[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 136 (Friday, July 14, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43842-43872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15505]



[[Page 43841]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat 
Manufacturing; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 43842]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6719-3]
RIN 2060-AG27


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat 
Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing boat manufacturing 
facilities. The processes regulated include fiberglass resin and gel 
coat operations, carpet and fabric adhesive operations, and aluminum 
boat painting operations. The EPA has identified boat manufacturing as 
a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), such as styrene, 
methyl methacrylate (MMA), methylene chloride (dichloromethane), 
toluene, xylenes, n-hexanes, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl 
ketone (MIBK), and methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane). These 
proposed standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards 
reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT). We estimate the proposed NESHAP would reduce nationwide 
emissions of HAP from these facilities by approximately 36 percent from 
the 1997 level of emissions.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before September 12, 2000.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by August 3, 2000, a public hearing will be held on 
August 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate 
if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 
(6102), Attention Docket Number A-95-44, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA 
requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed 
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina.
    Docket. Docket No. A-95-44 contains supporting information used in 
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Morris, Organic Chemicals Group, 
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5416, [email protected]. For 
public hearing information contact Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals 
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5607.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the 
information considered by the EPA in the development of this 
rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added 
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to 
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify 
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the 
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards 
and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the 
record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the 
CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this 
rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be 
mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Maria 
Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), 
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5607 
at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in 
attending the public hearing must also call Maria Noell to verify the 
time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will 
provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or 
arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.
    Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-
mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted 
as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption 
problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect'' version 
5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All comments and data submitted in 
electronic form must note the docket number: A-95-44. No confidential 
business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic 
comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mark Morris, c/o OAQPS 
Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel Hill 
Street, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information identified 
as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it 
is received by the EPA, the information may be made available to the 
public without further notice to the commenter.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the proposed NESHAP will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 
a copy of the proposed NESHAP will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information 
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

[[Page 43843]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                NAICS  code   SIC  code            Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial..........................       336612         3732  Boat manufacturing facilities that perform
                                                                 fiberglass production operations or aluminum
                                                                 coating operations.
                                                          3731  Shipbuilding and repair facilities that perform
                                                                 fiberglass production operations or aluminum
                                                                 coating operations.
Federal Government..................       336612         3731  Federally owned facilities (e.g., Navy
                                                          3732   shipyards) that perform fiberglass production
                                                                 operations or aluminum coating operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in section II.A. of this 
preamble. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:
I. Introduction
    A. What is the purpose of the proposed NESHAP?
    B. What is the statutory authority for the proposed NESHAP?
    C. What are the potential health effects of the HAP emitted by 
the boat manufacturing industry?
    D. How were the proposed NESHAP developed?
    E. What processes and operations constitute boat manufacturing?
II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP
    A. What sources and operations are subject to the proposed 
NESHAP?
    B. What pollutants are regulated by the proposed NESHAP?
    C. What do the proposed NESHAP require?
    D. What is the MACT model point value and how is it used in the 
proposed NESHAP?
    E. When must I comply with the proposed NESHAP?
    F. How do I demonstrate compliance with the proposed NESHAP?
    G. How do I demonstrate compliance if I use an enclosure and an 
add-on control device?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What facilities are affected by the proposed NESHAP?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the water quality impacts?
    D. What are the solid and hazardous waste impacts?
    E. What are the energy impacts?
    F. What are the cost impacts?
    G. What are the economic impacts?
IV. Rationale for the Proposed NESHAP
    A. How did EPA determine the source category to regulate?
    B. What pollutants are regulated under the proposed NESHAP?
    C. What is the ``affected source'' and how did EPA select the 
operations to be regulated by the proposed NESHAP?
    D. What is a new affected source?
    E. How did EPA determine the MACT floor for existing sources?
    F. How did EPA determine the MACT floor for new sources?
    G. Did EPA consider control options more stringent than the MACT 
floor?
    H. Why are some boat manufacturing operations not being covered 
by the proposed NESHAP?
    I. How did EPA select the format of the proposed NESHAP?
    J. How did EPA select the test methods for determining 
compliance with the proposed NESHAP?
    K. How did EPA determine the monitoring and recordkeeping 
requirements?
    L. How did EPA select the notification and reporting 
requirements?
V. Relationship to Other Standards and Programs under the CAA
    A. National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control 
Devices, Recovery Devices, and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a 
Process (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS)
    B. Shipbuilding and Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP (40 CFR Part 
63, Subpart II)
    C. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR Part 
63 Subpart JJ)
    D. Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating) NESHAP
    E. Relationship Between Operating Permit Program and the 
Proposed Standards
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

I. Introduction

A. What Is the Purpose of the Proposed NESHAP?

    The purpose of the proposed NESHAP is to protect the public health 
by reducing emissions of HAP from boat manufacturing facilities.

B. What Is the Statutory Authority for the Proposed NESHAP?

    The CAA was created, in part, ``* * * to protect and enhance the 
quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public 
health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population * * 
*'' (see section 101(b) of the CAA). The proposed NESHAP are consistent 
with the requirements of the CAA.
    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we promulgate regulations for 
the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the regulations to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable taking into consideration the cost 
of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air-quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control 
is commonly referred to as the maximum achievable control technology.
    We based the proposed NESHAP for boat manufacturing for new and 
existing sources on the MACT floor control level. The MACT floor is the 
minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 
112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that all major 
HAP emission sources achieve the level of control already achieved by 
the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each category. For 
new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission 
control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar 
source. The standards for existing sources can be less stringent than 
standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent 
of existing sources (or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
    We estimate that major sources in the boat manufacturing source 
category collectively emit 9,000 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (9,920 tons 
per year (tons/yr)) of HAP. A major source of HAP is defined as any 
stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous 
area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit, 
considering controls, in the aggregate, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) or more 
of any single HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr or more (25 tons/yr) of multiple HAP.

[[Page 43844]]

    In developing MACT, we also must consider control options that are 
more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more 
stringent than the floor based on the consideration of cost, non-air-
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Are the Potential Health Effects of the HAP Emitted by the Boat 
Manufacturing Industry?

    The following is a summary of the potential health and 
environmental effects associated with exposure, at some level, to 
emitted pollutants that the proposed NESHAP would reduce.
    Styrene. Humans exposed to styrene for short periods through 
inhalation may exhibit irritation of the eyes and mucous membranes, and 
gastrointestinal effects. Styrene inhalation over longer periods may 
cause central nervous system effects including headache, fatigue, 
weakness, and depression. Exposure may also damage peripheral nerves 
and cause changes to the kidney and blood. Chronic inhalation studies 
with animals have indicated that styrene affects the central nervous 
system, liver, and kidney, and irritates eye and nasal membranes. The 
EPA has developed a reference concentration of 1 milligram per cubic 
meter (mg/m \3\) for styrene based on central nervous system effects in 
exposed workers. Inhalation of this concentration or less over a 
lifetime would be unlikely to result in adverse noncancer effects. 
Epidemiological studies have suggested an association between styrene 
exposure and increased incidence of leukemia and lymphoma. The EPA 
considers this evidence to be inconclusive because of multiple chemical 
exposures and inadequate information on the levels and duration of 
exposure. Animal cancer studies have produced variable results but 
provide limited evidence for carcinogenicity. The EPA has not 
classified styrene with respect to carcinogenicity. The EPA is 
currently reviewing its assessment of styrene.
    Methyl methacrylate. Humans exposed to MMA for short periods 
through inhalation may experience depression of the central nervous 
system and irritation of the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. Dermal 
exposure may cause a severe allergic response. Short-term animal 
studies have indicated that MMA inhalation damages the liver and lung. 
Kidney and liver lesions have been observed in humans who ingested MMA 
over longer periods and in animals exposed either orally or by 
inhalation. Workers exposed through inhalation have indicated 
headaches, fatigue, sleeping disturbances, and irritability. Exposed 
workers have also suffered reproductive effects, including pregnancy 
complications in women and sexual disorders in both men and women. 
Fetal abnormalities have been reported in animals exposed to MMA by 
injection and inhalation. The EPA has developed a reference 
concentration of 0.7 mg/m \3\ for MMA. Inhalation of this concentration 
or less over a lifetime would be unlikely to result in adverse 
noncancer effects. Several animal studies observed no carcinogenic 
effects. The EPA has classified MMA in Group E, not likely to be 
carcinogenic in humans.
    Methylene chloride. Short-term exposure of humans to high-levels of 
methylene chloride affects the central nervous system, causing 
impairment of vision and hearing. These effects are reversible once 
exposure ceases. Long-term exposure also affects the central nervous 
system, causing headaches, dizziness, nausea, and memory loss. Studies 
of methylene chloride exposure to animals have indicated effects to the 
liver, kidney, and cardiovascular system. Animal studies have indicated 
that methylene chloride inhalation causes tumors of the lung, liver, 
and mammary glands. Based on this evidence, EPA has classified 
methylene chloride in Group B2, a probable human carcinogen, with an 
inhalation unit risk of 4.7  x  10-7 per microgram per cubic 
meter (g/m3).
    Toluene. Humans exposed to toluene for short periods may experience 
irregular heartbeat and effects to the central nervous system such as 
fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and nausea. Repeated exposure to high 
concentrations may induce loss of coordination, tremors, decreased 
brain size, and involuntary eye movements, and may impair speech, 
hearing, and vision. Chronic exposure to toluene in humans has also 
been indicated to irritate the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract, and 
to cause dizziness, headaches, and difficulty with sleep. Children 
exposed to toluene before birth may suffer central nervous system 
dysfunction, attention deficits, and minor face and limb defects. 
Inhalation of toluene by pregnant women may increase the risk of 
spontaneous abortion. The EPA has developed a reference concentration 
of 0.4 mg/m3 for toluene. Inhalation of this concentration 
or less over a lifetime would be unlikely to result in adverse 
noncancer effects. No data exist that suggest toluene is carcinogenic. 
The EPA has classified toluene in Group D, not classifiable as to human 
carcinogenicity.
    Xylenes. Short-term inhalation of mixed xylenes (a mixture of three 
closely related compounds) in humans may cause irritation of the nose 
and throat, nausea, vomiting, gastric irritation, mild transient eye 
irritation, and neurological effects. Long-term inhalation of xylenes 
in humans may result in central nervous system effects such as 
headache, dizziness, fatigue, tremors, and incoordination. Other 
reported effects include labored breathing, heart palpitation, severe 
chest pain, abnormal electrocardiograms, and possible effects on the 
blood and kidneys. Developmental effects have been indicated from 
xylene exposure via inhalation in animals. Not enough information 
exists to determine the carcinogenic potential of mixed xylenes. The 
EPA has classified xylenes in Group D, not classifiable as to human 
carcinogenicity.
    n-Hexane. Short-term inhalation exposure of humans to high levels 
of n-hexane causes mild central nervous system depression. Dermal 
exposure may cause irritation of the skin and mucous membrane. The 
nervous system effects include dizziness, giddiness, slight nausea, and 
headache in humans, with numbness in the extremities, muscular 
weakness, blurred vision, headache, and fatigue observed. Neurotoxic 
effects have also been exhibited in rats. Mild inflammatory and 
degenerative lesions in the nasal cavity have been observed in rodents 
chronically exposed through inhalation. The reference concentration for 
hexane is 0.2 mg/m3. The EPA estimates that inhalation of 
this concentration or less over a lifetime would not likely result in 
the occurrence of chronic noncancer effects. No information is 
available on the carcinogenic effects of hexane in humans or animals. 
The EPA has classified hexane as a Group D, not classifiable as to 
human carcinogenicity.
    Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). Short-term inhalation exposure to MEK in 
humans may irritate the eyes, nose, and throat, and cause central 
nervous system depression. Limited information is available on long-
term effects of MEK exposure to humans, but chronic inhalation studies 
in animals have indicated effects on the central nervous system, liver, 
and respiratory system. The EPA's reference concentration for MEK is 1 
mg/m3, based on decreased fetal birth weight in mice. 
Inhalation of this concentration or less over a lifetime would be 
unlikely to result in adverse noncancer effects. Limited data exist on 
carcinogenic effects of MEK. The EPA has classified MEK in Group D, not 
classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.

[[Page 43845]]

    Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK). Short-term exposure to MIBK may 
irritate the eyes and mucous membranes, and cause weakness, headache, 
and nausea. Long-term exposure by workers has been observed to cause 
nausea, headache, burning eyes, insomnia, intestinal pain, and slight 
enlargement of the liver. No information is available on reproductive 
or developmental effects of MIBK in humans, but studies with rats and 
mice have indicated neurological effects and increased liver and kidney 
weights. The EPA has not established a reference concentration or 
classified MIBK with respect to carcinogenicity.
    1,1,1-trichloroethane. Short-term inhalation exposure of humans to 
1,1,1-trichloroethane causes mild hepatic effects, central nervous 
system depression, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of 
consciousness, and decreased blood pressure. Cardiac arrhythmia and 
respiratory arrest may result from the depression of the central 
nervous system. After long-term inhalation exposure to 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, some liver damage was observed in mice and ventricular 
arrhythmias in humans. The reference concentration for 1,1,1-
trichloroethane is under review by EPA. The EPA has classified 1,1,1-
trichloroethane as a Group D, not classifiable as to human 
carcinogenicity, based on no reported human data and inadequate animal 
data.

D. How Were the Proposed NESHAP Developed?

    We consulted many representatives of the boat manufacturing 
industry, State and Federal representatives, and material and equipment 
vendors in developing the proposed NESHAP. We held a series of 
approximately 50 stakeholder meetings over a period of nearly 4 years. 
These meetings were held to keep stakeholders informed and to solicit 
data and information on issues relevant to the NESHAP development. 
Stakeholders helped in data gathering, arranged site visits, and 
reviewed questionnaires. Stakeholders also shared data, identified 
issues and provided information to help resolve issues in the 
rulemaking process.
    We identified the MACT floor control level with information 
obtained through questionnaire responses, site visits, telephone 
contacts, and operating permits.

E. What Processes and Operations Constitute Boat Manufacturing?

    The proposed NESHAP regulate fiberglass and aluminum boat 
manufacturing operations. The emissions from these boat manufacturing 
operations and processes are fugitive emissions. Fugitive emissions 
result from HAP evaporating from the resins, gel coats, solvents, 
adhesives, and surface coatings used in manufacturing processes.
    The following is a brief description of these processes and 
operations found at boat manufacturing facilities: fiberglass boat 
manufacturing operations; fabric and carpet adhesive operations; and 
aluminum boat surface coating operations.
    Fiberglass boat manufacturing operations. Fiberglass boats are 
built from glass fiber reinforcements laid in a mold and saturated with 
a polyester or vinylester plastic resin. The resin hardens to form a 
rigid plastic part reinforced with the fiberglass. The resin is mixed 
with a catalyst as it is applied that causes a cross-linking reaction 
between the resin molecules. The cross-linking reaction causes the 
resin to harden from a liquid to a solid.
    Fiberglass manufacturing processes are generally considered either 
``open molding'' or ``closed molding.'' In open molding, fiberglass 
boat parts are built ``from the outside in'' according to three basic 
process steps:
    (1) The mold is sprayed with a layer of gel coat, which is a 
pigmented polyester resin that hardens and becomes the smooth outside 
surface of the part.
    (2) The inside of the hardened gel coat layer is coated with a 
``skin coat'' of chopped glass fibers and polyester or vinylester 
resin.
    (3) Additional layers of fiberglass cloth or chopped glass fibers 
saturated with resin are added until the part is the final thickness.
    The same basic process is used to build or repair molds with 
tooling gel coat and tooling resin.
    In closed molding, the resin is applied to fabric placed between 
the halves of a two-piece mold. Three basic types of closed molding 
used in boat manufacturing are resin infusion molding, resin transfer 
molding (RTM), and compression molding with sheet molding compound 
(SMC).
    The polyester and vinylester resins that are used in fiberglass 
boat manufacturing contain styrene as a solvent and a cross-linking 
agent. Gel coats also contain MMA as a solvent, and styrene. Styrene 
and MMA are HAP, and a fraction evaporates during resin and gel coat 
application and curing. Resins and gel coats containing styrene and MMA 
are also used to make the molds used in producing fiberglass parts.
    Mixing is done to stir the resin or gel coat and promoters, 
fillers, or other additives before being applied to the parts. Some HAP 
from the resin and gel coat are emitted during the mixing process.
    Resin and gel coat application equipment requires solvent cleaning 
to remove uncured resin or gel coat when not in use. The resin or gel 
coat will catalyze in the hoses or gun if not flushed with a solvent 
after each use.
    Fabric and carpet adhesive operations. The interiors of many types 
of fiberglass boats and aluminum boats are covered with carpeting or 
fabric to improve the appearance, provide traction, or deaden sound. 
The material is bonded to the interior with contact adhesives. The HAP-
containing solvents, such as methylene chloride, toluene, xylenes, and 
methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), are used in these adhesives. 
The solvents evaporate as the adhesives dry.
    Aluminum boat surface coatings. Aluminum boat hull topsides and 
decks are painted with coatings applied with spray guns. These coatings 
may be high-gloss polyurethane coatings or low-gloss single-part 
coatings. These surface coatings often contain HAP solvents, such as 
toluene, xylenes, and isocyanates.
    The HAP-containing solvents are also used to clean surfaces before 
finishing (wipe-down solvents) and for cleaning paint and coating spray 
guns.

II. Summary of Proposed NESHAP

    This preamble section discusses the proposed NESHAP as they apply 
to ``you,'' the owner or operator of a new or existing boat 
manufacturing facility.

A. What Sources and Operations Are Subject to the Proposed NESHAP?

    The proposed NESHAP would regulate HAP from major sources that 
manufacture fiberglass boats or noncommercial, nonmilitary aluminum 
boats. Coating operations on aluminum commercial and military vessels 
are covered by the shipbuilding and repair NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart II).
    The proposed NESHAP apply to fiberglass boat manufacturers making 
all sizes and types of fiberglass boats using the operations listed 
below:
     All open molding operations, including pigmented gel coat, 
clear gel coat, production resin, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat.
     All closed molding resin operations.
     All resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning.
     All resin and gel coat mixing operations.
     All carpet and fabric adhesive operations.

[[Page 43846]]

    The proposed NESHAP apply to aluminum boat manufacturing facilities 
performing the operations listed below:
     All aluminum boat surface coatings and associated spray 
gun cleaning and wipe-down solvent operations.
     All carpet and fabric adhesive operations.

