[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40324-40369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17564]



[[Page 40323]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reinforced 
Plastic Composites Production; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 40324]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7005-6]
RIN 2060-AE79


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing reinforced plastic 
composites production facilities. The proposed standards regulate 
production and ancillary processes used to manufacture products with 
thermoset resins and gel coats. Reinforced plastic composites 
production facilities emit hazardous air pollutants (HAP), such as 
styrene, methyl methacrylate (MMA), and methylene chloride 
(dichloromethane). These HAP have adverse health effects including 
headache, fatigue, depression, irritation of skin, eyes, and mucous 
membranes. Methylene chloride has been classified as a probable human 
carcinogen. These proposed standards will implement section 112(d) of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources in this category 
to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT). We estimate the proposed 
NESHAP would reduce nationwide emissions of HAP from these facilities 
by approximately 14,500 tons per year (tpy) (65 percent).

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before October 1, 2001.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by August 22, 2001, a public hearing will be held on 
September 4, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-94-52, U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by 
courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number 
A-94-52, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. We request 
a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina.
    Docket. Docket No. A-94-52 contains supporting information used in 
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall 
(ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Barnett, Organic Chemicals 
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5605, 
[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:
    Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-
mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted 
either as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and 
encryption problems or on disks in WordPerfectTM version 
5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All comments and data submitted in 
electronic form must note the docket number: A-94-52. No confidential 
business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic 
comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Keith Barnett, c/o OAQPS 
Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel Hill 
Street, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information identified 
as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it 
is received by the EPA, the information may be made available to the 
public without further notice to the commenter.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Maria 
Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), 
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5607 
at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in 
attending the public hearing must also call Maria Noell to verify the 
time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will 
provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or 
arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of the 
information considered by the EPA in the development of this 
rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added 
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to 
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify 
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the 
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards 
and their preambles, the contents of the docket, excluding interagency 
review materials, will serve as the record in the case of judicial 
review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and 
other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in 
the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by 
calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
docket materials.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the proposed NESHAP will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 
a copy of the proposed NESHAP will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules 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 40325]]



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

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.5785 of the 
proposed rule. 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 source of authority for development of NESHAP?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. What are the potential health effects of the HAP emitted by 
the reinforced plastic composites production industry?
    D. How were the proposed NESHAP developed?
    E. What processes and operations are included in the Reinforced 
Plastic Composites Production source category?
II. Summary of Proposed NESHAP
    A. What source categories and subcategories are affected by this 
proposed rule?
    B. What are the primary sources of HAP emissions and what are 
the emissions?
    C. What is the affected source?
    D. What are the proposed emission limits, operating limits, and 
other standards?
    E. What is the MACT model point value and how is it used in 
these proposed NESHAP?
    F. When would I need to comply with these proposed NESHAP?
    G. What are the proposed options for demonstrating compliance?
    H. What are the proposed testing and initial compliance 
requirements?
    I. What are the proposed continuous compliance requirements?
    J. What are the proposed notification, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements?
III. Rationale for Proposed NESHAP
    A. How did we determine the source category to regulate?
    B. What pollutants are regulated under these proposed NESHAP?
    C. What is the ``affected source'' and how did EPA select the 
operations to be regulated by these proposed NESHAP?
    D. What is a new affected source?
    E. How did we determine the MACT floor for existing sources?
    F. How did we determine the MACT floor for new sources?
    G. Did we consider options more stringent than the MACT floor?
    H. Why are some reinforced plastic composites production 
operations not subject to these proposed NESHAP?
    I. How did we select the proposed compliance dates for existing 
and new sources?
    J. How did we select the form of these proposed NESHAP?
    K. How did we select the test methods for determining compliance 
with the proposed NESHAP?
    L. How did we determine the proposed monitoring and 
recordkeeping requirements?
    M. How did we select the proposed notification and reporting 
requirements?
    N. What are some of the areas where we are specifically 
soliciting comments?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What facilities are affected by the proposed NESHAP?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the water quality impacts?
    D. What are the solid and hazardous waste impacts?
    E. What are the energy impacts?
    F. What are the cost impacts?
    G. What are the economic impacts?
V. Relationship of Proposed NESHAP to Other Standards and Programs 
under the CAA
    A. National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control 
Devices, Recovery Devices, and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a 
Process (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS)
    B. Operating Permit Program
    C. NESHAP for Plastic Parts and Products
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

