also 

contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out of control during the reporting period. 

b. The information in §63.5910(d) if you have a deviation from any emission the limitation (emission limit, 

operating limit, or work practice standard) during the 

reporting period. If there were periods during which 

the CMS, including CEMS, and operating parameter 

monitoring systems, was out of control, as specified 

in § 63.8(c)(7), the report must contain the infonnation in § 63.5910(e). 

c. The information in §63.10(d)(5)(i). If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period, and you took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. 

a. Actions taken for the event. 

b. The information in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). 

You must submit the report 

Semiannually according to the requirements in 

§63.5910(b). 

Semiannually according to the requirements in 

§63.5910(b). 

Semiannually according to the requirements ' in 

§63.5910(b). 

By fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting 

actions inconsistent with the plan. 

By letter within 7 working days after the end of the 

event unless you have made alternative arrangements with the permitting authority. (§63.10(d)(5)(ii)). 

As specified in §63.5925, the parts of the General Provisions which apply to you are shown in the following 

table: 
P.44 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 40365 

TABLE 15 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (SUBPART A) TO SUBPART 

WWWW OF PART 63 

' The general provisions reference . . . 

§63.1 (a)(1) 

§63.1(a)(2) through (4) 

i 

§63.1(a)(5) 

§63.1(a)(6) through (7) 

§63.1 (a)(8) 

§63.1(a)(9) 

§63.1(a)(10) through (14) ... 

§63.1(b)(1) 

§63.1(b)(2) 

§63 1(b)(3) 

•563.1(c)(1) 

§63.1 (c)(2) 

•563.1(c)(3) 

§63.1(C)(4) 

§63.1(c)(5) 

§63.1(d) 

§63.1(e) 

§63.2 

§63.3 

§63.4 

§ 63.5(a)(1) through (2) 

§63.5(b)(1) 

§63.5(b)(2)' 

•563.5(b)(3) 

§63.5(b)(4) 

§63.5(b)(5) 

«, 

563 5(b)(6) 

General applicability of the general provisions. 

General applicability of the general provisions. 

Reserved 

General applicability of the general provisions. 

General applicability of the general provisions. 

Reserved 

General applicability of the general provisions. 

Initial applicability determination 

Title V operating permit requirement 

Record of the applicability determination 

Applicability of this part after a relevant 

v> standard has been set under this part. 

Title V-operating permit requirement 

Reserved 

Requirements for an existing source that 

obtains an extension of compliance. 

Notification requirements for an area 

source that increases HAP emissions 

to major source levels. 

Reserved 

Applicability of permit program before a 

relevant standard has been set under 

this part. 

Definitions 

Units and abbreviations 

Prohibited activities and circumvention ... 

Applicability of construction and reconstruction. 

Relevant standards for new sources 

upon construction. 

Reserved 

New construction/reconstructed 

Construction/reconstruction notification .. 

Construction/reconstruction compliance 

Equipment addition or process change .. 

And applies to subpart 

WWWW of Part 63 . . . 

Yes 

Yes. 

No. • 

Yes.* 

Yes. 

No. 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes 

No. » 

Yes. 

Yes. 

No. 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No. 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Subject to the following additional 

information . . . 

Additional terms defined in subpart 

WWWW of Part 63; when overlap between subparts A and WWWW of Part 

63 of this part, subpart WWWW of 

Part 63 takes precedence. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 clarifies the 

applicability in §§63.5780 and 

63.5785. 

All major affected sources are required 

to obtain a title V permit. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 clarifies the 

applicability of each paragraph of subpart A to sources subject to subpart 

WWWW of Part 63. 

All major affected sources are required 

to obtain a title V operating permit. 

Area sources are not subject to subpart WWWW of Part 63. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 defines 

terms in §63.5935. When overlap between subparts A and WWWW of Part 

63 occurs, you must comply with the 

subpart WWWW of Part 63 definitions, 

which take precedence over the subpart A definitions. 

Other units and abbreviations used in 

subpart WWWW of Part 63 are defined in subpart WWWW of Part 63. 

§ 63.4(a)(4) is reserved and does not 

apply. 

Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of 

Part 63. 

Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of 

Part 63. 

Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of 

Part 63. 

Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of 

Part 63. 

Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of 

Part 63. 

Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of 

Part 63. 
40366 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 

TABLE 15 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (SUBPART A) TO SUBPART 

WWWW OF PART 63—Continued 

The general provisions reference .. . 

§63.5(c) 

§63.5(d)(1) 

§63.5(d)(2) 

663.5(d)(3) 

§63.5(d)(4) 

§ 63.5(e)(1) through (5) 

§ 63.5(f)(1) through (2) 

§63.6(a)(1) 

§63.6(a)(2) 

§63.6(b)(1) through (2) 

§63.6(b)(3) through (5) ..:.... 

§63.6(0(6) 

§63.6(b)(7) 

§63.6(c)(1) through (2) 

§63.6(c)(3) through (4) 

§63.6(c)(5) 

§63.6(d) 

§ 63.6(e)(1) through (2) 

§63.6(e)(3) 

§63.6(f)(1) .-. 