B. What Pollutants are Regulated by the Proposed NESHAP?

    The proposed NESHAP regulate the total HAP content in the materials 
used in each regulated operation. The proposed NESHAP do not set limits 
for individual species of HAP. The HAP emitted by boat manufacturing 
facilities typically include styrene, MMA, toluene, xylenes, methyl 
chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), MEK, n-hexane, and MIBK. However, 
the total HAP content limit includes all HAP listed in section 112(b) 
of the CAA.

C. What Do the Proposed NESHAP Require?

    The proposed NESHAP have various formats for the different 
operations being regulated. For open molding resin and gel coat 
operations, you must comply with a HAP emission limit that is 
calculated for your facility using MACT model point value equations, 
which are described in section II.D., for each open molding operation.
    You can demonstrate compliance with the HAP emissions limit for 
your facility either by (1) averaging emissions with the MACT model 
point value equations, (2) complying with equivalent material HAP 
content requirements for each type of open molding operation, or (3) 
using an add-on control device. The HAP emissions limit and equivalent 
HAP content requirements are the same for new and existing sources. You 
may use averaging for all of your open molding operations or only for 
some of them. For those operations not included in the emissions 
average, you must comply with one of the alternative provisions.
    For resin operations, different HAP content requirements apply to 
atomized and nonatomized resin application methods. The HAP content 
requirements for open molding are presented in table 2 of the proposed 
NESHAP. If you use an add-on control device to meet the emissions 
limit, the emissions limit is calculated using the MACT model point 
value operations and is in units of kilograms (kg) of HAP per megagram 
(1000 kg) of resin or gel coat consumed.
    As stated above, you may use a combination of compliance options 
for the different resin and gel coat operations within your facility. 
For example, a hull production line may use several resins and gel 
coats. The skin coat resin may comply with the HAP content 
requirements, while you may decide to use the averaging approach to 
comply by averaging between the laminating resin and production gel 
coats. In another example, you could include in the average all 
production resins and pigmented gel coats at your facility, but decide 
not to include clear gel coat, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat. You 
could also use averaging to use a mix of atomized and nonatomized resin 
application methods but at different HAP contents from those in table 2 
of the proposed NESHAP.
    Other operations regulated by the proposed NESHAP would be subject 
to work practice requirements or HAP content limits. Resin and gel coat 
mixing containers with a capacity of 208 liters (55 gallons) or more 
must be covered. Routine resin and gel coat application equipment 
cleaning operations must use zero-HAP solvents, but solvents used to 
remove cured resin or gel coat from equipment would be exempt. The 
containers used to hold the exempt solvent and to soak the equipment 
with cured resin and gel coat must be covered. Carpet and fabric 
adhesive operations must use zero-HAP adhesives. Aluminum boat wipedown 
solvents and surface coatings would be subject to HAP content limits. 
Aluminum boat spray gun cleaning operations would be subject to a work 
practice requirement. The NESHAP for these operations are the same for 
new and existing sources. The proposed NESHAP have no averaging 
compliance options for these operations. Today's proposed NESHAP 
contain the specific requirements for each operation regulated by this 
proposal.
    Compliance with all of the emissions limits in the proposed NESHAP 
are based on a 3-month rolling average except when an add-on control 
device is used. At the end of every month, you determine compliance for 
each operation based on the HAP content and material consumption data 
collected over the past 3 months. When an add-on control device is 
used, compliance is determined through a one-time test and subsequent 
monitoring.

D. What Is the MACT Model Point Value and How Is It Used In the 
Proposed NESHAP?

    The MACT model point value is a number calculated for each open 
molding operation and is a surrogate for emissions. The MACT model 
point value is a way to rank the relative performance of different 
resin and gel coat emissions reduction techniques. This approach allows 
you to create control strategies using different resin and gel coat 
emissions reduction techniques. The proposed NESHAP provide equations 
to calculate MACT model point values based on HAP content and 
application method for each material that you use. These MACT model 
point values are then averaged and compared to limits in the proposed 
NESHAP to determine if your open molding operations are in compliance.
    The MACT model point values have units of kilograms of HAP per 
megagram of resin or gel coat applied. It is important to note that the 
MACT model point values are surrogates for emissions, and the MACT 
model point value equations are used only for determining compliance 
with the emissions limit for open molding operations. The MACT model 
point value equations should not be used in other environmental 
programs for estimating emissions in place of true emission factor 
equations.
    The MACT model point value equations account only for HAP content 
and application method. Other factors (including curing time, part 
thickness, and operator technique) can have significant effects on 
emissions, and these factors are not accounted for in the MACT model 
point value equations. Determining the HAP content of materials and the 
method of application is relatively easy, but it is difficult to 
determine the other factors. Therefore, these factors are not included 
in the MACT model point value equations.

E. When Must I Comply With the Proposed NESHAP?

    Existing boat manufacturing facilities must comply within 3 years 
of the date the promulgated NESHAP are published in the Federal 
Register. New sources that commence construction after today's date 
must comply immediately upon startup or by the promulgation date, 
whichever is later.

F. How Do I Demonstrate Compliance With the Proposed NESHAP?

    Unless you are using an add-on control device, you must measure and 
record the HAP contents of all the materials regulated by the proposed 
NESHAP. You may determine HAP content using EPA Method 311, but you may 
also use documentation provided by the material manufacturer, such as a 
material safety data sheet (MSDS) or HAP data sheet to show compliance. 
Although you may use either EPA Method 311 or the manufacturer's 
documentation to show compliance, EPA will use EPA Method 311 results 
to

[[Page 43847]]

determine compliance if they differ from the manufacturer's 
documentation.
    Compliance with the HAP content limits is based on the weighted-
average HAP content for each material on a 3-month rolling-average 
basis. Compliance is determined at the end of every month (12 times per 
year) based on the past 3 months of data. To determine weighted-average 
HAP content, you will also need to monitor and record the amount of 
each regulated material used per month, as well as HAP content.
    If all of the material in a particular operation meets the 
applicable HAP content limit, then you would not need to record the 
amount of material used. Likewise, you would not need to perform and 
record any calculations to determine weighted-average HAP content.
    For open molding resin and gel coat operations, how you show 
compliance will depend on which compliance option you choose. For 
example, if you choose to average among several open molding resin and 
gel coat operations, you will have greater operating flexibility, but 
you will also need to do more recordkeeping and calculations to show 
compliance than if you comply with the HAP content limits. Also, you 
must complete an implementation plan for the open molding operations at 
your facility that are included in an averaging option. The 
implementation plan must describe the resin and gel coat materials you 
plan to use, their HAP contents, and how you will apply those materials 
so that you are in compliance. The plan must also include calculations 
showing that your choice of materials and application methods will 
achieve compliance.
    You must keep records of the HAP content of all materials that are 
subject to HAP content limits. You must also keep records of the amount 
of material used and any calculations you perform to determine 
compliance using weighted-average HAP contents or the averaging option 
for open molding operations. Every month, you must inspect the covers 
required by the work practice standards for resin and gel coat mixing 
containers and aluminum boat coating spray gun cleaners. You must also 
keep records of the results of these inspections and any repairs made 
to the covers. All records must be kept for 5 years (at least the last 
2 years of records must be kept onsite).
    Today's proposed NESHAP contain the specific monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for each operation regulated 
by this proposal.

G. How Do I Demonstrate Compliance If I Use an Enclosure and an Add-On 
Control Device?

    If you use an enclosure (such as a spray booth) and add-on control, 
you must use EPA Method 204 to prove that the enclosure is a total 
enclosure. If the enclosure is not a total enclosure, you must use a 
temporary enclosure to measure the fugitive emissions from the 
enclosure and the control device. Stack testing is used to determine 
compliance with the emissions limit. You must use either EPA Method 25A 
to measure emissions as total hydrocarbons (as a surrogate for total 
HAP) or EPA Method 18 for specific HAP.
    During and after the initial performance test, you must monitor and 
record certain control device parameters to ensure that the control 
device continues to be operated as it was during the test. For example, 
for thermal oxidizers, you must monitor and record combustion 
temperature and maintain the temperature above an allowable minimum 
value. The monitoring requirements for several add-on control devices 
(including absorbers, adsorbers, and condensers) are contained in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart SS, and are referenced in the proposed NESHAP. For 
other control devices not listed in subpart SS, you must identify 
parameters that demonstrate proper control device operation and have 
these parameters approved by the EPA. Monitored operating parameters 
must be kept within the allowable ranges to demonstrate compliance with 
the control device operating requirements.

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Facilities Are Affected by the Proposed NESHAP?

    There are approximately 119 existing facilities manufacturing 
fiberglass boats or aluminum boats that are major sources and would be 
subject to the proposed NESHAP. The rate of growth for the boat 
manufacturing industry is estimated to be five new facilities per year 
for the next 5 years.

B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    The 1997 baseline emissions from the boat manufacturing industry 
are approximately 9,000 Mg/yr (9,920 tons/yr). The proposed NESHAP 
would reduce HAP from existing sources by 3,220 Mg/yr (3,550 tons/yr) 
from the baseline level, a reduction of 36 percent. Table 2 shows the 
amount of HAP reduced by each type of operation.

      Table 2.--National Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Each Type of Operation (1997 Data)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Baseline emissions        Potential emissions
                                                             --------------------------        reductions
                          Operation                                         Percent of -------------------------
                                                                 Mg/yr        total        Mg/yr       Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production resin............................................        5,320         59.2        2,020           38
Tooling resin...............................................           80          0.9           30           43
Pigmented gel coat..........................................        2,440         27.0          330           14
Clear gel coat..............................................          190          2.1            5            2
Tooling gel coat............................................           40          0.4            7           19
Closed molding resin........................................           NE           NE           NE           NE
Resin and gel coat mixing...................................           NE           NE           NE           NE
Fiberglass application equipment cleaning solvents..........          130          1.5          130          100
Carpet and fabric adhesives.................................          543          6.0          540          100
Aluminum Wipedown Solvents..................................           60          0.7           40           65
Aluminum Boat Surface Coatings..............................          190          2.1          100           54
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Totals................................................        9,000  ...........        3,223          36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE means ``not estimated.''

    The proposed NESHAP will not result in any increase in other air 
pollution emissions. While combustion devices can result in increased 
sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen emissions, we do not expect 
anyone to comply by

[[Page 43848]]

installing new combustion devices during the next 5 years.

C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?

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

D. What Are the Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts?

    We estimate that the proposed NESHAP will decrease the amount of 
solid waste generated by the boat manufacturing industry by 
approximately 360 Mg/yr (400 tons/yr). The decrease in solid waste is 
directly related to switching to nonatomized resin application 
equipment (i.e., flowcoaters and resin rollers). Switching to 
flowcoaters results in a decrease in overspray because of a greater 
transfer efficiency of resin from flowcoaters to the part being 
manufactured. A decrease in resin overspray consequently reduces the 
amount of waste from disposable floor coverings, cured resin waste, and 
personal protective equipment (PPE) for workers. Disposable floor 
coverings are replaced on a periodic basis to prevent resin buildup on 
the floor. We estimate that solid waste generation of floor coverings 
will decrease by approximately 320 Mg/yr (350 tons/yr), and that cured 
resin solid waste will decrease by approximately 45 Mg/yr (50 tons/yr).
    Decreased overspray from flowcoaters will result in a decreased 
usage of PPE, which also consequently reduces the amount of solid 
waste. Workers who use flowcoaters typically wear less PPE than when 
using spray guns because of the reduced presence of resin aerosols and 
lower styrene levels in the workplace. Because we did not have 
information on the many different types of PPE currently used, we did 
not estimate this decrease in solid waste.
    Some facilities that switch from spray guns to flowcoaters may have 
a small increase of hazardous waste from the used flowcoater cleaning 
solvents. However, most facilities will not see an increase, and the 
overall impact on the industry will be small relative to the solid 
waste reductions. Nearly all flowcoaters require resin and catalyst to 
be mixed inside the gun (internal-mix) and must be flushed when work is 
stopped for more than a few minutes. External-mix spray guns do not 
need to be flushed because resin is mixed with catalyst outside the 
gun. Facilities that switch from external-mix spray guns to flowcoaters 
will use more solvent. Solvent usage should not change at facilities 
switching from internal-mix spray guns to flowcoaters.
    The most common flushing solvents are acetone and water-based 
emulsifiers. Only a couple of ounces of solvent are typically needed to 
flush the mixing chamber and nozzle of flowcoaters and internal-mix 
spray guns. We have observed during site visits that this small 
quantity of solvent is usually sprayed into the air or onto the floor 
coverings and allowed to evaporate.
    The EPA does not have adequate data to predict the potential 
solvent waste impact from switching to flowcoaters. The magnitude of 
the impact depends on the type of gun currently used (internal- or 
external-mix), the frequency of flushing, and the type of solvent used. 
However, because of the small amount of solvent used, and since most is 
allowed to evaporate, we believe the overall solvent waste increase 
will be small compared to the solid waste reductions.

E. What Are the Energy Impacts?

    We estimate that energy consumption for new and existing facilities 
will not increase. No new or existing facilities are expected to 
install add-on control devices to comply with the proposed NESHAP in 
the first 5 years after promulgation. One facility currently uses a 
thermal oxidizer to control some of their styrene and MMA emissions 
from fiberglass boat manufacturing operations. No increase in energy 
use is anticipated to comply with the proposed NESHAP.

F. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    We estimate that nationwide annual compliance costs for the 
existing facilities will be $14 million. This estimate includes 
annualized capital costs and increased material costs for purchasing 
more expensive, lower-HAP materials. Annual costs also include 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs. The estimated annual 
cost of reduced HAP is $4,350/Mg ($3,950/ton).
    Table 3 shows the estimated costs to reduce emissions from the 
operations at the 119 major source boat manufacturing facilities 
regulated by the proposed NESHAP.

                         Table 3.--Cost Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Nationwide
                                                           annual costs
                    Type of operation                      (millions) in
                                                           1998 dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production resin (including nonspray equipment).........            4.9
Pigmented gel coat......................................            2.1
Clear gel coat..........................................            0.05
Tooling resin...........................................            0.9
Tooling gel coat........................................            0.1
Resin and gel coat new product testing cost.............            0.5
Fiberglass application equipment cleaning...............            0.3
Resin and gel coat mixing...............................            0.04
Closed molding resin....................................            0
Aluminum and fiberglass boat carpet and fabric adhesives            2.5
 and application equipment..............................
Aluminum wipedown solvent...............................            0.03
Aluminum boat surface coating...........................            1.0
Monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting costs...........            1.6
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................           14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The capital costs would be for purchase of new resin application 
equipment, resin mixer covers, and adhesive application equipment. The 
estimated cost of new resin application equipment (flowcoaters) is 
$6,000 per unit (includes flowcoater, hoses, and resin and catalyst 
pumps). The estimated cost of new adhesive

[[Page 43849]]

application equipment is also approximately $6,000 per unit. The resin 
and gel coat mixer covers will be approximately $180 per year per 
container.
    No capital costs are predicted for mold construction or aluminum 
boat surface coating operations.

G. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    The EPA prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the 
primary and secondary impacts of the proposed NESHAP on the boat 
manufacturing market, consumers, and society. Because the 
characteristics of boats vary greatly throughout the industry, we 
evaluated the market by assessing the impacts on six separate market 
segments of the industry, including: outboard boats, inboard runabouts/
sterndrive, inboard cruisers/yachts, jet boats/personal watercraft, 
sailboats, and canoes. The total annualized social cost (in 1994 
dollars) of the proposed NESHAP on the industry is $13.0 million, which 
is 0.2 percent of total baseline revenue. Generally, the analysis 
indicates a minimal change in market prices and quantity of boats sold. 
Imports will increase negligibly, with a corresponding decrease in 
exports. The analysis also suggests a loss (at the maximum) of 48 
employees out of the 51,500 employees in the industry. The impacts on 
specific market segments are summarized in the table below.

  Table 4.--Economic Impact of Proposed NESHAP on Boat Market Segments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Change in
                                                 Change in      market
              Boat market segment                  price        output
                                                 (percent)    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outboard Boats................................          0.1         -0.3
Inboard Runabouts/Sterndrive..................          0.1         -0.1
Inboard Cruisers/Yachts.......................          0.0         -0.0
Jet Boats/Personal Watercraft.................          0.0         -0.0
Sailboats.....................................          0.1         -0.2
Canoes........................................          0.1         -0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis also predicts the number of facilities that would 
close as a result of the cost of complying with the proposed NESHAP. 
The EPA used market level information on total predicted change in 
quantity to infer how many plants would close if the quantity decrease 
was borne entirely by one (or more) facility. For example, if the 
market analysis predicts that 1,000 fewer boats are produced and the 
average facility produces 500 boats, then the impact is equivalent to 
two facility closures. Using this approach, the predicted reduction in 
quantity did not equal even one facility closure in any of the six 
market segments. While this does not mean that no facilities will close 
as a result of the proposed NESHAP, it does indicate that the proposed 
NESHAP have minimal total impacts, and that any facility closure will 
likely be the result of poor baseline cost conditions rather than a 
direct result of the compliance burden.

IV. Rationale for Proposed NESHAP

A. How Did EPA Determine the Source Category To Regulate?

    The proposed NESHAP applies to fiberglass boat and aluminum boat 
manufacturing facilities that are located at major sources of HAP. 
Section 112(c) of the CAA directs us to list each category of major 
source emitting any HAP listed in section 112(b). Boat manufacturing 
(major sources only) was included on the initial list of source 
categories published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The initial notice 
of the source category list stated that we would refine category 
descriptions during the rulemaking process, based on additional 
information available.
    We redefined the category to include aluminum boat manufacturing 
facilities (64 FR 63025, November 18, 1999). The initial source 
category definition included only fiberglass boat manufacturing 
operations. We added aluminum boat manufacturing facilities to the 
source category because many of these facilities are major sources of 
HAP. Aluminum boats are defined as noncommercial, nonmilitary aluminum 
boats. Aluminum commercial and military boats are not included in the 
source category because the HAP-emitting process in the construction of 
these boats (surface coatings) is regulated by the shipbuilding and 
repair NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart II).