[[Page 40326]]

I. Introduction

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

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Reinforced 
Plastic Composites Production (major sources only) was included on the 
initial list of source categories published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 
31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit 
greater than 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    The CAA requires NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction 
in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is 
commonly referred to as the MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP. 
This concept appears in section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. For new sources, 
the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that 
is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for 
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of 
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing 
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Are the Potential Health Effects of the HAP Emitted by the 
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Industry?

    Today's proposed NESHAP protect air quality and promote the public 
health by reducing emissions of some of the HAP listed in section 
112(b)(1) of the CAA.
    The HAP emitted by the reinforced plastic composites production 
industry include, but are not limited to, approximately 20,000 tpy of 
styrene, 550 tpy of methyl methacrylate, and 1100 tpy of methylene 
chloride. Exposure to these compounds has been demonstrated to cause 
adverse health effects, including chronic health disorders (e.g., 
headache, fatigue, and depression) and acute health disorders (e.g., 
irritation of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes and decreased 
respiratory function). Methylene chloride has been classified as a 
probable human carcinogen and styrene as a possible human carcinogen. 
In general, these findings have only been shown with concentrations 
higher than those typically in the ambient air.
    We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the 
operations covered by today's proposed NESHAP (and the people living 
around the operations) necessary to conduct an analysis to determine 
the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these 
facilities and the potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, 
we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described 
above occur in the populations surrounding these operations. However, 
to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the proposed rule will 
reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.
1. Styrene
    Acute (short-term) exposure to styrene in humans results in mucous 
membrane and eye irritation and gastrointestinal effects. Chronic 
(long-term) exposure to styrene in humans may cause effects on the 
central nervous system (CNS) such as headache, fatigue, weakness, 
depression, and hearing loss. There is limited evidence that 
occupational exposure to styrene is associated with an increased 
frequency of spontaneous abortions and decreased frequency of births 
and an increased risk of leukemia and lymphoma. The EPA considers this 
evidence on occupational exposure to styrene to be inconclusive. The 
International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified styrene as a 
Group 2B, possible human carcinogen. The EPA has not classified styrene 
with respect to carcinogenicity.
2. Methyl Methacrylate
    Methyl methacrylate irritates the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes 
in humans. An allergic response to dermal exposure may develop. 
Respiratory effects following acute (short-term) exposure include chest 
tightness, dyspnea, coughing, wheezing, and reduced lung function. 
Neurological symptoms including headache, lethargy, lightheadedness, 
and a sensation of heaviness in the arms and legs have also been 
reported following acute exposure to MMA. Effects to the liver, kidney, 
brain, spleen, and bone marrow have been reported in chronic (long-
term) animal studies of MMA inhalation. Fetal abnormalities have been 
reported in animals exposed to MMA by injection and inhalation. In 
several animal studies, no carcinogenic effects were observed. The EPA 
has classified MMA in Group E (not likely to be carcinogenic in 
humans).
3. Methylene Chloride
    Acute (short-term) exposure to methylene chloride by inhalation 
affects the nervous system, causing decreased visual, auditory, and 
motor functions. These effects are reversible once exposure ceases. The 
effects of chronic (long-term) exposure to methylene chloride suggest 
that the CNS is a potential target in both humans and animals. Limited 
animal studies have reported developmental effects. Human data are 
inconclusive regarding methylene chloride and cancer. Animal studies 
have shown increases in liver and lung cancer and benign mammary gland 
tumors following the inhalation of methylene chloride. The EPA has 
classified methylene chloride as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen.