§'63.6(f)(23) 

§ 63.6(g)(1) through (3) 

§63.6(h) 

§63.6(i)(1) through (14) 

§63.6(i)(15) 

§63.6(0(16) 

§63.6(i) 

§63.7(a)(1) 

§63.7(a)(2) 

§63.7(a)(3) 

663.7(b)(1) 

§63.7(b)(2) 

§63.7(c) 

§63.7(d) 

§63:7(e)(1) through (4) 

§63.7(f) 

Reserved < 

General application for approval of construction or reconstruction. . 

Application for approval of construction .. 

Application for approval of reconstruction 

Additional information 

Approval of construction or reconstrucApproval of construction or reconstruction based on prior State 

preconstruction review. 

Applicability of compliance with standards and maintenance requirements. 

Applicability of area sources that increase emissions to become major 

sources. 

Compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources. 

Compliance dates for area sources that 

become major sources. 

Reserved 

Compliance dates for new sources resulting from new unaffected area 

sources becoming subject to standards. 

Compliance dates for existing sources ... 

Reserved , 

Compliance dates for existing area 

sources that become major. 

Reserved 

Operation & maintenance requirements 

Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 

and recordkeeping. 

Compliance except during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

.Methods for determining compliance 

Alternative standard 

Opacity and visible emission Standards 

Compliance extensions 

Reserved .-

Compliance extensions 

Presidential compliance exemption 

Applicability of performance testing requirements. 

Performance test dates 

Section 114 authority 

Notification of performance test 

Notification of rescheduled performance 

test. 

Quality assurance program, including 

test plan. 

Performance testing facilities 

Conditions for conducting performance 

tests. 

Use of alternative test method 

And applies to subpart 

WWWW of Part 63 . . . 

No. 

Yes 

" 

Yes. 

No. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes E 

No. 

Yes 

Yes 

No. 

Yes '. 

No. 

Yes. 

Yes 

No 

Yes. 

Yes. 

No 

Yes. 

No. 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes. 

No 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes. 

Subject to the following additional 

information .. . 

Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of 

Part 63. 

.. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 clarifies 

compliance dates in §63.5800. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 clarifies 

compliance dates in §63.5800. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 clarifies 

compliance dates in §63.5800. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 clarifies 

compliance dates in §63.5800. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 clarifies 

compliance dates in § 63.5800: 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 requires a 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

plan only for sources using add-on 

controls. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 requires 

compliance during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunctions, except 

startup, shutdown, and malfunctions 

for sources using add-on controls. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 does not 

contain opacity or visible emission 

standards. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 initial compliance requirements are in §63.5840. 

. 

• 

Except that the test plan must be submitted with the notification of the performance test. 

Performance test requirements are contained in §63.5850. Additional requirements for conducting performance 

tests for continuous- lamination/casting 

are included in §63.5865. 
P.46 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001 /Proposed Rules 40367 

TABLE 15 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (SUBPART A) TO SUBPART 

WWWW OF PART 63—Continued 

The general provisions reference . . . 

That addresses . 

And applies to subpart 

WWWW of Part 63 . . . 

Subject to the following additional 

information . . . 

§63.7(g) 

§63.7(h) 

§ 63.8(a)(1) through (2) 

§ 63.8(a)(3) 

§63.8(a)(4) 

§63.8(b)(1) 

§63.8(b)(2) through (3) 

§63.8(c)(1)(i) _. 

§63.8(0(1 )(ii) 

§ 63.8(0(1 )(iii) .:..... 

§63.8(0(2) through (3) 

§63.8(0(4) 

§ 63.8(c)(5) 

§63.8(0(6) through (8) 

§63.8(d) .,: 

§63.8(e)(1) 

§63.8(0(2) 

§ 63.8(e)(3) through (4) 

§63.8(e)(5)(i) 

§ 63.8(e)(5)(H) 

§ 63.8(f)(1) through (3) 

§63.8(f)(4) 

§ 63.8(f)(5) 

§ 63.8(f)(6) 

§ 63.8(g)(1) through (5) 

§ 63.9(a)(1) through (4) 

§63.9(0(1) 

§63.9(b)(2) 

§63.9(0(3) 

Performance test data analysis, recordkeeping, and reporting. 

Waiver of performance tests 

Applicability of monitoring requirements 

Reserved 

Monitoring requirements when using 

flares. 

Conduct of monitoring exceptions 

Multiple effluents and multiple monitoring 

systems. 

Ensure immediate repair or replacement 

of CMS parts to correct "routine'' or 

otherwise predictable malfunctions. 

Report CMS malfunctions that are not 

addressed by the startup, shutdown, 

and-malfunction plan. 

Compliance with CMS operation and 

maintenance requirements. 

Monitoring system installation 

CMS requirements 

COMS minimum procedures 

CMS calibration and periods CMS is out 

of control. 

CMS quality control program, including 

current test plan and all previous 

versions. 

Performance evaluation of CMS 

Notification of performance evaluation 

CMS requirements/alternatives 

Reporting performance evaluation results. 

Results of COMS performance evaluation. 

Use of an alternative monitoring method 

Request to use an alternative monitoring 

method. 