B. What Pollutants Are Regulated Under the Proposed NESHAP?

    The proposed NESHAP regulate total HAP, rather than individual HAP 
compounds. A standard for total HAP simplifies compliance and 
enforcement, compared with standards for individual HAP compounds. 
Moreover, the proposed NESHAP will affect the formulation of chemical 
products used by the industry. It is not reasonable to regulate the 
content of individual constituents in these complex mixtures. Styrene 
is the HAP emitted in the largest magnitude (about 87 percent of 
emissions). Other HAP emitted from boat manufacturing facilities 
include MMA, methylene chloride (dichloromethane), toluene, xylenes, 
methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), n-hexane, and MIBK.

C. What Is the ``Affected Source'' and How Did EPA Select the 
Operations To Be Regulated by the Proposed NESHAP?

    The affected source is the combination of all regulated operations 
at a single boat manufacturing facility. The following regulated 
operations are typically performed at fiberglass boat manufacturing 
facilities and are part of the affected source:
     Open molding operations, including pigmented gel coat, 
clear gel coat, production resin, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat;
     Closed molding resin operations;
     Resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning 
operations; and
     Resin and gel coat mixing operations.
    Carpet and fabric adhesive operations are performed at both 
fiberglass boat and aluminum boat manufacturing facilities and are part 
of the affected source at those facilities.
    The following regulated operations are typically performed at 
aluminum boat manufacturing facilities and are part of the affected 
source:
     Aluminum wipedown solvent operations;
     Aluminum boat surface coating operations; and
     Aluminum coating spray gun cleaning operations.
    These are the typical operations found at fiberglass boat and 
aluminum boat manufacturing facilities, and we were able to determine 
MACT for these operations. If a single facility

[[Page 43850]]

manufactures both aluminum boat and fiberglass boats, the facility is a 
single affected source.
    Mold sealing and release agents, mold stripping and cleaning 
solvents, solvents used to clean cured resin and gel coat from 
application equipment, wood coatings, fiberglass hull and deck 
coatings, and antifoulant coatings are not covered by the proposed 
NESHAP. See section IV.H. for the rationale for why these operations 
are not regulated by the proposed NESHAP.
    We defined the affected source as the combination of all of these 
operations at a site to provide compliance flexibility. This broad 
source definition allows a manufacturer to determine compliance by 
averaging the HAP content of different products used throughout the 
facility within certain defined operations, and to use different 
application techniques as needed to meet product quality 
specifications. This approach is consistent with the way that the HAP 
content and application data were analyzed to determine the MACT floor.

D. What Is a New Affected Source?

    A new affected source is any fiberglass boat or aluminum boat 
manufacturing facility that meets both of these criteria:
     It began construction after today's date, and
     It is a new fiberglass or aluminum boat manufacturing 
operation at a site that does not presently contain any boat 
manufacturing operations.
    We selected this broad definition of new source for two reasons. 
First, the MACT for new and existing sources is the same, so there is 
no difference in emission control requirements for new and existing 
sources. Second, we concluded that it would be unreasonably costly to 
demonstrate compliance separately for both new and existing source 
operations that are located at the same site. Because the equipment is 
easily portable, it can be difficult to define exactly what would 
constitute a new line or operation. Also, it would be burdensome to 
monitor and record equipment and material usage for separate operations 
that were considered new and existing because the equipment is 
portable, and material is often dispensed from centralized bulk storage 
containers.
    Although some sources might be required to achieve compliance 
earlier under a narrower new source definition, the small emissions 
reductions do not justify the additional long-term compliance burden.

E. How Did EPA Determine the MACT Floor for Existing Sources?

    We determined separate MACT floors for each type of boat 
manufacturing operation based on data collected from about one-half of 
the major source boat manufacturers. We received data through 
questionnaire responses from 54 fiberglass and 13 aluminum boat 
manufacturers, site visits to 10 boat manufacturers (9 fiberglass and 1 
aluminum), and through telephone contacts and operating permits for 
several more boat manufacturers. The data collected from the fiberglass 
boat manufacturers represent both large and small companies, as well as 
power and sailboat manufacturers who build vessels ranging in size from 
small runabouts to large, luxury yachts. Therefore, we believe the data 
are representative of the fiberglass boat industry segment. Our 
database also includes all the major source aluminum boat manufacturers 
known to us; therefore, the database also accurately represents this 
industry segment.
    Using the data collected from boat manufacturers, we determined 
separate existing source MACT floors for each type of boat 
manufacturing operation (e.g., open molding operations, carpet and 
fabric adhesives operations). For each operation, the facilities were 
ranked from lowest to highest emitting. Emissions were computed as a 
facilitywide average for each operation to account for the variety of 
materials within each operation that are required to construct a boat. 
For open molding resin operations (production and tooling), we 
estimated the HAP using the MACT model point value equations. This 
approach takes into account the combined effect of application method 
and the HAP content of the resins used, but is not an estimate of 
actual HAP to the atmosphere.
    To determine MACT floors for the production resin operations, we 
evaluated open molding and closed molding as separate types of emission 
sources. Closed molding is a lower-emitting operation than open 
molding, but at this time has not been demonstrated to be generally 
applicable for all types of boats. Boat manufacturers typically use 
closed molding to achieve specific product qualities, such as two 
finished sides, higher fiber-to-resin ratios, or higher production 
levels that cannot be achieved with open molding. Therefore, closed 
molding operations were not used in setting the MACT floor for open 
molding.
    Also, we determined MACT floors separately for fiberglass and 
aluminum boat manufacturers because the regulated operations at these 
facilities differ. The one exception was for carpet and fabric adhesive 
operations, where the MACT floor analysis was based on a combined data 
set. Fiberglass and aluminum boat manufacturers both have carpet and 
fabric adhesive operations and use the same adhesives.
    We determined MACT floors based on the median facility of the 
lowest-emitting 12 percent for production resin, pigmented gel coat, 
tooling resin, tooling gel coat, resin and gel coat application 
equipment cleaning and carpet and fabric adhesives. For clear gel coat, 
closed molding resin, aluminum boat surface coatings, aluminum coating 
spray gun cleaning operations, and aluminum wipe-down solvents, we used 
the median of the five lowest-emitting facilities because we had data 
on fewer than 30 sources. We selected the median facility rather than 
the arithmetic average of the lowest-emitting facilities in order to 
represent the performance of an actual facility.
    A more detailed summary of the results of the MACT floor analysis, 
the data and the considerations used to determine the MACT floors for 
the boat manufacturing source category can be found in Docket No. A-95-
44.

F. How Did EPA Determine the MACT Floor for New Sources?

    We believe that the existing source MACT floor also represents the 
new source floor. The existing source MACT floor represents the 
greatest degree of emissions reductions that is achievable under all 
circumstances within each particular operation regulated by the 
proposed NESHAP.
    For new sources, the CAA requires the MACT floor to be based on the 
degree of emissions reductions achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. A variety of chemical materials and 
application methods are available for each operation within the boat 
manufacturing source category. The suitability of these materials and 
methods depends on several product and manufacturing requirements. 
These requirements typically include part size and shape, strength, 
durability, production volume and schedule, product mix, color, and 
worker safety.
    Therefore, an emission control option (e.g., HAP content and 
application method) that is applicable at one facility with a 
particular mix of these requirements may not be applicable at another 
facility with different requirements. While some facilities are using 
lower-HAP materials and techniques than represented by the existing 
source MACT floor, we do not

[[Page 43851]]

believe that the lowest-emitting options are universally applicable to 
all new boat manufacturers. Sometimes, the lower-HAP materials are used 
to produce particular colors and geometric shapes that do not represent 
the range of boats that are manufactured. Accordingly, the lowest-HAP-
emitting facilities may not be using materials or techniques that can 
be used by new sources in all circumstances.
    Some facilities do use the lower-HAP materials or techniques for 
particular products. However, we have no data to precisely define the 
particular combination of requirements where these lower-emitting 
options can be used and still maintain the minimum required strength 
and durability requirements of these products. These facilities, 
consequently, do not represent the new source MACT floor, and we are 
unable to establish subcategories for purposes of determining a more 
stringent MACT floor for new sources. The existing source MACT floor 
level of control is universally applicable to all boat manufacturers 
because it has been demonstrated at several different facilities that 
produce a range of products that represent the industry, and that use 
different combinations of materials and methods to achieve the 
emissions reductions. Therefore, the existing source MACT floor is 
achievable by all new sources and also represents the new source floor.

G. Did EPA Consider Control Options More Stringent Than the MACT Floor?

    Because no control options more stringent than the MACT floor are 
feasible for new and existing sources, we have determined that MACT for 
new and existing sources is the MACT floor level of control. We 
considered three potential options for MACT that might be more 
stringent than the MACT floors, but found that these options were not 
achievable. The options we considered were lower-HAP materials, zero-
HAP materials and add-on control devices. The following analysis 
applies equally to new and existing source MACT.
    As noted in the discussion of the new source MACT floor in the 
previous section, some facilities use materials with HAP contents lower 
than the new and existing source MACT floor. However, as also noted in 
that discussion, EPA does not have the data to define subcategories in 
which these lower-HAP materials can be used. Therefore, these lower-HAP 
materials are not a viable option more stringent than the MACT floor 
for new or existing sources.
    For carpet and fabric adhesives, as well as resin and gel coat 
application equipment cleaning solvents, the new and existing source 
MACT floor is zero-HAP materials. In these two cases, zero-HAP 
materials are also MACT for new and existing sources because no more 
stringent level of control is achievable.
    For the other operations regulated by the proposed NESHAP, no zero-
HAP substitutes are currently available. No zero-HAP substitutes for 
polyester and vinylester resins or gel coats have been demonstrated for 
large-scale production boat manufacturing. The zero-HAP alternatives 
for aluminum wipe-down solvents, such as acetone, are too volatile and 
flammable for this operation. No waterborne coatings or powder coatings 
have been demonstrated as substitutes for the solvent-borne coatings 
currently used in aluminum boat surface coating operations.
    We also evaluated add-on control devices. We are aware of one 
facility using a thermal oxidizer to control HAP from resin and gel 
coat operations in the manufacture of small jet boats. Thermal 
oxidizers are generally effective controls for HAP emission sources.
    The experience of the jet boat facility with thermal oxidation 
suggests that thermal oxidation has not been effectively demonstrated 
as a control option for boat manufacturing. During the MACT analysis, 
no emission test data were available to us or to the State permitting 
authority to confirm the performance of this control device. Also, 
after several years of operation, the facility had not received an 
operating permit with an enforceable emission limit and was still 
operating under an extension of their construction permit.
    Moreover, the facility with the thermal oxidizer uses restricted 
airflow to capture concentrated HAP near the surface of the molds. The 
restricted airflow management is feasible at this facility because the 
facility is dedicated to the construction of only two models of small 
jet boats, 4.4 and 5.5 meters (14.5 and 18 feet, respectively) long. 
The restricted airflow management was implemented with the intention to 
use robotics to apply some of the resin and gel coat.
    The restricted airflow management as practiced at this facility 
would not be suitable for other facilities in the industry. All other 
facilities produce a variety of products and parts and must have the 
operational flexibility to change product mix over time. Restricted 
airflow management would not be feasible in operations where workers 
apply the resin and gel coat, and a range of different types of boats 
are produced.
    Accordingly, we have concluded that thermal oxidizers have not been 
demonstrated for this industry. While theoretically feasible, we have 
no data to demonstrate the cost or the effectiveness of the thermal 
oxidizer at the air flow rates and HAP concentrations that exist at 
typical boat manufacturing plants.

H. Why Are Some Boat Manufacturing Operations Not Being Covered by the 
Proposed NESHAP?

    The proposed NESHAP would not regulate the following operations:
     Mold sealing and release agents;
     Mold stripping and cleaning solvents;
     Solvents used to clean cured resin and gel coat from 
application equipment;
     Wood coatings;
     Fiberglass hull and deck coatings; and
     Antifoulant coatings.
    We excluded wood finishing operations, fiberglass hull and deck 
coating operations, and antifoulant coating (bottom coating) operations 
because they are performed only by a relatively small percentage of 
boat manufacturers and are not typical of the majority of major source 
boat manufacturers. These three operations collectively account for 
about only 0.5 percent of HAP from major source boat manufacturers.
    The proposed NESHAP would not regulate mold sealing and release 
agents and mold stripping and cleaning solvents because we were unable 
to set MACT floors or determine MACT for these operations. In both 
cases, the information and data available to us suggest that mold 
maintenance practices, part shape and size, and production schedules 
determine emissions more than the HAP content of these materials. The 
EPA does not have sufficient data to identify and prescribe work 
practices to reduce emissions from these operations. Therefore, the 
proposed NESHAP do not regulate these materials. A more detailed 
explanation of why we could not determine the MACT is in Docket No. A-
95-44. These two operations collectively emit less than 1 percent of 
HAP from boat manufacturing.
    Most boat manufacturers in our database use mold sealing and 
release agents that contain only a small percentage of HAP (less than 
10 percent HAP) sold by two suppliers. Boat manufacturers use the same 
group of products but in different amounts leading to differences in 
facilitywide average HAP. Differences among facilities are probably due 
to differences

[[Page 43852]]

in facility-specific work practices that are dictated by production 
requirements, such as mold cycle time and frequency, the size and shape 
of parts, and mold maintenance. We do not have sufficient data to 
identify the MACT floor or MACT based on differences in work practices 
among facilities.
    Mold stripping and cleaning solvents are not regulated by the 
proposed NESHAP because we do not have sufficient data to determine a 
MACT floor. The amount of HAP used per unit of mold surface area 
applied depends on facility-specific mold maintenance practices and 
production requirements. These may include mold cycle time, how often 
the mold is used, and even whether the mold is stored indoors or 
outdoors. The size of the part may also influence mold maintenance. We 
do not have sufficient data to identify those differences in production 
requirements or work practices that determine mold cleaning solvent 
usage. Therefore, we cannot identify a MACT floor or MACT.
    We are not regulating solvents used for cleaning cured resin or gel 
coat from application equipment because we know of no emission 
controls. Cured resin or gel coat inside a gun is usually the result of 
operator error or an equipment failure. To clean cured resin and gel 
coat, an aggressive solvent is needed and no low-HAP alternatives are 
available. The equipment is usually soaked in a covered bucket 
resulting in little evaporation of the solvent. The amount of solvent 
needed per year is determined by the size of the facility, degree of 
operator error, and equipment failure rates. Because operator error and 
equipment failure are hard to predict, we could determine no basis for 
an annual limit of solvent usage that would be achievable by all 
facilities. The proposed NESHAP, therefore, allow HAP-containing 
solvents only for cleaning cured resin and gel coat from the 
application equipment. The use of HAP-containing solvents for routine 
gun flushing is prohibited.

I. How Did EPA Select the Format of the Proposed NESHAP?

    We decided to offer several formats for complying with the proposed 
NESHAP. The purpose of multiple formats is to provide the flexibility 
to comply in the most cost effective and efficient manner. We 
considered the following factors in selecting the format of the 
proposed NESHAP:
     The format must allow for multiple compliance techniques 
for the various types of facilities in the industry.
     The format must simplify compliance and ensure that the 
cost of compliance is not excessive.
     The format must be enforceable.
    The format of the proposed NESHAP is based on a combination of HAP 
content limits, equipment standards, and work practice standards. 
Section 112(h) of the CAA states that ``* * * if it is not feasible in 
the judgement of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission 
standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants, the 
Administrator may, in lieu thereof, promulgate a design, equipment, 
work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof * * *.'' 
Section 112(h)(2) further defines the phrase ``not feasible to 
prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' as any situation in which 
``* * * a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants cannot be emitted 
through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such 
pollutant, * * * or the application of measurement methodology to a 
particular class of sources is not practicable * * *.''
    In general, numerical emission limits are not feasible to prescribe 
or enforce. Most boat manufacturing operations occur in large buildings 
where emissions are released to the atmosphere through general building 
ventilation, windows, and doors. These emission points have high air 
volumes and low HAP concentrations that would pose unreasonably high 
costs to capture the emissions. Some coating operations are carried out 
in spray booths that are vented through a single stack, but these 
emissions also have high air volumes and low HAP concentrations. 
Therefore, the most reasonable format for these situations is to 
specify HAP content limits for materials, application equipment 
requirements, and work practices to minimize emissions.
    The formats of the proposed NESHAP include both numerical emission 
limits and work practice/equipment standards (HAP content limits and 
application equipment requirements). We included both types of formats 
so boat manufacturers could choose to comply using either averaging 
provisions, low-HAP materials and alternative application equipment, or 
add-on controls. However, very few boat manufacturers will probably 
choose to comply with emission limit controls because it is not 
practical to capture the emissions for use with add-on controls.
    The following subsections describe the selection of the formats for 
each type of limit included in the proposed NESHAP.
    HAP Content Limits for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Operations. 
The proposed NESHAP for open molding operations, resin and gel coat 
equipment cleaning solvents, and carpet and fabric adhesives include 
weight-percent HAP content limits for these materials. The HAP content 
is an accurate measure of the relative emission potential of materials. 
The HAP content is already reported on the material safety data sheet 
for each material. Therefore, HAP content can simplify compliance by 
allowing you to purchase compliant materials. If you add HAP to your 
materials before use, you must include the additional HAP in your HAP 
content calculations; do not include HAP catalysts used for resins and 
gel coats in the HAP content calculation.
    Emission Averaging Using Kilogram of HAP per Megagram of Material 
Applied. The proposed NESHAP for open molding operations include a HAP 
emissions limit that is kilogram of HAP per megagram of material 
applied. This format is used in the emissions averaging compliance 
option. This format was selected to provide compliance flexibility by 
allowing you to use varying HAP content materials and different 
application techniques in the open molding operations and average the 
emissions using the MACT model point value equations described in 
section II.D. The averaging approach will allow you to use higher-HAP 
materials and spray application techniques for some open molding 
operations while using lower-HAP materials and lower-emitting 
application methods for others.
    The proposed NESHAP do not allow you to average between open and 
closed molding resin operations. However, the EPA is soliciting 
comments on allowing averaging between open and closed molding 
operations under certain circumstances. Industry representatives have 
requested this option and have argued that it will encourage pollution 
prevention and long-term emissions reductions by encouraging the 
development of more widely applicable closed molding technologies.
    The EPA developed separate MACT floors and standards for open and 
closed molding processes because open molding is currently considered a 
separate manufacturing process from closed molding. The NESHAP for open 
molding require you to use low-emitting resins and application methods 
to reduce emissions. On the other hand, closed molding is an inherently 
low-emitting process, so the proposed NESHAP impose no additional 
requirements to reduce emissions from closed molding. Because today's 
proposed NESHAP have no numerical emission limit for closed molding, 
you cannot ``over control'' closed molding