D. How Were the Proposed NESHAP Developed?

    We started the development of the proposed NESHAP by sending 
information collection request (ICR) surveys to facilities with 
applicable standard industries classification (SIC) codes. In addition 
to these surveys, we consulted with numerous members of the reinforced 
plastic composites industry, representatives of industry trade 
associations, and material and equipment vendors in developing the 
proposed NESHAP.
    We held a series of approximately 35 meetings and visited 
approximately 25 facilities over a period of 8 years. These meetings 
and site visits were held to keep stakeholders informed and to gather 
additional data and information on issues relevant to the proposed 
NESHAP. The stakeholders helped in data gathering, arranged site 
visits, identified issues and provided information to help resolve 
issues in the rulemaking process.
    We identified the MACT floor control level with information 
obtained through survey responses, site visits, telephone contacts, and 
operating permits. We assessed control options more stringent than the 
MACT floor by identifying the level(s) and method(s) of control 
achieved by the best controlled sources in the industry and conducting 
analyses designed to determine the cost, economic, energy, and 
environmental impacts of implementing the more stringent control 
options.

[[Page 40327]]

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

    The Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category 
involves the production of plastic products from cross-linking resins, 
usually in combination with reinforcing materials and inorganic 
fillers. The production of products that do not contain reinforcing 
materials is also included in this category, as well as the production 
of intermediate compounds which are later used to make the final 
plastic products. These non-reinforced products were included because 
they are produced using the same types of resins, have similar emission 
characteristics and would use similar emission controls. This source 
category is limited to those resins which contain styrene, either by 
itself or with a combination of other monomers or solvents.
    There are a wide variety of operations that use styrene-containing 
resins to make thermoset plastics. Such production operations include 
manual resin application, mechanical resin application, filament 
winding, gel coat application, compression/injection molding, resin 
transfer molding, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/continuous 
casting, polymer casting, pultrusion, and sheet molding compound (SMC) 
manufacturing. There are also ancillary operations such as cleaning, 
mixing/bulk molding compound (BMC) manufacturing, and storage that 
occur in conjunction with these production operations. Many facilities 
will use multiple operations in the manufacturing of their product.
    This category does not include facilities which repair previously 
manufactured reinforced plastic composites, but do not have any co-
located reinforced plastic composite manufacturing operations. The 
reason is that we believe that repair operations that are co-located 
with manufacturing operations use the same materials as the 
manufacturing processes. Repair operations that are not co-located may 
use different materials and application techniques.

II. Summary of Proposed NESHAP

    This preamble section discusses the proposed NESHAP as they apply 
to you, the owner or operator of a new or existing reinforced plastic 
composites production facility.

A. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by This 
Proposed Rule?

    Today's proposed rule applies to the Reinforced Plastic Composites 
Production source category. We evaluated the use of subcategories based 
on size (i.e., tpy of HAP emitted). These subcategories played an 
important role in defining the new source MACT floors. However, the 
available data that we used to develop the MACT floor for existing 
sources do not show significant differences between larger-emitting 
versus smaller-emitting sources. Thus, we did not go through a separate 
analysis for each subcategory of existing sources.

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

    The primary source of HAP emissions from the Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production source category is the evaporation of styrene and 
other organic liquid HAP contained in the resin during the application 
and/or curing of the resin. Since styrene participates in the curing 
reaction, not all of it is emitted. The HAP emissions also occur during 
ancillary operations such as cleaning, mixing/BMC manufacturing, and 
storage.
    Total baseline HAP emissions from the Reinforced Plastic Composites 
Production source category are approximately 22,200 tpy. Emissions from 
spray lay-up and gel coating constitute approximately 56 percent and 19 
percent of the total baseline emissions, respectively. The remaining 
HAP emissions are primarily from hand lay-up/bucket and tool 
application, compression molding/injection molding, filament winding, 
SMC manufacturing, and centrifugal casting.