Approval of request to use an alternative 

monitoring method. 

Request for alternative to relative accu-

' racy test and associated records. 

Data reduction 

Notification requirements and general information. 

Initial notification applicability 

Notification for affected source with initial 

startup before effective date of standard. 

Notification that subject to the rule for 

new or reconstructed affected source 

with initial startup after effective date 

and for which an application for approval of construction or reconstruction is not required. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

No. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No .. 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No .. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes' 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

• CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 does not 

contain opacity standards. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 does not 

contain opacity standards. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

•CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 
40368 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001 /Proposed Rules 

TABLE 15 TO SUBPART" WWWW OF PART 63.^-APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (SUBPART A) TO SUBPART 

WWWW OF PART 63—Continued 

The general provisions reference . . . 

§63.9(b)(4)(i) through (iii) .... 

§63.9(b)(4)(iv) 

§63.9(b)(4)(v) 

§63.9(0(5) 

§63.9(c) 

§63.9(d) 

§63.9(e) 

§63.9(f) 

§63.9(g)(1) .....' 

-

§63.9(g)(2) 

§63.9(g)(3) 

§63.9(h)(1) through (3) 

§63.9(h)(4) 

§63.9(h)(5) through (6) 

§63.9(i) £• 

§63.9(j) 

§63.10(a)(1) through (7) 

§63.10(b)(1) 

§ 63E10(b)(2)(i) through (v) .. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi) 

§63.10(b)(2)(xii) 

§63.10(b)(2)(xiii) 

§63.10(b)(2)(xiv) 

§63.10(b)(3) 

§63.10(0(1) 

§63.10(0(2) through (4) 

§63.10(0(5) through (8) 

§63.10(0(9) : 

§63.10(d)(1) 

§63.10(0(2) 

§63.10(d)(3) 

§63.10(d)(4) 

§63.10(d)(5) 

§63.10(e)(1) through (3) 

That addresses . . . 

Notification for a new or reconstructed 

major affected source with initial startup after effective date for which an application for approval of construction 

or reconstruction is required. 

Reserved 

Notification for a new or reconstructed 

major affected source with initial startup after effective date for which an application for approval of construction 

or reconstruction is required. 

After effective date of standard, notification of intended construction or recon-' 

struction. . 

Request for compliance extension 

Notification of special compliance requirements for new source. 

Notification of performance test 

Notification of opacity and visible emissions observations. 

Additional notification requirements for 

sources using CMS. 

Notification of compliance with opacity 

emission standard. 

Notification that criterion to continue use 

of alternative to relative accuracy testing has been exceeded. 

Notification of compliance status 

Reserved 

Notification of compliance status 

Adjustment of submittal deadlines 

Change in information provided 

Applicability of recordkeeping and reporting. 

Records retention 

Records related to startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction. 

CMS records 

Record of waiver of recordkeeping and 

reporting. 

Record for alternative to the relative accuracy test. 

Records supporting initial notification 

and notification of compliance status. 

Records for applicability determinations 

CMS records 

Reserved 

CMS records 

Reserved 

General reporting, requirements 

Report of performance test results 

Reporting results of opacity or visible 

emission observations. 

Progress reports as part of extension of 

compliance. 

Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. 

Additional reporting requirements for 

CMS. 

And applies to subpart 

WWWW of Part 63 . . . 

Yes. ' 

No. 

Yes 

Yes. ...: 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

No 

Yes ..;. ~ 

No 

Yes 

Yes. 

No. 

Yes. 

Yes. . 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes .-. 

Yes 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes 

No. 

Yes ....: 

No. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

No 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes ....=: • 

Subject to the following additional 

information . . . 

Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of 

Part 63. 

Existing facilities do not become reconstructed under subpart WWWW of 

Part 63. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 does not 

contain opacity or visible emission 

standards. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 does not 

contain opacity emission standards. 

This section applies if you elect use a 

CMS to demonstrate- continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

Only applies to facilities that use an addon control device. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

" 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 

This section applies if you elect to use a 

CMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. . 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 does not 

contain opacity or visible emission 

standards. 

Only applies if you use-an add-on control device. 

This section applies if you have an addon control device and elect to use a 

CEM to demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limit. 
P.48 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 149/Thursday, August 2, 2001/Proposed Rules 40369 

. TABLE 15 TO SUBPART WWWW OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (SUBPART A) TO SUBPART 

WWWW OF PART 63—Continued 

The general provisions reference .. . 

663.10(e)(4) 

§63.10(f) 

§63.11 

§63.12 

§63.13 

§63.14 

§63.15 

That addresses . . . 

Reporting COMS data 

Waiver for recordkeeping or reporting .... 

Control device requirements 

State authority and delegations 

Addresses of State air pollution control 

agencies and EPA Regional Offices. 

Incorporations by reference 

Availability of information and confidentiality. 

And applies to subpart 

WWWW of Part 63 . . . 

No 

Yes. 

Yes 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Subject to the following additional 

information . . . 

Subpart WWWW of Part 63 does not 

• data contain opacity standards. 

Only applies if you elect to use a flare as 

a control device. 

[FR Doc. 01-17564 Filed 8-1-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P