[[Page 43853]]

for greater emissions reductions to offset excess emissions from open 
molding. Therefore, the proposed NESHAP do not include closed molding 
in the averaging approach that is based on a source-wide emission limit 
for resin and gel coat operations.
    The EPA is, however, considering the feasibility of allowing closed 
molding as a control technology in a source-wide limit in cases where 
the closed molding is used as a substitute or replacement for an 
existing open molding operation. Here, any reduction from switching to 
closed molding could be applied to excess emissions from other open 
molding operations. Consider, for example, a boat manufacturing 
facility that makes 16-foot and 20-foot boats on two separate lines 
using open molding. If the facility adopts closed molding on the 20-
foot line and ceases open molding, then this is an operational change 
that reduces emissions from the 20-foot boat line. The excess emissions 
reductions (above the level that would be required by the open molding 
standard) would allow the operator to use higher-HAP materials on the 
16-foot boat line.
    Under this proposal, EPA would allow averaging only when the closed 
molding resin application is a replacement for existing open molding 
resin application. This proposal includes this restriction because MACT 
for open molding resin application is nonatomized application of resin 
with 35 percent HAP content. If this restriction were not included, a 
facility spray applying a higher-HAP resin and using closed molding 
could comply without any emissions reductions simply by averaging the 
open and closed molding. Moreover, a facility that adds new closed 
molding capacity to increase production would be allowed to switch to 
higher HAP materials in their existing open molding operations. In 
these cases, the facility would not be reducing emissions from the open 
molding operations and would not be achieving an open molding control 
level equal to MACT (i.e., 35 percent HAP content and nonatomized 
application).
    Therefore, EPA is soliciting comments on allowing averaging between 
open and closed molding by including closed molding in a source-wide 
emission limit. Under this proposal, you could average open and closed 
molding if you meet all of the following three conditions: (1) Your 
facility must be an existing source that is operating prior to today's 
proposal date, (2) you must begin the closed molding operation after 
today's proposal date, and (3) the closed molding operation must 
replace an equivalent amount of open molding production capacity that 
existed before today's proposal date. The EPA welcomes comments on the 
feasibility of this approach, and whether it would provide any 
additional operating flexibility to existing boat manufacturing 
facilities or encourage more closed molding.
    HAP Content Limits for Aluminum Boat Surface Coatings. The proposed 
standard for aluminum boat surface coatings is expressed as mass of HAP 
per volume of coating solids. For coating operations, weight-percent 
HAP is not an accurate predictor of relative HAP. For this operation, 
the amount of coating needed to cover a surface is determined by the 
solids content of the coating. Coatings with similar weight-percent HAP 
contents, but different solids contents, will have different HAP 
because different amounts of coating will be needed for the same job.
    In addition, coatings often have low-HAP solvents added to control 
viscosity and achieve other coating liquid properties. Such low-HAP 
solvents reduce HAP content as weight-percent, but increase the volume 
needed to achieve the same dry-film thickness. The proposed format of 
mass of HAP per volume of coating solids assures that coatings are 
being compared on an equal basis.
    HAP Content Limit for Aluminum Wipe-Down Solvents. The proposed 
standard for aluminum wipe-down solvents is expressed as mass of HAP 
per volume of solids from aluminum primers or clear coats applied to 
bare aluminum. This format allows you to use a greater range of 
solvents and compares HAP on an equal basis.
    The data available to us indicate that weight-percent HAP content 
for the wipe-down solvents is not an accurate predictor of emissions. 
Some facilities using higher-HAP solvents have lower HAP per unit of 
coating applied than those using lower-HAP solvents. These data 
indicate it is possible to use some higher-HAP solvents more 
efficiently than lower-HAP solvents and, therefore, a limit on solvent 
HAP content could be counterproductive.
    Ideally, we would use HAP mass per unit surface area, but this is 
not practicable. It is not practical to measure or monitor the surface 
area to be cleaned prior to coating because of the complicated three-
dimensional shape of aluminum boats and the variety of boats produced. 
Therefore, the volume of solids of aluminum clear coat primer applied 
to bare aluminum was selected as a surrogate for the amount of surface 
area to be cleaned prior to coating.
    Selection of Averaging Time for Demonstrating Compliance. As a boat 
manufacturer, you must show compliance with the emissions limits in the 
proposed NESHAP on a 3-month, rolling-average basis. You must determine 
compliance at the end of each month from the data collected over the 
past 3 months. A 3-month averaging time provides a balance between 
operating flexibility and enforceability of the proposed standard. The 
3-month period is sufficiently long so that you can identify potential 
compliance problems and change your operations in time to maintain 
compliance. The rolling-average aspect provides an enforceable emission 
limit 12 times per year.
    Many boat manufacturers already track material usage monthly to 
comply with State regulations and permit requirements, so monthly 
tracking is consistent with current practice. Tracking on a more 
frequent basis would be unnecessarily burdensome. Boat manufacturers 
need a 3-month rolling-average period to respond to both short-term 
variations in HAP content that is inherent in all chemical products and 
short-term needs for higher-HAP materials.

J. How Did EPA Select the Test Methods for Determining Compliance With 
the Proposed NESHAP?

    The proposed NESHAP give you the option of complying by either 
meeting HAP content limits (among other requirements) or using an 
enclosure and add-on control device to meet numerical emission limits. 
The reference method for measuring the HAP content of resin, gel coat, 
adhesives, aluminum boat surface coatings, and wipe-down solvents 
subject to the proposed NESHAP is EPA Method 311 (Analysis of Hazardous 
Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection Into 
a Gas Chromatograph). This is an established method that is appropriate 
for measuring the types of HAP used in these materials. You may use 
alternative methods for measuring HAP content if approved by EPA.
    The proposed NESHAP do not require a compliance test for HAP 
content, nor do they require you to test every shipment of materials 
that you receive. You are responsible, however, for ensuring, by any 
means that you choose (e.g., periodic testing, manufacturers' 
certification), that the HAP content of your materials complies with 
the requirements of the proposed NESHAP. We may require you to conduct 
a test at any time using EPA Method 311 (or any approved alternative 
method) to confirm the HAP content in the compliance reports that you 
submit. If there is any inconsistency between the results of the

[[Page 43854]]

EPA Method 311 test and any other means of determining HAP content, the 
Method 311 results will govern.
    If you choose to use an enclosure and add-on control device, you 
must determine the capture efficiency of the enclosure and measure the 
HAP from the control device. To determine the capture efficiency of the 
enclosure, you must use EPA Method 204 (Criteria for and Verification 
of Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure). If the enclosure meets the 
criteria in EPA Method 204 for a permanent total enclosure, then you 
may assume that its capture efficiency is 100 percent. If the enclosure 
is not a total enclosure, then you must build a total temporary 
enclosure (TTE) around it that meets the definition of a TTE in EPA 
Method 204. You must then measure emissions from both the control 
device and the TTE and use the combined emissions to determine 
compliance.
    To measure HAP, you may use either EPA Method 18 (Measurement of 
Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography) to measure 
the sum of individual species of HAP or EPA Method 25A (Determination 
of Total Gaseous Organic Matter Concentration Using a Flame Ionization 
Analyzer) for total hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for total HAP. 
The EPA Method 25A allows you the flexibility to use a simpler method 
than EPA Method 18 that does not speciate HAP in cases where measuring 
THC is sufficient to demonstrate compliance. You can measure THC as a 
surrogate for total HAP if most of the THC emitted from an enclosure 
are HAP, such as styrene and MMA from resin and gel coat operations. 
For compliance determinations, the EPA will assume that all THC 
measured with EPA Method 25A are HAP.

K. How Did EPA Determine the Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements?

    The monitoring and recordkeeping requirements you must meet will 
depend on how you choose to comply with the proposed NESHAP. For each 
compliance option, the proposed monitoring and recordkeeping 
requirements are the minimum necessary to determine initial and ongoing 
compliance and are consistent with the general provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A).
    Compliance with HAP Content Limits. For all operations subject to 
HAP content limits, you must perform three tasks: monitor and record 
the HAP content of the material used, monitor and record the monthly 
consumption of the material, and record the computations to show that 
the weighted average HAP content over the past 3 months meets the 
standard. If all the materials used in an operation meet the HAP 
content limit, then you only need to record HAP content, and you do not 
need to track monthly consumption or record the computations.
    Compliance with Averaging Provisions. To comply with the averaging 
provisions for open molding operations, you must monitor and record HAP 
content, amount of material applied by spray, and the amount applied by 
nonspray; and you must record the computations needed to show 
compliance. You must use these data as well as the MACT model point 
value equations in the proposed NESHAP to calculate the HAP emitted for 
the materials used in that operation for the past 3 months. Compliance 
is then determined relative to the allowable HAP limit calculated for 
those operations for the past 3 months.
    Compliance with Equipment and Work Practice Standards. The proposed 
NESHAP require resin and gel coat mixing containers to be fitted with 
covers that have no visible gaps. The proposed NESHAP also require that 
aluminum coating spray guns be cleaned in enclosed gun cleaners or 
sprayed into containers that can be closed when not in use. You will be 
required to inspect container covers and enclosed gun cleaners each 
month to ensure the covers are in place and properly maintained. You 
must record the results of the inspections. The inspections should be 
sufficient to ensure that the covers are in place and properly 
maintained. We believe that monthly inspections are a reasonable 
interval because the nature of failure in these pieces of equipment is 
likely due to wear and tear and not a sudden failure. Longer time 
periods between inspections, however, would allow a failure to go too 
long before being repaired.
    The proposed NESHAP for production resin and tooling resin will 
require most manufacturers to use nonatomized resin application methods 
to comply. These methods include flowcoaters and pressure-fed resin 
rollers, among others. We could identify no parameters to monitor 
whether these methods were being used. Rather, compliance would be 
determined during enforcement inspections as to whether these methods 
were being used. As long as flowcoaters, pressure-fed resin rollers, or 
other similar devices are installed and operated according to 
manufacturer's specifications, they will comply with the requirements 
to use nonatomized resin application methods.
    Compliance for Sources Using Enclosures and Add-on Control Devices. 
You have the option of using an enclosure and add-on control instead of 
complying with HAP content or application equipment standards. The 
requirements in the proposed NESHAP are consistent with other air 
quality regulations that require capture and control of emissions. They 
are the minimum needed to demonstrate that the capture and control 
system is operated properly.
    You must initially demonstrate compliance with the emission limit 
by demonstrating that the enclosure is a total enclosure or by also 
measuring the fugitive emissions that escape the enclosure. You must 
also measure the efficiency of the add-on control using EPA Method 25A 
for THC (as a surrogate for HAP) or EPA Method 18 for HAP. The EPA 
Method 18 measures individual HAP that you sum to calculate total HAP.
    After the initial compliance test, you must monitor control device 
parameters to demonstrate that the control device continues to be 
operated as it was during the initial test. In the case of thermal 
oxidizers, you must monitor and record combustion temperature every 15 
minutes both during and after the performance test. You must calculate 
the average temperature achieved during the test. After the test, you 
must maintain the average temperature at or above the temperature 
achieved during the performance test. Temperature monitors and 
recorders are standard features on thermal oxidizers. For other 
devices, you must determine appropriate parameters to monitor and 
receive our approval to use these parameters.

L. How Did EPA Select the Notification and Reporting Requirements?

    The required notices and reports are the minimum needed to 
determine if you are subject to the proposed NESHAP and whether you are 
in compliance. You must submit an initial notification stating that you 
are subject to the proposed NESHAP. After the compliance date for your 
facility, you must submit a notification of your compliance status. You 
must also submit semiannual reports of your compliance status. If you 
have an add-on control device and you identify deviations, you must 
submit quarterly reports of your compliance status until we approve a 
request to return to semiannual reporting.
    If your facility is a new source, you will have additional 
preconstruction notification requirements. You will also have 
additional notification and

[[Page 43855]]

reporting requirements if you use an add-on control device, including 
notifications and reports for the control device performance test. 
These notification and reporting requirements are consistent with those 
specified in the general provisions (subpart A) for part 63 and are the 
minimum needed for us to determine compliance for sources with add-on 
control devices.
    The startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan specified by the 
general provisions will be required only for sources using an add-on 
control device and will apply only to the add-on control device. For 
operations not using a control device, the nature of the materials and 
equipment used to comply with the proposed boat manufacturing NESHAP is 
such that malfunctions will not lead to excess emissions.

V. Relationship to Other Standards and Programs Under the CAA

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

    If you use an add-on control device other than a thermal oxidizer 
to control emissions from resin and gel coat operations, you will need 
to comply with certain provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for 
add-on controls. The standards in subpart SS cited by the proposed 
NESHAP are applicable to most sources using an add-on control device. 
The proposed NESHAP cite these sections in subpart SS rather than 
repeating them in the proposed regulatory text.

B. Shipbuilding and Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, 
Subpart II)

    Coating operations on commercial or military aluminum boats and 
ships are subject to the Shipbuilding and Repair NESHAP. Today's 
proposed boat manufacturing NESHAP cover coating operations only on 
nonmilitary and noncommercial aluminum boats. Some boat manufacturers 
may be potentially subject to both NESHAP because they manufacturer 
both noncommercial, nonmilitary aluminum boats and either commercial or 
military vessels. However, there is no conflict between the two NESHAP 
because the coating operations on any single vessel would be subject to 
only one NESHAP depending on the intended function of that vessel.

C. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, 
Subpart JJ)

    Boat manufacturers, particularly builders of large yachts, build 
wood furniture (such as beds, cabinets, and partitions) into the boat 
interiors and finish this furniture with stains, sealers, and varnishes 
that are similar to finishing materials used for household furniture. 
However, wood furniture finishing operations on boats are not subject 
to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ, because the EPA has 
determined that wood furniture on a boat is integral to the boat cabin 
and is not comparable to the furniture regulated by 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart JJ (see Docket No. A-95-44). Wood surface coating operations 
are not covered by the proposed boat manufacturing NESHAP.

D. Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating) NESHAP

    The NESHAP for plastic parts are still being developed and could 
potentially cover antifoulant and hull and deck surface coating 
operations at fiberglass boat facilities.

E. Relationship Between Operating Permit Program and the Proposed 
Standards

    Under the operating permit program codified at 40 CFR parts 70 and 
71, all major sources subject to standards under section 111 or 112 of 
the CAA must obtain an operating permit (See Sec. 70.3(a)(1) and 
Sec. 71.3(a)(1)). Therefore, all major sources subject to the proposed 
NESHAP must obtain an operating permit. Area sources in this source 
category are not regulated by the proposed NESHAP, and, therefore, 
would not be required to obtain an operating permit unless a State with 
an approved operating permit program chooses to permit all nonmajor 
sources.
    Some boat manufacturers may be major sources based solely on their 
potential to emit even though their actual emissions are below the 
major source level. These boat manufacturers may choose to obtain a 
federally enforceable limit on their potential to emit so that they are 
no longer considered major sources and not subject to the proposed 
NESHAP. Sources that opt to limit their potential to emit (e.g., limits 
on operating hours or amount of material used) are referred to by the 
EPA as ``synthetic area'' sources. To become a synthetic area source, 
you must contact your local permitting authority to obtain an operating 
permit with the appropriate operating limits. These operating limits 
will then be federally enforceable under Sec. 70.6(b).
    The EPA believes that the boat manufacturing category could benefit 
from the development of a general permit. Under part 70, State 
permitting authorities are allowed to develop general permits for 
categories of sources containing numerous similar sources. In deciding 
which source should be covered by general permits, State regulators 
must consider three primary criteria: (1) Source categories covered by 
general permits should contain similar operations and emit pollutants 
with similar characteristics; (2) sources should not be subject to 
case-by-case standards; and (3) sources should be subject to the same 
or substantially similar requirements governing operation, emissions, 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping.
    There are several benefits to a general permit. If a general permit 
developed by a permitting authority has been approved after public 
participation and EPA and affected State review, the permitting 
authority may then grant or deny a general permit to a source without 
further public participation or EPA and affected State review. The 
action of granting or denying a general permit is also not subject to 
judicial review. Another benefit of a general permit that would be 
particularly advantageous for the boat manufacturing industry is that 
sources may use general permits strictly for the purposes of becoming 
synthetic area sources (i.e., limiting their potential to emit).