C. What Is the Affected Source?

    Under this proposed rule, the affected source would be the 
combination of all operations regulated under these standards at a 
reinforced plastic composites production facility. The following 
regulated operations are typically performed at reinforced plastic 
composites production facilities and are part of the affected source: 
open molding, closed molding, centrifugal casting, continuous 
lamination/continuous casting, polymer casting, pultrusion, SMC 
manufacturing, equipment cleaning, BMC/manufacturing/mixing, and 
storage of HAP containing materials.

D. What Are the Proposed Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other 
Standards?

    We are proposing the requirements of these NESHAP in the form of 
emission limits (i.e., point value, mass rate, or percent reduction), 
operating limits, and work practice standards. Work practice standards 
include design, equipment, work practices, and operational standards.
    In developing proposed requirements for reinforced plastic 
composites affected sources, we have provided an alternative format 
where possible. For example, a facility meeting a 95 percent emission 
reduction requirement for open molding processes can alternatively meet 
a point value. We have also provided alternatives for meeting the 
limits for continuous lamination and continuous casting processes.
    We are proposing a threshold for existing sources to distinguish 
between sources that would meet the floor requirements, that are 
generally based on pollution prevention, and those that would have to 
meet a more stringent above-the-floor requirement based on 95 percent 
control of HAP emissions. For small businesses, the threshold is 250 
tpy of combined HAP emissions for open molding, centrifugal casting, 
continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, and SMC manufacturing. The 
definition of a small business for this source category ranges from 500 
to 1000 employees. More specific information on the definition of a 
small business may be found in the discussion of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act in the Administrative Requirements section of this 
preamble. For businesses that are not small businesses, the threshold 
is combined emissions of HAP of 100 tpy from the same operations.
    For all open molding operations (i.e., corrosion-resistant, 
noncorrosion-resistant, tooling, and gel coat) and centrifugal casting 
(corrosion-resistant and noncorrosion-resistant) at existing sources 
below the threshold, and new sources with HAP emissions less than 100 
tpy, you must comply with a HAP emission limit that is calculated for 
your facility using MACT model point value equations for each open 
molding and centrifugal casting operation. For open molding and 
centrifugal casting operations at new sources with HAP emissions equal 
to or greater than 100 tpy, and existing sources with HAP emissions 
equal to or greater than the applicable thresholds (i.e., 100 tpy for 
large businesses and 250 tpy for small businesses), we are proposing to 
require owners and operators to reduce emissions by 95 percent from 
these operations or comply with a corresponding HAP emission limit 
calculated using the MACT model point value equations.
    We are proposing to require owners and operators of continuous 
lamination/continuous casting operations at existing sources below the 
above-the-

[[Page 40328]]