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

[[Page 43856]]

or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; 
or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An ICR document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. 1966.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail 
at the Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental 
Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
``[email protected],'' or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also 
be downloaded from the internet at ``http://www.epa.gov/icr.''
    The proposed NESHAP contain monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping requirements. The required notices and reports are the 
minimum needed by us to determine who is subject to the NESHAP and 
whether you are in compliance. The proposed recordkeeping requirements 
are the minimum necessary to determine initial and ongoing compliance. 
Based on reported information, we would decide which boat manufacturers 
and what records or processes should be inspected. The recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are consistent with the general provisions 
of 40 CFR part 63.
    These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically 
authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information 
submitted to us for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be 
safeguarded according to our policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, 
``Confidentiality of Business Information.''
    The EPA expects the proposed NESHAP to affect a total of 134 boat 
manufacturing facilities over the first 3 years. The EPA assumes that 
five new boat manufacturing facilities will become subject to the 
proposed NESHAP during each of the first 3 years. The EPA expects 119 
existing facilities to be affected by the proposed NESHAP, and these 
existing facilities will begin complying in the third year.
    The estimated average annual burden for the first 3 years after 
promulgation of the proposed NESHAP for industry and the implementing 
agency is outlined below. You can find the details of this information 
collection in the ``Standard Form 83 Supporting Statement for ICR No. 
1966.01,'' in Docket No. A-95-44.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Operating
                                                    Total        Labor       Capital        and         Total
                Affected entity                     hours        costs        costs     maintenance     costs
                                                                                            costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................................       10,343      635,526            0          895      636,421
Implementing agency............................        2,456      141,073            0            0      141,073
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA estimates that there are no capital or startup costs for 
these new facilities because they are expected to comply by limiting 
the HAP content of materials. The implementing agency would not incur 
any capital or startup costs.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. Control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental 
Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk 
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since 
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 
days after July 14, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of having 
its full effect if OMB receives it by August 14, 2000. The final rule 
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed rule. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local

[[Page 43857]]

officials early in the process of developing the proposed rule.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble 
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS 
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their 
concerns and the Agency's position supporting the need to issue the 
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of 
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a 
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review 
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification 
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely 
manner.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. No 
boat manufacturing facilities subject to the proposed NESHAP are owned 
by State or local governments. Therefore, State and local governments 
will not have any direct compliance costs resulting from this proposed 
rule. Furthermore, EPA is directed to develop the proposed NESHAP by 
section 112 of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the 
Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, we may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or we consult with those 
governments. If we comply by consulting, we are required by Executive 
Order 13084 to provide to the OMB in a separately identified section of 
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of our prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires us to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
communities.''
    Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments are 
believed to be affected by this proposed rule. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this proposed rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we 
must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    We have determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is 
approximately $14 million per year. This proposed rule contains no 
mandates affecting State, local, or Tribal governments. Thus, today's 
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 
205 of the UMRA.
    We have determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such 
governments or impose obligations upon them.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et 
seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 (SBREFA), requires us to give special consideration to the 
effect of Federal regulations on small entities and to consider 
regulatory options that might mitigate any such impacts. We must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless we certify that the 
rule will not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.'' Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule 
on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 
whose parent company has fewer than 500 employees; (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is ``any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.''
    We have determined that 66 out of the 2,307 small firms in the 
industry (2.9 percent) may be affected by this proposed rule. In a 
screening of impacts on these small firms, we found that 47 firms have 
costs that comprise less than 1 percent of firm revenues, and 19 firms 
have estimated compliance costs that exceed 1 percent of their 
revenues. Based on available data of industry profit margins, the 
average return on sales for the industry is 3.4 percent. Of the 19 
firms with costs greater than one percent of revenues, only one firm is 
estimated to experience costs exceeding 3 percent of revenues. Thus, 
reviewing the range of costs to be borne by small businesses in light 
of the 3.4 percent profit margins typical of this industry, the Agency 
has determined the costs are

[[Page 43858]]

typically small and, overall, do not constitute a significant impact on 
a substantial number. In addition, this proposed rule is likely to also 
increase profits at the 2,241 small firms that are not affected by the 
proposed rule due to the very slight increase in market prices. The 
economic impacts are summarized in section III.G. of this document and 
in the economic impact analysis contained in Docket No. A-95-44.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has tried to 
reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. We have met 
with ten of these small firms and their trade association. They have 
been fully involved in this rulemaking, and their concerns have been 
considered in the development of this proposed rule. In developing 
these proposed standards, we have provided the maximum degree of 
flexibility to minimize impacts on small businesses by providing 
several different compliance options, several of which require a 
minimum amount of recordkeeping and reporting. Also, these proposed 
standards, which are based on MACT floor level control technology, 
reflect the minimum level of control allowed under the CAA. Small 
businesses that are subject to the proposed rule will not be 
systematically impacted more than larger operations. We continue to be 
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we hereby certify 
that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Publication L. No. 104-113), all 
Federal agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards in 
their regulatory and procurement activities unless doing so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The 
NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual 
reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available 
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify 
voluntary consensus standards for use in emissions testing. The search 
for emissions testing procedures identified 16 voluntary consensus 
standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA standard 
reference methods. However, after reviewing the available standards, 
EPA determined that six of the candidate consensus standards identified 
for measuring emissions of HAP or surrogates subject to emission 
standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of 
equivalency, documentation and validation data. Nine of the remaining 
candidate consensus standards are under development or under EPA 
review. The EPA plans to follow, review and consider adopting these 
standards after their development and further review by EPA is 
completed.
    The ASTM D4457-85 (Reapproved 1991) is an acceptable alternative to 
EPA Method 311 for only dichloromethane (methylene chloride) and 1,1,1-
trichlorethane (methyl chloroform). The EPA is requesting comment on 
the incorporation by reference of ASTM D4457 for the purposes of the 
proposed NESHAP. Five consensus standards (ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-
89, ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS 9-94) are already 
incorporated by reference in EPA Method 311.
    The ASTM D6420-99 is currently under EPA review as an approved 
alternative to EPA Method 18. The EPA will compare this final ASTM 
standard to methods previously approved as alternatives to EPA Method 
18 with specific applicability limitations. These methods, designated 
as ALT-017 and CTM-028, are available through EPA's Emission 
Measurement Center Internet site at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/tmethods.html. 
The final ASTM D6420-99 standard is very similar to these approved 
alternative methods, which may be equally suitable for specific 
applications. The EPA plans to continue their review of the final 
standard and will consider adopting the ASTM standard at a later date.
    The EPA requests comment on compliance demonstration requirements 
proposed in this rulemaking and specifically invites the public to 
identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. Comments 
should explain why this regulation should adopt these voluntary 
consensus standards in lieu of EPA's standards. Emission test methods 
and performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be 
accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method 
validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method 
(if method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A was used).

H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and 
not on health or safety risks. Additionally, this proposed rule is not 
economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: June 12, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart VVVV to read as follows:

Subpart VVVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing

Sec.

What the Subpart Covers

63.5680   What is the purpose of this subpart?

[[Page 43859]]

63.5683   Does this subpart apply to me?
63.5686   How do I demonstrate that my facility is not a major 
source?
63.5689   What parts of my facility are covered by this subpart?
63.5692   How do I know if my boat manufacturing facility is a new 
affected source or an existing affected source?
63.5695   When must I comply with this subpart?

Standards for Open Molding Resin and Gel Coat Operations

63.5698   What emission standard must I meet for open molding resin 
and gel coat operations?
63.5701   What are my options for complying with the open molding 
emission standard?
63.5704   What are the general requirements for complying with the 
open molding emission standard?
63.5707   What is an implementation plan for open molding operations 
and when do I need to prepare one?
63.5710   How do I demonstrate compliance using MACT model point 
value averaging?
63.5713   How do I demonstrate compliance using compliant materials?

Demonstrating Compliance for Open Molding Operations Controlled by Add-
On Control Devices

63.5716   When must I conduct a performance test?
63.5719   How do I conduct a performance test?
63.5722   How do I use the performance test data to demonstrate 
initial compliance?
63.5725   What are the requirements for monitoring and demonstrating 
continuous compliance?

Standards for Closed Molding Resin Operations

63.5728   What standards must I meet for closed molding resin 
operations?

Standards for Resin and Gel Coat Mixing Operations

63.5731   What standards must I meet for resin and gel coat mixing 
operations?

Standards for Resin and Gel Coat Application Equipment Cleaning 
Operations

63.5734   What standards must I meet for resin and gel coat 
application equipment cleaning operations?
63.5737   How do I demonstrate compliance with the resin and gel 
coat application equipment cleaning standards?

Standards for Carpet and Fabric Adhesive Operations

63.5740   What standards must I meet for carpet and fabric adhesive 
operations?

Standards for Aluminum Boat Surface Coating Operations

63.5743   What standards must I meet for aluminum boat surface 
coating operations?
63.5746   How do I demonstrate compliance with the standards for 
aluminum wipe-down solvents and aluminum coatings?
63.5749   How do I calculate the HAP content of aluminum wipe-down 
solvents?
63.5752   How do I calculate the HAP content of aluminum boat 
surface coatings?
63.5755   How do I demonstrate compliance with the aluminum boat 
surface coating spray gun cleaning standards?

Methods for Determining Hazardous Air Pollutant Content

63.5758   How do I determine the HAP content of materials?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.5761   What notifications must I submit and when?
63.5764   What reports must I submit and when?
63.5767   What records must I keep?
63.5770   In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Information You Need To Know

63.5773   What parts of the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A) apply to me?
63.5776   Who implements and enforces this subpart?

Definitions

63.5779   What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart VVVV

Table 1 to Subpart VVVV--Compliance Dates for New and Existing Boat 
Manufacturing Facilities
Table 2 to Subpart VVVV--Alternative HAP Content Requirements for 
Open Molding Resin and Gel Coat Operations
Table 3 to Subpart VVVV--MACT Model Point Value Equations for Open 
Molding Operations
Table 4 to Subpart VVVV--Applicability and Timing of Notifications
Table 5 to Subpart VVVV--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR 
Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart VVVV

What the Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.5680  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    (a) This subpart establishes national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for new and existing boat manufacturing 
facilities with resin and gel coat operations, carpet and fabric 
adhesive operations, or aluminum boat surface coating operations. This 
subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and 
continuous compliance with the emission standards.


Sec. 63.5683  Does this subpart apply to me?

    (a) This subpart applies to you if you meet both of the criteria 
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) You are the owner or operator of a boat manufacturing facility 
that builds fiberglass boats or aluminum boats.
    (2) Your boat manufacturing facility is a major source of HAP 
either in and of itself, or because it is collocated with other sources 
of HAP, such that all sources combined constitute a major source.
    (b) A boat manufacturing facility is a facility that manufactures 
hulls or decks of boats from fiberglass or aluminum, or assembles boats 
from premanufactured hulls and decks, or builds molds to make 
fiberglass hulls or decks. A facility that manufactures only parts of 
boats (such as hatches, seats, or lockers) or boat trailers is not 
considered a boat manufacturing facility for the purpose of this 
subpart.
    (c) A major source is any stationary source or group of stationary 
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that 
emits or can potentially emit, considering controls, in the aggregate, 
9.1 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year of a single HAP or 22.7 
megagrams (25 tons) or more per year of a combination of HAP.
    (d) This subpart does not apply to aluminum coating operations on 
aluminum boats intended for commercial or military use, antifoulant 
coatings, fiberglass assembly adhesives, fiberglass hull and deck 
coatings, mold sealing and release agents, mold stripping and cleaning 
solvents, and wood coatings as defined in Sec. 63.5779. This subpart 
does not apply to materials contained in handheld aerosol cans.


Sec. 63.5686  How do I demonstrate that my facility is not a major 
source?

    (a) To demonstrate that your facility is not a major source based 
on emissions, you must demonstrate that your facility does not emit, 
and does not have the potential to emit, considering federally 
enforceable permit limits, 9.1 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year of 
a single HAP or 22.7 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year of a 
combination of HAP. To calculate your facility's potential to emit, you 
must include emissions from the boat manufacturing facility and all 
other sources that are collocated and under common ownership or control 
with the boat manufacturing facility.
    (b) To demonstrate that you are not a major source based on 
material consumption, you must: manufacture either fiberglass or 
aluminum boats at your facility, but not both; demonstrate that you are 
not collocated with another source of HAP; and meet the requirement in 
paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If your facility is a fiberglass boat manufacturing facility, 
you must demonstrate that it consumes less than 45.4 megagrams (50 
tons) per year of all polyester- and vinylester-based resins and gel 
coats, including tooling and

[[Page 43860]]

production resins and gel coats, and clear gel coats.
    (2) If your facility is an aluminum boat manufacturing facility, 
you must demonstrate that it consumes less than 18.2 megagrams (20 
tons) per year of all carpet and fabric adhesives, surface wipe-down 
and application gun cleaning solvents, and paints and coatings.


Sec. 63.5689  What parts of my facility are covered by this subpart?

    The affected source (the portion of your boat manufacturing 
facility covered by this subpart) is the combination of all of the boat 
manufacturing operations listed in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this 
section.
    (a) Open molding resin and gel coat operations (including pigmented 
gel coat, clear gel coat, production resin, tooling gel coat, and 
tooling resin).
    (b) Closed molding resin operations.
    (c) Resin and gel coat mixing operations.
    (d) Resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations.
    (e) Carpet and fabric adhesive operations.
    (f) Aluminum hull and deck coating operations, including solvent 
wipe-down operations and paint spray gun cleaning operations, on 
aluminum boats.


Sec. 63.5692  How do I know if my boat manufacturing facility is a new 
affected source or an existing affected source?

    (a) A boat manufacturing facility is a new affected source if it 
meets the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) You commence construction of the affected source after July 14, 
2000.
    (2) It is a major source.
    (3) It is a completely new boat manufacturing affected source where 
no other boat manufacturing affected source existed prior to the 
construction of the new affected source.
    (b) For the purposes of this subpart, an existing affected source 
is any affected source that is not a new affected source.


Sec. 63.5695  When must I comply with this subpart?

    You must comply with the standards in this subpart by the dates 
specified in table 1 to this subpart.

Standards for Open Molding Resin and Gel Coat Operations


Sec. 63.5698  What emission standard must I meet for open molding resin 
and gel coat operations?

    (a) You must control HAP emissions from the five open molding 
operations listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section to 
the emission standard specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (1) Production resin.
    (2) Pigmented gel coat.
    (3) Clear gel coat.
    (4) Tooling resin.
    (5) Tooling gel coat.
    (b) You must limit HAP emissions from open molding operations to 
the standard specified by equation 1, based on a 3-month rolling 
average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY00.000


Where:

HAP Limit= total allowable HAP that can be emitted from the open 
molding operations, kilograms.
MR = mass of production resin used in the past 3 months, 
megagrams.
MPG = mass of pigmented gel coat used in the past 3 months, 
megagrams.
MCG = mass of clear gel coat used in the past 3 months, 
megagrams.
MTR = mass of tooling resin used in the past 3 months, 
megagrams.
MTG = mass of tooling gel coat used in the past 3 months, 
megagrams.

    (c) The open molding emission standard is the same for both new and 
existing sources.


Sec. 63.5701  What are my options for complying with the open molding 
emission standard?

    You must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs (a) 
through (c) of this section to meet the emission standard in 
Sec. 63.5698 for the resins and gel coats used in open molding 
operations at your facility.
    (a) Maximum achievable control technology (MACT) model point value 
averaging option. (1) Demonstrate that emissions from the open molding 
resin and gel coat operations that you average meet the emission 
standard in Sec. 63.5698 based on weighted-average MACT model point 
values as described in Sec. 63.5710. Compliance with this option is 
based on a 3-month rolling average.
    (2) Those operations and materials not included in the average must 
comply with either paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
    (b) Compliant materials option. Demonstrate compliance with the 
emission standard in Sec. 63.5698 by using open molding resins and gel 
coats that meet the HAP content requirements in table 2 to this 
subpart. Compliance with this option is based on a 3-month rolling 
average.
    (c) Add-on control option. Use an enclosure and add-on control 
device and demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission 
standard in Sec. 63.5698. Compliance with this option is based on a 
control device performance test and control device monitoring.


Sec. 63.5704  What are the general requirements for complying with the 
open molding emission standard?

    (a) Maximum achievable control technology model point value 
averaging option. For those open molding operations and materials 
complying using the MACT model point value averaging option, you must 
demonstrate compliance by performing the steps in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (5) of this section.
    (1) Use the methods specified in Sec. 63.5758 to determine the HAP 
content of resins and gel coats.
    (2) Complete the calculations described in Sec. 63.5710 to show 
that the HAP emissions do not exceed the standard specified in 
Sec. 63.5698.
    (3) Keep records as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) 
of this section for each resin and gel coat.
    (i) Hazardous air pollutant content.
    (ii) Amount of material used per month.
    (iii) Application method used for production resin and tooling 
resin. This record is not required if all production resins and tooling 
resins are applied with nonatomized technology.
    (iv) Calculations performed to demonstrate compliance based on MACT 
model point values, as described in Sec. 63.5710.
    (4) Prepare and submit the implementation plan described in 
Sec. 63.5707 to the Administrator and keep it up to date.
    (5) Submit semiannual compliance reports to the Administrator as 
specified in Sec. 63.5764.
    (b) Compliant materials option. For each open molding operation 
complying using the compliant materials option, you must demonstrate 
compliance by performing the steps in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 
this section.

[[Page 43861]]

    (1) Use the methods specified in Sec. 63.5758 to determine the HAP 
content of resins and gel coats.
    (2) Complete the calculations described in Sec. 63.5713 to show 
that the weighted-average HAP content does not exceed the requirement 
specified in table 2 to this subpart.
    (3) Keep records as specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iv) 
of this section for each resin and gel coat.
    (i) Hazardous air pollutant content.
    (ii) Application method for production resin and tooling resin. 
This record is not needed if all production resins and tooling resins 
are applied with nonatomized technology.
    (iii) Amount of material used per month. This record is not needed 
for an operation if all materials used for that operation comply with 
the HAP content requirements.
    (iv) Calculations performed, if needed, to demonstrate compliance 
based on weighted-average HAP content as described in Sec. 63.5713.
    (4) Submit semiannual compliance reports to the Administrator as 
specified in Sec. 63.5764.
    (c) Add-on control option. If you are using an add-on control 
device, you must demonstrate compliance by performing the steps in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Conduct a performance test of the control device as specified 
in Secs. 63.5719 and 63.5722 to demonstrate initial compliance.
    (2) Use the performance test results to determine control device 
parameters to monitor after the performance test as specified in 
Sec. 63.5725.
    (3) Comply with the control device monitoring and operating 
requirements specified in Sec. 63.5725 to demonstrate continuous 
compliance.
    (4) Keep the records specified in Sec. 63.5767.
    (5) Submit to the Administrator the notifications and reports 
specified in Secs. 63.5761 and 63.5764.


Sec. 63.5707  What is an implementation plan for open molding 
operations and when do I need to prepare one?

    (a) You must prepare an implementation plan for all open molding 
operations for which you comply by using the MACT model point value 
averaging option described in Sec. 63.5704(a).
    (b) The implementation plan must describe the steps you will take 
to bring the open molding operations covered by this subpart into 
compliance. For each operation included in the MACT model point value 
average, your implementation plan must include, at a minimum, the 
elements listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3).
    (1) A description of each operation included in the average.
    (2) The maximum HAP content of the materials used, the application 
method used (if any atomized resin application methods are used in the 
average), and any other methods used to control emissions.
    (3) Calculations showing that the operations covered by the plan 
will comply with the open molding emission standard specified in 
Sec. 63.5698.
    (c) You must submit the implementation plan to the Administrator 
with the notification of compliance status specified in Sec. 63.5761.
    (d) You must keep the implementation plan on site and provide it to 
the Administrator when asked.
    (e) If you revise the implementation plan, you must submit the 
revised plan with your next semiannual compliance report specified in 
Sec. 63.5764.


Sec. 63.5710  How do I demonstrate compliance using MACT model point 
value averaging?