floor applicability thresholds, and new sources with HAP emissions less 
than 100 tpy, to reduce emissions by 58 percent. Other new and existing 
sources must reduce emissions by 95 percent.
    We are proposing to require owners and operators of pultrusion 
operations at existing sources below the above-the-floor thresholds, 
and new sources with HAP emissions less than 100 tpy, to reduce 
emissions by 60 percent. This reduction is based on applying a wet 
enclosure or using direct die injection to limit emissions. Other new 
and existing sources must reduce emissions by 95 percent.
    We are proposing to require owners and operators at both new and 
existing sources using injection/compression molding operations to 
reduce HAP emissions through the use of a work practice, whereby only 
one charge per machine is uncovered, unwrapped, or exposed per mold 
cycle per compression/injection molding machine.
    We are proposing to require owners and operators of sheet molding 
compound operations at existing sources below the above-the-floor 
thresholds, and new sources with HAP emissions less than 100 tpy, to 
reduce emissions by using a nylon film, or film with equal or lower 
permeability to styrene, to enclose their SMC operation. Other new and 
existing sources must reduce emissions by 95 percent.
    We are proposing to require owners and operators of all new and 
existing reinforced plastic composites affected sources to use cleaners 
containing no HAP.
    We are proposing to require owners and operators of resin mixing 
and bulk molding compound operations at existing sources below the 
above-the-floor applicability thresholds, and new sources with HAP 
emissions less than 100 tpy, to limit HAP emissions by covering mixers 
such that there are no visible gaps. For other new and existing 
sources, we are proposing to require that you reduce emissions from 
mixing and BMC manufacturing by 95 percent.
    For existing sources that are subject to the above-the-floor 
control level of 95 percent HAP emission reduction, we examined an 
alternative, based on pollution prevention, that would be more 
effective than the requirements of the MACT floor for existing sources. 
However, we were unable to develop an acceptable alternative to include 
in the proposed standards that meets the statutory requirements of 
MACT. We are soliciting comment on a possible alternative.
    We are proposing to require all owners and operators at any 
existing or new affected source to keep all organic HAP-containing 
storage vessels covered, except during the addition or removal of 
materials.

E. What Is the MACT Model Point Value and How Is It Used in These 
Proposed NESHAP?

    The MACT model point value is a number calculated for each open 
molding operation and centrifugal casting operation and is a surrogate 
for emissions. The MACT model point value is a way to rank the relative 
performance of different resin and gel coat emissions reduction 
techniques. This approach allows you to create control strategies using 
different resin and gel coat emissions reduction techniques. The 
proposed standards provide equations to calculate MACT model point 
values based on HAP content and application method for each material 
that you use. These MACT model point values are then averaged and 
compared to limits in the proposed standards to determine if your open 
molding operations are in compliance.
    The MACT model point values have units of pounds of HAP per ton of 
resin or gel coat applied. It is important to note that the MACT model 
point values are surrogates for emissions, and the MACT model point 
value equations are used only for determining compliance with the 
proposed Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. The MACT 
model point value equations cannot be used in place of emission factor 
equations to demonstrate compliance with other regulations.
    The MACT model point value equations only account for HAP content 
and application method. Other factors (including curing time, part 
thickness, and operator technique) also affect emissions, and these 
factors are not accounted for in the MACT model point value equations 
for reasons discussed in section III-E. Determining the HAP content of 
materials and the method of application is relatively simple, and these 
factors are the most significant in affecting emissions. More 
information on the development of this model is available in the 
docket.

F. When Would I Need To Comply With These Proposed NESHAP?

    We are proposing that all existing sources comply within 3 years of 
publication of the promulgated NESHAP in the Federal Register. New 
affected sources that startup before the promulgated NESHAP are 
published in the Federal Register must comply no later than the 
effective date of the NESHAP, which will be the same as the publication 
date. New affected sources that startup after the promulgated NESHAP 
are published in the Federal Register must comply upon startup. 
Existing area sources that increase their emissions or their potential 
to emit such that they become a major source of HAP must be in 
compliance within 3 years of the date they become a major source. New 
area sources that become major sources of HAP must comply upon becoming 
a major source. All open molding and centrifugal casting operations 
that comply by meeting a specified point value on a 12-month rolling 
average will have 1 year from the compliance date to demonstrate 
compliance.
    We are proposing to provide new and existing facilities 3 years to 
comply from the time their HAP emissions reach or exceed the 
applicability thresholds requiring the installation of add-on controls, 
if these HAP emissions increases occur after their initial compliance 
date.

G. What Are the Proposed Options for Demonstrating Compliance?

    Today's proposed NESHAP provide several options for compliance. We 
are providing these options to afford industry the flexibility to 
decide which method is best suited for each particular situation.
1. Open Molding and Centrifugal Casting Operations
    For open molding operations at existing and new sources, this 
proposal would allow you to choose to comply by meeting the individual 
MACT point value for each operation at your affected source, or by 
meeting the weighted average MACT point value for all open molding 
operations at your affected source. In addition, if you have any 
combination of manual resin application, mechanical resin application, 
filament winding, or centrifugal casting operations at your affected 
source, you could comply by meeting the MACT point value for any one of 
these operations and by using the same resin for all the other 
operations.
    For open molding and centrifugal casting operations where the 
proposed rule would require you to meet a percent reduction, you could 
use an add-on control device to achieve the required reduction or you 
may choose to meet a MACT point value that corresponds to that 
particular operation's percent reduction.
2. Continuous Casting/Lamination Operations
    For continuous casting/lamination operations at existing and new 
sources, we are proposing that you could

[[Page 40329]]

demonstrate that each continuous casting line and each continuous 
lamination line meets the appropriate standard. Alternatively, you 
could average all your continuous casting and continuous lamination 
lines together, and demonstrate that they meet the appropriate 
standard. An additional alternative would be to capture your emissions 
from your wet-out area in a permanent total enclosure that meets EPA's 
criteria, as specified in Method 204 in appendix M of 40 CFR part 51, 
and vent these wet-out emissions through a closed vent system to a 
control device achieving 95 percent reduction of HAP emissions. Under 
this proposed rule, these alternatives could be used in combination to 
demonstrate compliance.
3. Pultrusion Operations
    For existing and new pultrusion operations, under this proposed 
rule you could capture and vent your emissions to a control device that 
achieves the required percent reduction of HAP emissions. You could 
also elect to use direct die injection pultrusion machines with resin 
drip collection systems that meet the criteria specified. We are also 
proposing an additional alternative only available to existing sources: 
the use of a wet-area enclosure with a resin drip collection system. 
For both new and existing sources, you could use the available options 
in combination to achieve compliance under this proposed rule.
4. Ancillary Operations
    For ancillary operations at all sources, such as cleaning, storage, 
and mixing/BMC operations at existing sources, the only option we are 
proposing is to comply with the specified work practice standards.

H. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

    We are proposing to require owners and operators of all affected 
sources which use a control device to demonstrate compliance to conduct 
an initial performance test using specified EPA test methods. The owner 
or operator would test at the inlet and outlet of the control device, 
and using these results, calculate a percent reduction.
    We are also proposing to require owners and operators that use 
permanent total enclosures to conduct a design evaluation as specified 
by EPA Method 204. If your enclosure does not meet the requirements for 
a permanent total enclosure, you would need to test the enclosure using 
EPA Methods 204B through E to determine the capture efficiency.
    Prior to the initial performance test, owners and operators of 
affected sources would be required to install the parameter monitoring 
equipment to be used to demonstrate compliance with the operating 
limits. During the initial performance test, the owners and operators 
would use the parameter monitoring equipment to establish operating 
parameter limits.

I. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    If you use an add-on control device, we are proposing that you 
monitor and record the operating parameters established during the 
initial performance test, and calculate average operating parameter 
values averaged over the period of time specified in these proposed 
NESHAP to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits.
    If you use the MACT point value system to maintain a point value 
less than or equal to the appropriate point value listed in today's 
proposed NESHAP, we are proposing to require that you calculate the 
point value one time if the resins or gel coats used in the operation 
remain the same, or if all the resins and gel coats used individually 
meet the required point values. You are required to calculate the point 
value on a 12-month rolling average each month if the resin or gel coat 
varies between operations or over time, and not all resins or gel coats 
taken individually meet the required point value.
    If you are complying with work practice standards, we are proposing 
that you demonstrate compliance with the work practice standards in 
today's proposed NESHAP by performing the necessary work practices and 
by keeping a record certifying that you are in compliance with the work 
practices.