    (a) Compliance using the MACT model point value averaging option is 
demonstrated on a 3-month rolling-average basis and is determined at 
the end of every month (12 times per year).
    (b) At the end of every month, use equation 2 to demonstrate that 
the HAP emissions from those operations included in the average do not 
exceed the emission standard in Sec. 63.5698. (Include terms in 
equation 1 in Sec. 63.5698 and equation 2 for only those operations and 
materials included in the average.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY00.001


Where:

HAP emissions=HAP emissions calculated using MACT model point values 
for each operation included in the average, kilograms.
PVR=Weighted-average MACT model point value for production 
resin used in the past 3 months, kilograms per megagram.
MR=Mass of production resin used in the past 3 months, 
megagrams.
PVPG=Weighted-average MACT model point value for pigmented 
gel coat used in the past 3 months, kilograms per megagram.
MPG=Mass of pigmented gel coat used in the past 3 months, 
megagrams.
PVCG=Weighted-average MACT model point value for clear gel 
coat used in the past 3 months, kilograms per megagram.
MCG=Mass of clear gel coat used in the past 3 months, 
megagrams.
PVTR=Weighted-average MACT model point value for tooling 
resin used in the past 3 months, kilograms per megagram.
MTR=Mass of tooling resin used in the past 3 months, 
megagrams.
PVTG=Weighted-average MACT model point value for tooling gel 
coat used in the past 3 months, kilograms per megagram.
MTG=Mass of tooling gel coat used in the past 3 months, 
megagrams.

    (c) At the end of every month, use equation 3 to compute the 
weighted-average MACT model point value for each open molding resin and 
gel coat operation included in the average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY00.002


Where:

PVOP=weighted-average MACT model point value for each open 
molding operation (PVR, PVPG, PVCG, 
PVTR, and PVTG) included in the average, 
kilograms of HAP per megagram of material applied.
Mi=mass of resin or gel coat i used within an operation in 
the past 3 months, megagrams.
n=number of different open molding resins or gel coats used within an 
operation in the past 3 months.
PVi=the MACT model point value for resin or gel coat i used 
within an operation in the past 3 months, kilograms of HAP per megagram 
of material applied.

    (d) You must use the equations in table 3 to this subpart to 
calculate the MACT model point value (PVi) for each resin 
and gel coat used in each operation in the past 3 months.
    (e) If the HAP emissions, as calculated in paragraph (b) of this 
section, are less than the HAP limit calculated in Sec. 63.5698(b), 
then you are in compliance with the emission standard in Sec. 63.5698

[[Page 43862]]

for those operations and materials included in the average.


Sec. 63.5713  How do I demonstrate compliance using compliant 
materials?

    (a) Compliance using the HAP content requirements listed in table 2 
to this subpart is based on a 3-month rolling average that is 
calculated at the end of every month.
    (b) At the end of every month, review the HAP contents of the 
resins and gel coats used in the past 3 months in each operation. If 
all resins and gel coats used in an operation have HAP contents no 
greater than the applicable HAP content requirements in table 2 to this 
subpart, then you are in compliance with the emission standard 
specified in Sec. 63.5698 for that 3-month period for that operation. 
In addition, you do not need to complete the weighted-average HAP 
content calculation contained in paragraph (c) of this section for that 
operation.
    (c) At the end of every month, you must use equation 4 to calculate 
the weighted-average HAP content for all resins and gel coats used in 
that operation in the past 3 months.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY00.003


Where:

Mi = mass of open molding resin or gel coat i used in the 
past 3 months in an operation, megagrams.
HAPi = HAP content, by weight percent, of open molding resin 
or gel coat i used in the past 3 months in an operation. Use the 
methods in Sec. 63.5758 to determine HAP content.
n = number of different open molding resins or gel coats used in the 
past 3 months in an operation.

    (d) If the weighted-average HAP content does not exceed the 
applicable HAP content requirement specified in table 2 to this 
subpart, then you are in compliance with the emission standard 
specified in Sec. 63.5698.

Demonstrating Compliance for Open Molding Operations Controlled by 
Add-On Control Devices


Sec. 63.5716  When must I conduct a performance test?

    (a) You must conduct an initial control device performance test 
within 180 calendar days after the compliance date specified in 
Sec. 63.5695 and according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
    (b) If you commenced construction between today's date and the 
effective date of the subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance 
with either the proposed emission standard or the promulgated emission 
standard no later than 180 calendar days after the effective date of 
the regulation or within 180 calendar days after startup of the source, 
whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
    (c) If you commenced construction between today's date and the 
effective date of the subpart, and you chose to comply with the 
proposed emission standard when demonstrating initial compliance, you 
must conduct a second compliance demonstration for the promulgated 
emission standard within 3 years and 180 calendar days after the 
effective date of the subpart, or after startup of the source, 
whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
    (d) You must conduct a performance test every 5 years as part of 
renewing your 40 CFR part 70 or part 71 operating permit.


Sec. 63.5719  How do I conduct a performance test?

    (a) You must capture the emissions using a permanent enclosure 
(such as a spray booth or similar containment device) and direct the 
captured emissions to the add-on control device.
    (b) You must measure emissions as specified in paragraph (b)(1) or 
(2) of this section.
    (1) If the enclosure vented to the control device is a permanent 
total enclosure as defined in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 
51, then you may measure emissions only at the outlet of the control 
device.
    (2) If the permanent enclosure vented to the control device is not 
a total enclosure, you must build a temporary total enclosure, as 
defined in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, around the 
permanent enclosure. You must then simultaneously measure emissions 
from the control device outlet and the emissions from the total 
temporary enclosure outlet. You determine compliance from the combined 
emissions from the control device outlet and the total temporary 
enclosure outlet.
    (c) You must conduct the control device performance test using the 
emission measurement methods specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) 
of this section.
    (1) Use either Method 1 or 1A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as 
appropriate, to select the sampling sites.
    (2) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F or 2G of appendix A to 40 CFR part 
60, as appropriate, to measure gas volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Use Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 to measure HAP 
emissions or use Method 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 to measure 
total gaseous organic emissions as a surrogate for total HAP emissions. 
If you use Method 25A, you must assume that all gaseous organic 
emissions measured as carbon are HAP emissions. If you use Method 18 
and the number of HAP in the exhaust stream exceeds five, you must take 
into account the use of multiple chromatographic columns and analytical 
techniques to get an accurate measure of at least 90 percent of the 
total HAP mass emissions. Do not use Method 18 to measure HAP emissions 
from a combustion device; use instead Method 25A and assume that all 
gaseous organic mass emissions measured as carbon are HAP emissions.
    (d) The control device performance test must consist of three runs 
and each run must last at least 1 hour. The production conditions 
during the test runs must represent normal production conditions with 
respect to the types of parts being made and material application 
methods. The production conditions during the test must also represent 
maximum potential emissions with respect to the HAP content of the 
materials being applied and the material application rates.
    (e) During the test, you must also monitor and record separately 
the amounts of production resin, tooling resin, pigmented gel coat, 
clear gel coat, and tooling gel coat applied inside the enclosure that 
is vented to the control device.


Sec. 63.5722  How do I use the performance test data to demonstrate 
initial compliance?

    Demonstrate initial compliance with the open molding emission 
standard as

[[Page 43863]]

described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section:
    (a) Calculate the HAP limit you must achieve using equation 1 in 
Sec. 63.5698. For determining initial compliance, the HAP limit is 
based on the amount of material used during the performance test, in 
megagrams, rather than during the past 3 months. Calculate the limit 
using the megagrams of resin and gel coat applied inside the enclosure 
during the three runs of the performance test and equation 1 in 
Sec. 63.5698.
    (b) Add the total measured emissions, in kilograms, from all three 
of the 1-hour runs of the performance test.
    (c) If the total emissions from the three 1-hour runs of the 
performance test are less than the HAP limit calculated in paragraph 
(a) of this section, then you have demonstrated initial compliance with 
the emission standard in Sec. 63.5698 for those operations performed in 
the enclosure and controlled by the add-on control device.


Sec. 63.5725  What are the requirements for monitoring and 
demonstrating continuous compliance?

    (a) You must establish control device parameters that indicate 
proper operation of the control device.
    (b) You must install, operate, and maintain a continuous parameter 
monitoring system as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this 
section.
    (1) The continuous parameter monitoring system must complete a 
minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period. 
You must have a minimum of four successive cycles of operation to have 
a valid hour of data.
    (2) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours 
during which the process operated.
    (3) You must determine the hourly average of all recorded readings.
    (4) You must determine the daily average of all recorded readings 
for each operating day.
    (5) You must determine the 30-day average for each 30-day period.
    (6) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration, 
and validation check.
    (c) Enclosure bypass line. You must meet the requirements of 
paragraph (c)(1) and either paragraph (c)(2) or (3) of this section for 
each enclosure ventilation system that contains bypass lines that could 
divert emissions from a control device.
    (1) If the bypass lines are opened, you must include a description 
of the bypass and its duration in the compliance reports required in 
Sec. 63.5764(c).
    (2) You must properly install, operate, and maintain a flow 
measurement device that records the presence of a gas stream flow in 
each bypass line. You must meet the requirements in paragraph (b) and 
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) of this section for each flow 
measurement device.
    (i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment such as 
straightening vanes in a position that provides a representative flow.
    (ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2 percent of the 
flow rate.
    (iii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due 
to upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (iv) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semi-
annually.
    (v) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (3) You must secure the bypass line in a nondiverting position with 
a seal in such a way that the valve or closure mechanism cannot be 
opened without breaking the seal. You must inspect the seal at least 
once per month and record the results of the inspection.
    (d) Thermal oxidizers. If you are using a thermal oxidizer or 
incinerator as an add-on control device, you must comply with the 
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) You must install a combustion temperature monitoring device in 
the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or incinerator, or in the duct 
immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat 
exchange occurs. You must meet the requirements in paragraph (b) and 
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section for each temperature 
monitoring device.
    (i) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a 
representative temperature.
    (ii) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.2 deg. 
C or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger.
    (iii) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic 
interference and chemical contaminants.
    (iv) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the 
minor division of at least 20 deg. F.
    (v) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually 
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual. 
Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature 
sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature 
sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a 
reading within 16.7 deg. C of the process temperature sensor's reading.
    (vi) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor 
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature 
range or install a new temperature sensor.
    (vii) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and 
all electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic 
corrosion.
    (2) Before or during the performance test, you must conduct a 
performance evaluation of the combustion temperature monitoring system 
according to Sec. 63.8(e). Section 63.8(e) specifies the general 
requirements for continuous monitoring systems and requirements for 
notifications, the site-specific performance evaluation plan, conduct 
of the performance evaluation, and reporting of performance evaluation 
results.
    (3) During the performance test required by Sec. 63.5716, you must 
monitor and record the combustion temperature and determine the average 
combustion temperature for the three 1-hour test runs.
    (4) Following the performance test, you must continuously monitor 
the combustion temperature and record the average combustion 
temperature no less frequently than every 15 minutes.
    (5) You must operate the incinerator or thermal oxidizer so that 
the average combustion temperature in any 3-hour period does not fall 
below the average combustion temperature recorded during the 
performance test.
    (6) If the average combustion temperature in any 3-hour period 
falls below the average combustion temperature recorded during the 
performance test, or if you fail to collect the minimum data specified 
in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, it is a deviation.
    (e) Absorbers, condensers, and carbon adsorbers. If you are using 
an absorber, condenser, or carbon adsorber as an add-on control device, 
you must comply with the operating, testing, and monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.990.
    (f) Other control devices. If you are using a control device other 
than those listed in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, then you 
must comply with the operating, testing, and monitoring requirements in 
Sec. 63.995.

Standards for Closed Molding Resin Operations


Sec. 63.5728  What standards must I meet for closed molding resin 
operations?

    (a) If a resin application operation meets the definition of closed 
molding specified in Sec. 63.5779, there is no

[[Page 43864]]

requirement to reduce emissions from that operation.
    (b) If the resin application operation does not meet the definition 
of closed molding, then you must comply with the standard for open 
molding resin operations specified in Sec. 63.5698.
    (c) Open molding resin operations that precede a closed molding 
operation must comply with the standard for open molding resin and gel 
coat operations specified in Sec. 63.5698. Examples of these operations 
include gel coat or skin coat layers that are applied before lamination 
is performed by closed molding.

Standards for Resin and Gel Coat Mixing Operations


Sec. 63.5731  What standards must I meet for resin and gel coat mixing 
operations?

    (a) All resin and gel coat mixing containers with a capacity equal 
to or greater than 208 liters (55 gallons) must have a cover with no 
visible gaps in place at all times.
    (b) The work practice standard in paragraph (a) of this section 
does not apply when material is being manually added to or removed from 
a container, or when mixing or pumping equipment is being placed in or 
removed from a container.
    (c) To demonstrate compliance with the work practice standard in 
paragraph (a) of this section, you must visually inspect all mixing 
containers subject to this standard at least once per month. The 
inspection should ensure that all containers have covers with no 
visible gaps between the cover and the container, or between the cover 
and equipment passing through the cover.
    (d) You must keep records of which mixing containers are subject to 
this standard and the results of the inspections, including a 
description of any repairs or corrective actions taken.

Standards for Resin and Gel Coat Application Equipment Cleaning 
Operations


Sec. 63.5734  What standards must I meet for resin and gel coat 
application equipment cleaning operations?

    (a) For routine flushing of resin and gel coat application 
equipment (e.g., spray guns, flowcoaters, brushes, rollers, and 
squeegees), you must use a cleaning solvent that contains no HAP. This 
emission standard does not apply to solvents used for removing cured 
resin or gel coat from application equipment.
    (b) You must store HAP-containing solvents used for removing cured 
resin or gel coat in containers with covers. The covers must have no 
visible gaps and must be in place at all times, except when equipment 
is placed in or removed from the container. Cured resin or gel coat 
means resin or gel coat that has changed irreversibly from a liquid to 
a solid.
    (c) Recycled cleaning solvents that contain trace amounts of HAP (5 
percent HAP or less by weight) are considered to contain no HAP for the 
purposes of this subpart.


Sec. 63.5737  How do I demonstrate compliance with the resin and gel 
coat application equipment cleaning standards?

    (a) Determine and record the HAP content of the cleaning solvents 
subject to the standards specified in Sec. 63.5734 using the methods 
specified in Sec. 63.5758.
    (b) Record the amount of cleaning solvents purchased as recycled 
cleaning solvents, and, therefore, may contain trace amounts of HAP.
    (c) At least once per month, you must visually inspect any 
containers holding HAP-containing solvents used for removing cured 
resin and gel coat to ensure that the containers have covers with no 
visible gaps. Keep records of the monthly inspections and any repairs 
made to the covers.

Standards for Carpet and Fabric Adhesive Operations


Sec. 63.5740  What standards must I meet for carpet and fabric adhesive 
operations?

    (a) You must use carpet and fabric adhesives that contain no HAP.
    (b) To demonstrate compliance with the emission standard in 
paragraph (a) of this section, you must determine and record the HAP 
content of the carpet and fabric adhesives using the methods in 
Sec. 63.5758.

Standards for Aluminum Boat Surface Coating Operations


Sec. 63.5743  What standards must I meet for aluminum boat surface 
coating operations?

    (a) You must use aluminum wipe-down solvents with a weighted-
average HAP content that does not exceed 2.57 kilograms of HAP per 
liter of solids from aluminum primers and clear coats applied over bare 
aluminum (21.5 pounds of HAP per gallon of solids). Compliance is based 
on a 3-month rolling average that is calculated at the end of every 
month. This limit does not apply to surfaces receiving decals or 
adhesive graphics.
    (b) You must use aluminum boat surface coatings (including 
thinners, activators, primers, topcoats, and clear coats) with a 
weighted-average HAP content that does not exceed 1.22 kilograms of HAP 
per liter of coating solids (10.2 pounds of HAP per gallon of coating 
solids). Compliance is based on a 3-month rolling average that is 
calculated at the end of every month.
    (c) You must comply with the work practice standard in paragraph 
(c)(1), (2), or (3) of this section when cleaning aluminum coating 
spray guns with HAP-containing solvents. You do not need to comply with 
these work practice standards if you are using a cleaning solvent that 
contains no HAP.
    (1) Clean spray guns in an enclosed device. Keep the device closed 
except when you place spray guns in or remove them from the device.
    (2) Disassemble the spray gun and manually clean the components in 
a vat. Keep the vat closed when you are not using it.
    (3) Clean spray guns by placing solvent in the pressure pot and 
forcing the solvent through the gun. Do not use atomizing air during 
this procedure. Direct the used cleaning solvent from the spray gun 
into a container that you keep closed when you are not using it.


Sec. 63.5746  How do I demonstrate compliance with the standards for 
aluminum wipe-down solvents and aluminum coatings?

    To demonstrate compliance with the emission standards for aluminum 
wipe-down solvents and aluminum coatings specified in Sec. 63.5743 (a) 
and (b), you must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (f) 
of this section.
    (a) Determine and record the HAP content (kilograms of HAP per 
kilogram of material, or weight fraction) of each aluminum wipe-down 
solvent and aluminum coating (including primers, topcoats, clear coats, 
thinners, and activators). Use the methods in Sec. 63.5758 to determine 
HAP content.
    (b) Obtain from the aluminum coating manufacturer's formulation the 
solids content (liters of solids per liter of coating, or volume 
fraction) of each aluminum surface coating, including primers, 
topcoats, and clear coats. Keep records of the solids content.
    (c) Compliance is based on a 3-month rolling average calculated at 
the end of every month.
    (d) At the end of every month, use the procedures in Sec. 63.5749 
to calculate the HAP from aluminum wipe-down solvents per liter of 
coating solids. Use the procedures in Sec. 63.5752 to calculate the 
kilograms of HAP from aluminum coatings per liter of coating solids.
    (e) Keep records of the calculations used to determine compliance.
    (f) Approval of alternative means of demonstrating compliance. You 
may apply to the Administrator for permission to use an alternative 
means (such as an add-on control system) of limiting emissions from 
aluminum

[[Page 43865]]

wipe-down solvent and coating operations and demonstrating compliance 
with the standards in paragraphs (a) and (b) in Sec. 63.5743.
    (1) The application must include the information listed in 
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) An engineering evaluation that compares the emissions using the 
alternative means to the emissions that would result from using the 
strategy specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. The 
engineering evaluation may include the results from an emission test 
that accurately measures the capture efficiency and control device 
efficiency achieved by the control system and the composition of the 
associated coatings so that the emissions comparison can be made.
    (ii) A proposed monitoring protocol that includes operating 
parameter values to be monitored for compliance and an explanation of 
how the operating parameter values will be established through a 
performance test.
    (iii) Details of appropriate recordkeeping and reporting 
procedures.
    (2) The Administrator will approve the alternative means of 
limiting emissions if the Administrator determines that HAP emissions 
will be no greater than if the source uses the procedures described in 
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section to demonstrate compliance.
    (3) The Administrator's approval may specify operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring requirements to ensure that emissions from 
the regulated operations are no greater than those that would otherwise 
result from regulated operations in compliance with this subpart.