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

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

III. Rationale for Proposed NESHAP

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

    Reinforced Plastic Composites Production was included on the 
initial list of source categories published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 
31576). In establishing the source category list, we stated that we 
would refine category descriptions during the rulemaking process, if 
necessary, based on additional information available. We did not find 
it necessary to refine the source category description for Reinforced 
Plastic Composites Production. However, we did define a number of 
different process groupings in order to develop representative MACT 
floors as described in the section on MACT floor development.

B. What Pollutants Are Regulated Under These Proposed NESHAP?

    The proposed NESHAP regulate total HAP rather than individual HAP 
compounds. Standards for total HAP simplify compliance and enforcement 
compared with standards for individual

[[Page 40330]]

HAP compounds. Styrene is the HAP emitted in the largest magnitude. 
Other HAP emitted from reinforced plastic composites production 
facilities include MMA and methylene chloride.

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

    To provide compliance flexibility, we defined the affected source 
as the combination of all reinforced plastic composites operations at a 
site. This broad source definition allows a manufacturer to determine 
compliance by averaging the HAP content of different products used 
throughout the facility, within certain defined operations, and to use 
different application techniques as needed to meet product quality 
specifications.

D. What Is a New Affected Source?

    A new affected source is any reinforced plastic composites 
production facility that meets both of these criteria:
     It commenced construction after today's date; and
     It is at a site that does not presently contain any 
reinforced plastic composites production operations.
    In section 112 of the CAA, the definition of new sources also 
includes stationary sources that commence reconstruction after the 
publication date of a proposed NESHAP. The Small Business Advocacy 
Review (SBAR) Panel recommended that we carefully review our definition 
of reconstruction for this industry. As defined in the General 
Provisions for 40 CFR part 63, ``reconstruction'' means the replacement 
of components of an affected, or a previously unaffected, stationary 
source to such an extent that: (1) the fixed capital cost of the new 
components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be 
required to construct a comparable new source; and (2) it is 
technologically and economically feasible for the reconstructed source 
to meet the relevant standards (as established by the Administrator or 
a State) pursuant to section 112 of the CAA.
    We envision that the types of changes that would typically occur at 
existing facilities would include replacement of spray equipment and 
molds. We do not believe that it would be technologically and 
economically feasible for an existing source making these types of 
changes to meet new source MACT. Thus, such changes do not meet the 
definition of reconstruction in the General Provisions and would not 
subject the sources making such changes to new source MACT.