Sec. 63.5749  How do I calculate the HAP content of aluminum wipe-down 
solvents?

    (a) Use equation 5 to calculate the weighted-average HAP content of 
aluminum wipe-down solvents used in the past 3 months.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY00.004


Where:

HAPWD = weighted-average HAP content of aluminum wipe-down 
solvents, kilograms of HAP per liter of solids from aluminum primers 
and clear coats applied to bare aluminum.
n = number of different wipe-down solvents used in the past 3 months.
VolWDi = volume of aluminum wipe-down solvent i used in the 
past 3 months, liters.
DWDi = density of aluminum wipe-down solvent i, kilograms 
per liter.
WWDi = mass fraction of HAP in aluminum wipe-down solvent i.
m = number of different aluminum primers and clear coats used in the 
past 3 months that were applied to bare aluminum.
VolPj = volume of aluminum primer or clear coat j used in 
the past 3 months, liters.
SolidsPj = solids content of aluminum primer or clear coat 
j, liter solids per liter of coating.

    (b) Compliance is based on a 3-month rolling average. If the 
weighted-average HAP content does not exceed 2.57 kilograms of HAP per 
liter of solids (21.5 pounds of HAP per gallon solids), then you are in 
compliance with the emission standard specified in Sec. 63.5743(a).


Sec. 63.5752  How do I calculate the HAP content of aluminum boat 
surface coatings?

    (a) Use equation 6 to calculate the weighted-average HAP content 
for all aluminum surface coatings used in the past 3 months.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY00.005


Where:

HAPSC = weighted-average HAP content for all aluminum 
coating materials, kilograms of HAP per liter of coating solids.
m = number of different coatings used in the past 3 months.
VolCi = total volume of coating i used in the past 3 months, 
liters.
DCi = density of coating i, kilograms per liter.
WCi = mass fraction of HAP in coating i, kilograms of HAP 
per kilogram of coating.
n = number of different thinners and activators used in the past 3 
months.
VolTj = total volume of thinner or activator j used in the 
past 3 months, liters.
DTj = density of thinner or activator j, kilograms per 
liter.
WTj = mass fraction of HAP in thinner or activator j, 
kilograms of HAP per kilogram of thinner or activator.
VSi = volume fraction of solids in coating i, liter solids 
per liter coating, from coating manufacturer's formulation.

    (b) Compliance is based on a 3-month rolling average. If the 
weighted-average HAP content does not exceed 1.22 kilograms of HAP per 
liter of coating solids (10.2 pound per gallon), then you are in 
compliance with the emission standard specified in Sec. 63.5743(b).


Sec. 63.5755  How do I demonstrate compliance with the aluminum boat 
surface coating spray gun cleaning standards?

    You must demonstrate compliance with the aluminum coating spray gun 
cleaning work practice standards by meeting the requirements of 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
    (a) Demonstrate that solvents used to clean the aluminum coating 
spray guns contain no HAP by determining HAP content with the methods 
in Sec. 63.5758. Keep records of the HAP content determination.

[[Page 43866]]

    (b) For HAP-containing solvents, comply with the requirements in 
paragraph (b)(1) or (2), and (b)(3) of this section.
    (1) If you are using an enclosed spray gun cleaner, visually 
inspect it at least once per month to ensure that covers are in place 
and will close properly when the cleaner is not in use, and that there 
are no leaks from hoses or fittings.
    (2) If you are manually cleaning the gun or spraying solvent into a 
container that can be closed, visually inspect all solvent containers 
at least once per month to ensure that the containers have covers.
    (3) Keep records of the monthly inspections and any repairs that 
are made to the enclosed gun cleaners or the covers.

Methods for Determining Air Pollutant Content


Sec. 63.5758  How do I determine the HAP content of materials?

    (a) To determine the HAP content of the materials used in your open 
molding resin and gel coat operations, carpet and fabric adhesive 
operations, or aluminum boat surface coating operations, use EPA Method 
311 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63. You may use EPA Method 311, an 
alternative method as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, or any 
other reasonable means for determining the HAP content. Other 
reasonable means of determining HAP content include, but are not 
limited to, a material safety data sheet (MSDS) or a manufacturer's 
hazardous air pollutant data sheet as defined in Sec. 63.5779. You are 
not required to test the materials that you use, but the Administrator 
may require a test using EPA Method 311 (or an approved alternative 
method) to confirm the reported HAP content. If the results of an 
analysis by EPA Method 311 are different from the HAP content 
determined by another means, the EPA Method 311 results will govern 
compliance determinations, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (b) You may use an alternative to EPA Method 311 for determining 
HAP content if that method has been approved by the Administrator 
according to Sec. 63.7(f). The Administrator will approve alternative 
methods on a case-by-case basis.
    (c) If HAP content data are reported by a material supplier or 
manufacturer as a range, the upper limit of that range will be used for 
determining compliance.

Notifications, Reports, and Records


63.5761  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in table 4 to this 
subpart that apply to you, by the dates in table 4 to this subpart. The 
notifications are described more fully in the sections of 40 CFR part 
63, subpart A, General Provisions, referenced in table 4 to this 
subpart.
    (b) If you change any information submitted in any notification, 
you must submit the changes in writing to the Administrator within 15 
calendar days after the change.


63.5764  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit the applicable reports specified in paragraphs 
(b) through (d) of this section. To the extent possible, you must 
organize each report according to the operations covered by this 
subpart and the compliance procedure followed for that operation.
    (b) If your facility is not controlled by an add-on control device 
(i.e., you are complying with HAP content limits, application equipment 
requirements, or MACT model point value averaging provisions), you must 
submit a semiannual compliance report. The semiannual reporting period 
is each subsequent 6-month period after your compliance date. Unless 
the Administrator has approved a different schedule, you must submit 
each report so that it is postmarked or delivered no later than 30 
calendar days following the end of each reporting period. The 
compliance report must include the information specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Name, title, and signature of the responsible official 
certifying the accuracy of the report.
    (3) A statement certifying as to the truth, accuracy, and 
completeness of the report.
    (4) The date of the report and the beginning and ending dates of 
the reporting period.
    (5) A description of any changes in the manufacturing process, 
continuous monitoring system, or controls since the last compliance 
report.
    (6) A statement or table showing, for each regulated operation, the 
applicable HAP content limit, application equipment requirement, or 
MACT model point value averaging provision with which you are 
complying. The statement or table must also show the actual weighted-
average HAP content or weighted-average MACT model point value (if 
applicable) for each operation during each of the rolling 3-month 
averaging periods that end during the reporting period.
    (7) If you were in compliance with a standard during the reporting 
period, you must include a statement to that effect.
    (8) If you were not in compliance with a standard or identified 
deviations during the reporting period, you must also include the 
information listed in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (iv) of this section 
in the semiannual compliance report.
    (i) A description of the operation that was not in compliance with 
the standard.
    (ii) The quantity, HAP content, and application method (if 
relevant) of the materials not in compliance.
    (iii) A description of any corrective action you took to minimize 
noncompliance and actions you have taken to prevent it from happening 
again.
    (iv) A statement of whether or not your facility was in compliance 
for the 3-month averaging period that ended at the end of the reporting 
period.
    (c) If your facility has an add-on control device, you must submit 
semiannual compliance reports and quarterly excess emission reports as 
specified in Sec. 63.10(e). The contents of the reports and the 
schedule for submitting them are specified in Sec. 63.10(e).
    (d) If your facility has an add-on control device, you must 
complete a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in 
Sec. 63.6(e), and you must submit the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction reports specified in Sec. 63.10(e)(5).


63.5767  What records must I keep?

    You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) 
of this section in addition to records specified in individual sections 
of this subpart.
    (a) You must keep a copy of each notification and report that you 
submitted to comply with this subpart.
    (b) You must keep all documentation supporting any notification or 
report that you submitted.
    (c) If your facility is not controlled by an add-on control device 
(i.e., you are complying with HAP content limits, application equipment 
requirements, or MACT model point value averaging provisions), you must 
keep the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) The total amounts of open molding production resin, pigmented 
gel coat, clear gel coat, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat used per 
month and the weighted-average HAP contents for each

[[Page 43867]]

operation, expressed as weight-percent. For open molding production 
resin and tooling resin, you must also record the amounts of each 
applied by atomized and nonatomized methods.
    (2) The total amount of aluminum coating used per month (including 
primers, top coats, clear coats, thinners, and activators) and the 
weighted-average HAP content as determined in Sec. 63.5752.
    (3) The amount of each aluminum wipe-down solvent used per month 
and the weighted-average HAP content as determined in Sec. 63.5749.
    (d) If your facility has an add-on control device, you must keep 
the records specified in Sec. 63.10(b) relative to control device 
startup, shut down, and malfunction events; control device performance 
tests; and continuous monitoring system performance evaluations.


63.5770  In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be readily available and in a form so they 
can be easily inspected and reviewed.
    (b) You must keep each record for 5 years following the date that 
each record is generated.
    (c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after 
the date that each record is generated. You can keep the records 
offsite for the remaining 3 years.
    (d) You can keep the records on paper or an alternative media, such 
as microfilm, computer, computer disks, magnetic tapes, or on 
microfiche.

Other Information You Need to Know


63.5773  What parts of the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A) apply to me?

    You must comply with the requirements of the general provisions in 
40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as specified in table 5 to this subpart.


63.5777  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) If the Administrator has delegated authority to your State or 
local agency, the State or local agency has the authority to implement 
and enforce this subpart.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State or local agency under section 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities that are retained by the Administrator of 
the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State or local agency are 
listed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Under Sec. 63.6(g), the authority to approve alternatives to 
the standards listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (vii) of this 
section is not delegated.
    (i) Sec. 63.5698--Standard for open molding resin and gel coat 
operations.
    (ii) Sec. 63.5728--Standards for closed molding resin operations.
    (iii) Sec. 63.5731(a)--Standards for resin and gel coat mixing 
operations.
    (iv) Sec. 63.5734--Standards for resin and gel coat application 
equipment cleaning operations.
    (v) Sec. 63.5740(a)--Standards for carpet and fabric adhesive 
operations.
    (vi) Sec. 63.5743--Standards for aluminum boat surface coating 
operations.
    (vii) Sec. 63.5746(f)--Approval of alternative means of 
demonstrating compliance with the standards for aluminum boat surface 
coating operations.
    (2) Under Sec. 63.7(f), the authority to approve alternatives to 
the test methods listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this 
section are not delegated.
    (i) Sec. 63.5719(b)--Method for determining whether an enclosure is 
a total enclosure.
    (ii) Sec. 63.5719(c)--Methods for measuring emissions from a 
control device.
    (iii) Sec. 63.5725(d)(1)--Performance specifications for thermal 
oxidizer combustion temperature monitors.
    (iv) Sec. 63.5758--Method for determining hazardous air pollutant 
content of regulated materials.

Definitions


Sec. 63.5779  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
    Add-on control means an air pollution control device, such as a 
thermal oxidizer, that reduces pollution in an air stream by 
destruction or removal before discharge to the atmosphere.
    Administrator means the Administrator of the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or an authorized representative 
(for example, a State delegated the authority to carry out the 
provisions of this subpart).
    Aluminum boat means any marine or freshwater vessel that meets both 
of the following two criteria: the hull or the deck is constructed 
primarily of aluminum, and the vessel is designed and manufactured for 
noncommercial and nonmilitary purposes.
    Aluminum boat surface coating operation means the application of 
primers or top coats to aluminum boats. Aluminum boat surface coating 
operations do not include the application of wood coatings or 
antifoulant coatings to aluminum boats.
    Aluminum coating spray gun cleaning means the process of flushing 
or removing paints or coatings from the interior or exterior of a spray 
gun used to apply aluminum primers or top coats to aluminum boats.
    Aluminum wipe-down solvents means solvents used to remove oil, 
grease, welding smoke, or other contaminants from the aluminum surfaces 
of a boat before priming or painting. Aluminum wipe-down solvents 
contain no coating solids; aluminum surface preparation materials that 
contain solids are considered coatings for the purpose of this subpart 
and are not wipe-down solvents.
    Antifoulant coating means any coating that is applied to the 
underwater portion of a boat specifically to prevent or reduce the 
attachment of biological organisms and that is registered with EPA as a 
pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
(7 U.S.C. section 136, et seq.). For the purpose of this subpart, 
primers used with antifoulant coatings to prepare the surface to accept 
the antifoulant coating are considered antifoulant coatings.
    Atomized resin application means a resin application technology in 
which the resin leaves the application equipment and breaks into 
droplets or an aerosol as it travels from the application equipment to 
the surface of the part. Atomized resin application includes, but is 
not limited to, resin spray guns and resin chopper spray guns.
    Boat means any type of vessel, other than a seaplane, that can be 
used for transportation on the water.
    Boat manufacturing facility means a facility that manufacturers the 
hulls or decks of boats from fiberglass or aluminum or assembles boats 
from premanufactured hulls and decks or builds molds to make fiberglass 
hulls or decks. A facility that manufacturers only parts of boats (such 
as hatches, seats, or lockers) or boat trailers, but no boat hulls or 
decks or molds for fiberglass boat hulls or decks, is not considered a 
boat manufacturing facility for the purpose of this subpart.
    Carpet and fabric adhesive means any chemical material that 
permanently attaches carpet, fabric, or upholstery to any surface of a 
boat.
    Clear gel coat means gel coats that are clear or translucent so 
that underlying colors are visible. Clear gel coats are used to 
manufacture parts for sale. Clear gel coats do not include tooling gel 
coats used to build or repair molds.
    Closed molding means any molding process in which pressure is used 
to distribute the resin through the

[[Page 43868]]

reinforcing fabric placed between two mold surfaces to either saturate 
the fabric or fill the mold cavity. The pressure may be clamping 
pressure, fluid pressure, atmospheric pressure, or vacuum pressure used 
either alone or in combination. The mold surfaces may be rigid or 
flexible. Closed molding includes, but is not limited to, compression 
molding with sheet molding compound, infusion molding, resin injection 
molding (RIM), vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM), resin 
transfer molding (RTM), and vacuum-assisted compression molding. 
Processes in which a closed mold is used only to compact saturated 
fabric or remove air or excess resin from the fabric (such as in vacuum 
bagging), are not considered closed molding. Open molding steps, such 
as application of a gel coat or skin coat layer by conventional open 
molding prior to a closed molding process, are not closed molding.
    Cured resin and gel coat means resin or gel coat that has been 
catalyzed and changed from a liquid to a solid.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice requirement;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition which is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and which is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limit, operating limit, or work 
practice requirement in this subpart during any startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by 
this subpart.
    Enclosure means a structure, such as a spray booth, that surrounds 
a source of emissions and captures and directs the emissions to an add-
on control device.
    Fiberglass assembly adhesive means any chemical material used in 
the joining of one fiberglass part to another to form a temporary or 
permanently bonded assembly. Assembly adhesives include, but are not 
limited to, methacrylate adhesives and putties made from polyester or 
vinylester resin mixed with inert fillers or fibers.
    Fiberglass boat means a vessel in which either the hull or deck is 
built from a composite material consisting of a thermosetting resin 
matrix reinforced with fibers of glass, carbon, aramid, or other 
material.
    Fiberglass hull and deck coatings means coatings applied to the 
exterior or interior surface of fiberglass boat hulls and decks on the 
completed boat. Polyester and vinylester resins and gel coats used in 
building fiberglass parts are not fiberglass hull and deck coatings for 
the purpose of this subpart.
    Gel coat means a thermosetting resin surface coating containing 
styrene (Chemical Abstract Service or CAS No. 100-42-5) or methyl 
methacrylate (CAS No. 80-62-6), either pigmented or clear, that 
provides a cosmetic enhancement or improves resistance to degradation 
from exposure to the elements.
    Hazardous air pollutant or HAP means any air pollutant listed in, 
or added to the list in section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act.
    Hazardous air pollutant content or HAP content means the amount of 
HAP contained in a regulated material at the time it is applied to the 
part being manufactured. If no HAP is added to a material as a thinner 
or diluent, then the HAP content is the same as the HAP content of the 
material as purchased from the supplier. For resin and gel coat, HAP 
content does not include any HAP contained in the catalyst added to the 
resin or gel coat during application to initiate curing. For filled 
resins, HAP content is the fraction of HAP contained in the resin 
before any filler is added.
    Hazardous air pollutant data sheet (HDS) means documentation 
furnished by a material supplier or an outside laboratory to provide 
the HAP content of the material by weight, measured using EPA Method 
311, manufacturer's formulation data, or an equivalent method. For 
aluminum coatings, the HDS also documents the solids content by volume, 
determined from the manufacturer's formulation data. The purpose of the 
HDS is to help the affected source in showing compliance with the HAP 
content limits contained in this subpart. The HDS must state the 
maximum total HAP concentration, by weight, of the material. It must 
include any HAP concentrations equal to or greater than 0.1 percent by 
weight for individual HAP that are carcinogens, as defined by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication 
Standard (29 CFR part 1910), and 1.0 percent by weight for all other 
individual HAP, as formulated. The HDS must also include test 
conditions if EPA Method 311 is used for determining HAP content.
    Maximum achievable control technology (MACT) model point value 
means a number calculated for open molding operations that is a 
surrogate for emissions and is used to determine if your open molding 
operations are in compliance with the provisions of this subpart. The 
units for MACT model point values are kilograms of HAP per megagram of 
resin or gel coat applied.
    Manufacturer's certification means documentation furnished by a 
material supplier that shows the HAP content of a material and includes 
a HDS.
    Mold means the cavity or surface into or on which gel coat, resin, 
and fibers are placed and from which finished fiberglass parts take 
their form.
    Mold sealing and release agents means materials applied to a mold 
to seal, polish, and lubricate the mold to prevent parts from sticking 
to the mold. Mold sealers, waxes, and glazing and buffing compounds are 
considered mold sealing and release agents for the purposes of this 
subpart.
    Mold stripping and cleaning solvents means materials used to remove 
mold sealing and release agents from a mold before the mold surface is 
repaired, polished, or lubricated during normal mold maintenance.
    Month means a calendar month.
    Nonatomized resin application means any application technology in 
which the resin is not broken into droplets or an aerosol as it travels 
from the application equipment to the surface of the part. Nonatomized 
resin application technology includes, but is not limited to, 
flowcoaters, chopper flowcoaters, pressure fed resin rollers, resin 
impregnators, and hand application (for example, paint brush or paint 
roller).
    Open molding resin and gel coat operation means any process in 
which the reinforcing fibers and resin are placed in the mold and are 
open to the surrounding air while the reinforcing fibers are saturated 
with resin. For the purposes of this subpart, open molding includes 
operations in which a vacuum bag or similar cover is used to compress 
an uncured laminate to remove air bubbles or excess resin, or to 
achieve a bond between a core material and a laminate.
    Pigmented gel coat means opaque gel coats used to manufacture parts 
for sale. Pigmented gel coats do not include tooling gel coats used to 
build or repair molds.
    Production resin means any resin used to manufacture parts for 
sale. Production resins do not include tooling resins used to build or 
repair molds, or fiberglass assembly adhesives as defined in this 
section.
    Recycled resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning solvent 
means cleaning solvents returned to the supplier or another party to 
remove resin or gel coat residues so that the solvent can be reused.

[[Page 43869]]

    Resin means any thermosetting resin containing styrene (CAS No. 
100-42-5) or methyl methacrylate (CAS No. 80-62-6) and used to 
encapsulate and bind together reinforcement fibers in the construction 
of fiberglass parts.
    Resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning means the process 
of flushing or removing resins and gel coats from the interior or 
exterior of equipment that is used to apply resin or gel coat in the 
manufacture of fiberglass parts.
    Resin and gel coat mixing operation means any operation in which 
resin or gel coat is combined with additives that include, but are not 
limited to, fillers, promoters, or catalysts.
    Roll-out means the process of using rollers, squeegees, or similar 
tools to compact reinforcing materials saturated with resin to remove 
trapped air or excess resin.
    Skin coat is a layer of resin and fibers applied over the gel coat 
to protect the gel coat from being deformed by the next laminate 
layers.
    Tooling resin means the resin used to build or repair molds (also 
known as tools) or prototypes (also known as plugs) from which molds 
will be made.
    Tooling gel coat means the gel coat used to build or repair molds 
(also known as tools) or prototypes (also known as plugs) from which 
molds will be made.
    Vacuum bagging means any molding technique in which the reinforcing 
fabric is saturated with resin and then covered with a flexible sheet 
that is sealed to the edge of the mold and where a vacuum is applied 
under the sheet to compress the laminate, remove excess resin, or 
remove trapped air from the laminate during curing. Vacuum bagging does 
not include processes that meet the definition of closed molding.
    Wood coatings means coatings applied to wooden parts and surfaces 
of boats, such as paneling, cabinets, railings, and trim. Wood coatings 
include, but are not limited to, primers, stains, sealers, varnishes, 
and enamels. Polyester and vinylester resins or gel coats applied to 
wooden parts to encapsulate them or bond them to other parts are not 
wood coatings.

Tables To Subpart VVVV

          Table 1 to Subpart VVVV.--Compliance Dates for New and Existing Boat Manufacturing Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       If your facility is * * *                   and * * *               then you must comply by this date:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. An existing source.................  is a major source on or before  3 years after the promulgation date of
                                         the promulgation date of the    the rule.
                                         rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An area source.....................  becomes a major source after    1 year after becoming a major source or
                                         the promulgation date of the    3 years after the promulgation date of
                                         rule.                           the rule, whichever is later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. A new source.......................  is a major source at startup a  upon startup or the promulgation date of
                                                                         the rule, whichever is later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Your facility is a major source if it is a stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a
  contiguous area and under common control that emits or can potentially emit, considering controls, in the
  aggregate, 9.1 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year of a single hazardous air pollutant or 22.7 megagrams (25
  tons) or more per year of a combination of hazardous air pollutants.


 Table 2 to Subpart VVVV.--Alternative HAP Content Requirements for Open
                  Molding Resin and Gel Coat Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     You must not exceed
                                                       this weighted-
  For this operation * * *    And this application   average HAP content
                                  method * * *        (weight percent)
                                                        requirement:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Production resin           Atomized (spray)....  28 percent.
 operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Production resin           Nonatomized           35 percent.
 operations.                   (nonspray).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Pigmented gel coat         Any method..........  33 percent.
 operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Clear gel coat operations  Any method..........  48 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Tooling resin operations.  Atomized (spray)....  30 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Tooling resin operations.  Nonatomized           39 percent.
                               (nonspray).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Tooling gel coat           Any method..........  40 percent.
 operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


            Table 3 to Subpart VVVV.--MACT Model Point Value Equations for Open Molding Operations a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Use this formula to calculate
       For this operation * * *             And this application method * * *     the MACT model plant value for
                                                                                      each resin and gel coat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Production resin, tooling resin....  (i) Atomized............................  0.014  x  (Resin HAP%) 2.425
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        (ii) Atomized, plus vacuum bagging with   0.01185  x  (Resin HAP%) 2.425
                                         roll-out.
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        (iii) Atomized, plus vacuum bagging       0.00945  x  (Resin HAP%) 2.425
                                         without roll-out.
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        (iv) Nonatomized........................  0.014  x  (Resin HAP%) 2.275
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        (v) Nonatomized, plus vacuum bagging      0.0110  x  (Resin HAP%) 2.275
                                         with roll-out.
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 43870]]

 
                                        (vi) Nonatomized, plus vacuum bagging     0.0076  x  (Resin HAP%) 2.275
                                         without roll-out.
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat,  All methods.............................  0.445  x  (Gel coat HAP%)
 tooling gel coat.                                                                 1.675
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Equations calculate MACT model point value in kilograms of HAP per megagrams of resin or gel coat applied. The
  equations for vacuum bagging with roll-out are applicable when a facility rolls out the applied resin and
  fabric prior to applying the vacuum bagging materials. The equations for vacuum bagging without roll-out are
  applicable when a facility applies the vacuum bagging materials immediately after resin application without
  rolling out the resin and fabric. HAP% = HAP content expressed as a weight-percent value between 0 and 100%.


                      Table 4.  to Subpart VVVV--Applicability and Timing of Notifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       If your facility * * *                 You must submit * * *                  By this date * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Is an existing source subject to   an initial notification containing    no later than the dates specified in
 this subpart.                         the information specified in Sec.     Sec.  63.9(b)(2).2.
                                       63.9(b)(2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Is a new source subject to this    the notifications specified in Sec.   no later than the dates specified
 subpart.                              63.9(b)(3) to (5).                    Sec.  63.9(b)(4) and (5).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Qualifies for a compliance         a request for a compliance extension  no later than the dates specified in
 extension as specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.  63.9(c).        Sec.  63.6(i).
 63.9(c).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Is complying with HAP content      a notification of compliance status   no later than 30 calendar days after
 limits, application equipment         as specified in Sec.  63.9(h).        the end of the first 3-month
 requirements, or MACT model point                                           averaging period after your
 value averaging provisions.                                                 facility's compliance date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Is complying by using an add-on    (i) a notification of intent to       no later than the date specified in
 control device.                       conduct a performance test as         Sec.  63.9(e).
                                       specified in Sec.  63.9(e).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      (ii) a notification of the date for   with the notification of intent to
                                       the continuous monitoring system      conduct a performance test.
                                       performance evaluation as specified
                                       in Sec.  63.9(g).
                                      (iii) a notification of compliance    no later than 60 calendar days after
                                       status as specified in Sec.           the completion of the add-on
                                       63.9(h).                              control device performance test and
                                                                             continuous monitoring system
                                                                             performance evaluation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 5.--to Subpart VVVV.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart VVVV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Applies to subpart
               Citation                        Requirement                 VVVV                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1(a)(1)-(4)..................  General Applicability....  Yes................
Sec.  63.1(a)(5)......................  .........................  No.................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(a)(6)-(8)..................  .........................  Yes................
Sec.  63.1(a)(9)......................  .........................  No.................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(a)(10)-(14)................  .........................  Yes................
Sec.  63.1(b).........................  Initial Applicability      Yes................
                                         Determination.
Sec.  63.1(c)(1)......................  Applicability After        Yes................
                                         Standard Established.
Sec.  63.1(c)(2)......................  .........................  Yes................  Area sources are not
                                                                                         regulated by subpart
                                                                                         VVVV.
Sec.  63.1(c)(3)......................  .........................  No.................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(c)(4)-(5)..................  .........................  Yes................
Sec.  63.1(d).........................  .........................  No.................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(e).........................  Applicability of Permit    Yes................
                                         Program.
Sec.  63.2............................  Definitions..............  Yes................  Additional definitions
                                                                                         are found in Sec.
                                                                                         63.5779.
Sec.  63.3............................  Units and Abbreviations..  Yes................
Sec.  63.4(a)(1)-(3)..................  Prohibited Activities....  Yes................
Sec.  63.4(a)(4)......................  .........................  No.................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.4(a)(5)......................  .........................  Yes................
Sec.  63.4(b)-(c).....................  Circumvention/             Yes................
                                         Severability.
Sec.  63.5(a).........................  Construction/              Yes................
                                         Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(b)(1)......................  Requirements for           Yes................
                                         Existing, Newly
                                         Constructed, and
                                         Reconstructed Sources..
Sec.  63.5(b)(2)......................  .........................  No.................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.5(b)(3)-(6)..................  .........................  Yes................

[[Page 43871]]

 
Sec.  63.5(c).........................  .........................  No.................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.5(d).........................  Application for Approval   Yes................
                                         of Construction/
                                         Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(e).........................  Approval of Construction/  Yes................
                                         Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(f).........................  Approval of Construction/  Yes................
                                         Reconstruction Based on
                                         prior State Review.
Sec.  63.6(a).........................  Compliance with Standards  Yes................
                                         and Maintenance
                                         Requirements--Applicabil
                                         ity.
Sec.  63.6(b)(1)-(5)..................  Compliance Dates for New   Yes................  Sec.  63.5695 specifies
                                         and Reconstructed                               compliance dates.
                                         Sources.
Sec.  63.6(b)(6)......................  .........................  No.................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(b)(7)......................  .........................  Yes................
Sec.  63.6(c)(1)-(2)..................  Compliance Dates for       Yes................  Sec.  63.5695 specifies
                                         Existing Sources.                               compliance dates.
Sec.  63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)...............  .........................  No.................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(c)(5)......................  .........................  Yes................  Any area source that
                                                                                         becomes a major source
                                                                                         must comply by the date
                                                                                         in Sec.  63.5695 for
                                                                                         existing sources or by
                                                                                         the date 1 year after
                                                                                         becoming a major
                                                                                         source, whichever is
                                                                                         later.
Sec.  63.6(d).........................  .........................  No.................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(e)(1)-(2)..................  Operation and Maintenance  No.................  Operating requirements
                                         Requirements.                                   for open molding
                                                                                         operations with add-on
                                                                                         controls are specified
                                                                                         in Sec.  63.5725.
Sec.  63.6(e)(3)......................  Startup, Shut Down, and    Yes................  Only sources with add-on
                                         Malfunction Plans.                              controls must complete
                                                                                         startup, shutdown, and
                                                                                         malfunction plans.
Sec.  63.6(f).........................  Compliance with            Yes................
                                         Nonopacity Emission
                                         Standards.
Sec.  63.6(g).........................  Use of an Alternative      Yes................
                                         Nonopacity Emission
                                         Standard.
Sec.  63.6(h).........................  Compliance with Opacity/   No.................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                         Visible Emissions                               specify opacity or
                                         Standards.                                      visible emission
                                                                                         standards.
Sec.  63.6(i)(1)-(14).................  Extension of Compliance    Yes................
                                         with Emission Standards.
Sec.  63.6(i)(15).....................  .........................  No.................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(i)(16).....................  .........................  Yes................
Sec.  63.6(j).........................  Exemption from Compliance  Yes................
                                         with Emission Standards.
Sec.  63.7............................  Performance Test           Yes................
                                         Requirements.
Sec.  63.8(a)(1)-(2)..................  Monitoring Requirements--  Yes................  All of Sec.  63.8
                                         Applicability.                                  applies only to sources
                                                                                         with add-on controls.
                                                                                         Additional monitoring
                                                                                         requirements for
                                                                                         sources with add-on
                                                                                         controls are found in
                                                                                         Sec.  63.5725.
Sec.  63.8(a)(3)......................  .........................  No.................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.8(a)(4)......................  .........................  No.................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                                                                         refer directly or
                                                                                         indirectly to Sec.
                                                                                         63.11.
Sec.  63.8(b)(1)......................  Conduct of Monitoring....  Yes................
Sec.  63.8(b)(2)-(3)..................  Multiple Effluents and     Yes................  Applies to sources that
                                         Multiple Continuous                             use a CMS on the
                                         Monitoring Systems (CMS).                       control device stack.
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)-(4)..................  Continuous Monitoring      Yes................
                                         System Operation and
                                         Maintenance.
Sec.  63.8(c)(5)......................  Continuous Opacity         No.................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                         Monitoring Systems                              have opacity or visible
                                         (COMS).                                         emission standards.
Sec.  63.8(c)(6)-(8)..................  Continuous Monitoring      Yes................
                                         System Calibration
                                         Checks and Out-of-
                                         Control Periods.
Sec.  63.8(d).........................  Quality Control Program..  Yes................
Sec.  63.8(e).........................  CMS Performance            Yes................
                                         Evaluation.
Sec.  63.8(f)(1)-(5)..................  Use of an Alternative      Yes................
                                         Monitoring Method.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6)......................  Alternative to Relative    Yes................  Applies only to sources
                                         Accuracy Test.                                  that use continuous
                                                                                         emission monitoring
                                                                                         systems (CEMS).
Sec.  63.8(g).........................  Data Reduction...........  Yes................
Sec.  63.9(a).........................  Notification               Yes................
                                         Requirements--Applicabil
                                         ity.
Sec.  63.9(b).........................  Initial Notifications....  Yes................
Sec.  63.9(c).........................  Request for Compliance     Yes................
                                         Extension.
Sec.  63.9(d).........................  Notification That a New    Yes................
                                         Source Is Subject to
                                         Special Compliance
                                         Requirements.
Sec.  63.9(e).........................  Notification of            Yes................  Applies only to sources
                                         Performance Test.                               with add-on controls.
Sec.  63.9(f).........................  Notification of Visible    No.................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                         Emissions/Opacity Test.                         have opacity or visible
                                                                                         emission standards.

[[Page 43872]]

 
Sec.  63.9(g)(1)......................  Additional CMS             Yes................  Applies only to sources
                                         Notifications--Date of                          with add-on controls.
                                         CMS Performance
                                         Evaluation.
Sec.  63.9(g)(2)......................  Use of COMS Data.........  No.................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                                                                         require the use of
                                                                                         COMS.
Sec.  63.9(g)(3)......................  Alternative to Relative    Yes................  Applies only to sources
                                         Accuracy Testing.                               with CEMS.
Sec.  63.9(h)(1)-(3)..................  Notification of            Yes................
                                         Compliance Status.
Sec.  63.9(h)(4)......................  .........................  No.................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.9(h)(5)-(6)..................  Notification of            Yes................
                                         Compliance Status
                                         (continued).
Sec.  63.9(i).........................  Adjustment of Deadlines..  Yes................
Sec.  63.9(j).........................  Change in Previous         Yes................
                                         Information.
Sec.  63.10(a)........................  Recordkeeping/Reporting--  Yes................
                                         Applicability.
Sec.  63.10(b)(1).....................  General Recordkeeping      Yes................  Secs.  63.5767 and
                                         Requirements.                                   63.5770 specify
                                                                                         additional
                                                                                         recordkeeping
                                                                                         requirements.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i)-(xi).............  Recordkeeping Relevant to  Yes................  Applies only to sources
                                         Startup, Shutdown, and                          with add-on controls.
                                         Malfunction Periods and
                                         CMS.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xii)-(xiv)..........  General Recordkeeping      Yes................
                                         Requirements.
Sec.  63.10(b)(3).....................  Recordkeeping              Yes................  Specifies applicability
                                         Requirements for                                determinations for non-
                                         Applicability                                   major sources.
                                         Determinations.
Sec.  63.10(c)........................  Additional Recordkeeping   Yes................  Applies only to sources
                                         for Sources with CMS.                           with add-on controls.
Sec.  63.10(d)(1).....................  General Reporting          Yes................  Sec.  63.5764 specifies
                                         Requirements.                                   additional reporting
                                                                                         requirements.
Sec.  63.10(d)(2).....................  Performance Test Results.  Yes................  Sec.  63.5764 specifies
                                                                                         additional requirements
                                                                                         for reporting
                                                                                         performance test
                                                                                         results.
Sec.  63.10(d)(3).....................  Opacity or Visible         No.................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                         Emissions Observations.                         specify opacity or
                                                                                         visible emission
                                                                                         standards.
Sec.  63.10(d)(4).....................  Progress Reports for       Yes................
                                         Sources with Compliance
                                         Extensions.
Sec.  63.10(d)(5).....................  Startup, Shutdown, and     Yes................  Applies only to sources
                                         Malfunction Reports.                            with add-on controls
Sec.  63.10(e)(1).....................  Additional CMS Reports-    Yes................  Applies only to sources
                                         General.                                        with add-on controls.
Sec.  63.10(e)(2).....................  Reporting Results of CMS   Yes................  Applies only to sources
                                         Performance Evaluations.                        with add-on controls.
Sec.  63.10(e)(3).....................  Excess Emissions/CMS       Yes................  Applies only to sources
                                         Performance Reports.                            with add-on controls.
Sec.  63.10(e)(4).....................  COMS Data Reports........  No.................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                                                                         specify opacity or
                                                                                         visible emission
                                                                                         standards.
Sec.  63.10(f)........................  Recordkeeping/Reporting    Yes................
                                         Waiver.
Sec.  63.11...........................  Control Device             No.................  Facilities subject to
                                         Requirements--Applicabil                        subpart VVVV do not use
                                         ity.                                            flares as control
                                                                                         devices.
Sec.  63.12...........................  State Authority and        Yes................  Sec.  63.5776 lists
                                         Delegations.                                    those sections of
                                                                                         subpart A that are not
                                                                                         delegated.
Sec.  63.13...........................  Addresses................  Yes................
Sec.  63.14...........................  Incorporation by           No.................  Subpart VVVV does not
                                         Reference.                                      incorporate any
                                                                                         material by reference.
Sec.  63.15...........................  Availability of            Yes................
                                         Information/
                                         Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 00-15505 Filed 7-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P