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

    Several considerations underlie our MACT floor determinations. 
These considerations include: if/how the source category is to be 
subcategorized, how emissions types within the affected source are to 
be analyzed, and what are the best performing sources.
    We identified 433 facilities that are major sources based on their 
potential to emit or have the potential to be major sources based on 
collocation with other HAP-emitting processes not part of this source 
category.
    If technical differences in emissions characteristics, processes, 
control device applicability, or opportunities for pollution prevention 
exist within the source category, it may be appropriate to set separate 
floors based on these characteristics. In analyzing the available data 
on this source category, it was apparent that reinforced plastic 
composite facilities, as a whole, are extremely diverse in their 
emissions characteristics, control device applicability, and 
opportunities for pollution prevention. Therefore, we explored various 
ways of grouping the operations that may be present at these 
facilities.
    For existing sources, it was apparent that almost all of the 
existing source floors would be based on pollution-prevention 
techniques such as lowering the HAP content in resins and gel coats, 
covering baths and containers holding resins, and using nonatomized 
spray applications. The extent and performance of pollution-prevention 
techniques are dependent on the specific operation. For this reason, 
the data were subdivided by specific operation, and a floor for each 
operation was developed.
    Operations were segregated by several factors. The first was mold 
type (i.e., open, partially open, and closed). We also segregated 
operations by resin and gel coat application method; these include 
mechanical, manual, filament winding, and centrifugal casting. The type 
of mold and resin application method impacts the emission potential of 
a particular operation and also the effectiveness and applicability of 
different control techniques. We also segregated continuous operations 
such as pultrusion, continuous lamination, continuous casting, and the 
manufacture of sheet molding compound.
    The final criteria used was product type. The required properties 
of the final product place certain constraints on the raw materials 
that can be used. This, in turn, influences the limits on levels of HAP 
in the raw materials. We identified several product criteria where the 
raw materials required to produce the product are dissimilar enough 
that a separate floor determination was required. The first is 
corrosion resistance. Reinforced plastic composites can generally be 
divided into two types--corrosion-resistant and noncorrosion-resistant 
products. Corrosion-resistant products require resins specifically 
formulated for corrosion-resistant applications. We also included high-
strength applications in the corrosion-resistant grouping. These 
applications include products such as structural members and utility 
poles. These require resins with higher HAP contents than general 
purpose resins. The higher HAP contents for both corrosion-resistant 
and high-strength applications are necessary to produce a laminate with 
a greater concentration of styrene cross-linking. This higher level of 
cross-linking is necessary for either corrosion-resistance or high-
strength.
    We also separated gel coats from resins because these materials 
have significantly different functions in the final product and are 
formulated differently. Gel coats were further subdivided into clear, 
white and off-white, and other colors. Clear gel coats require 
significantly higher HAP content than pigmented gel coats, and are, 
therefore, unable to be formulated to the same HAP levels. White and 
off-white gel coats can be formulated to lower HAP contents on a 
weight-percent basis than other colors due to the fact that white 
pigments are heavier than other color pigments.
    Class 1 fire and smoke rated products were separated from other 
products because their unique properties require a resin with a 
significantly higher HAP content than any other products. Separating 
Class 1 fire and smoke rated products was also one of the 
recommendations of the SBAR Panel.
    Tooling resins and gel coats are used to make the molds that, in 
turn, are used to produce reinforced plastic parts. Molds must have 
different properties compared to the products they are used to produce. 
These include a high level of dimensional stability and resistance to 
heat compared to other reinforced plastic composites. Therefore, 
separate floors were developed for tooling resins and gel coats.
    Once the data were subdivided by specific operation, the data were 
ranked by HAP emissions. Open molding and centrifugal casting 
operations were ranked based on a surrogate emission factor called a 
point value. As

[[Page 40331]]

previously discussed, point values are based on resin and gel coat 
application method and HAP content, and provide a relative measure of 
emissions between operations with varying resin and gel coat HAP 
contents and application methods.
    Other factors such as gel time, part thickness, application 
temperature, and operator technique also affect emissions. However, 
there are less data available to determine the effects of these factors 
in a production setting. In addition, some of these factors, such as 
part thickness, are inherent to the process and cannot be changed 
without changing the final product. For this reason, other factors are 
not included in the MACT model point value equations. The point value 
system was also developed to allow a facility to average different 
operations together to meet the applicable proposed standards. The 
ability to average is intended to provide additional compliance 
flexibility.
    The individual operations were then ranked based on the point value 
(for open molding and centrifugal casting), percent of emission 
reduction (pultrusion, continuous lamination/casting, SMC 
manufacturing), covering open containers or exposed resin (storage, BMC 
manufacturing/mixing, injection/compression molding), or the use on 
non-HAP cleaning solvents (equipment cleaning). The median facility of 
the top 12 percent (or top 5 for operations with less than 30 sources) 
was then selected as representing the existing source floor.
    For some of these operations, the available data were insufficient 
to perform a ranking. These were non-white pigmented gel coats, 
products with a Class 1 fire and smoke rating, and high-strength 
products.
    We identified two facilities that produce products that require a 
Class 1 fire and smoke rating. Both facilities use a resin with a 60 
percent HAP content. We chose use of this resin as the floor. From a 60 
percent HAP resin, we calculated different point values for mechanical, 
manual, and filament winding resin application.
    The data we used to set floors for pigmented gel coats were 
weighted averages reported by the facilities. This data included some 
information on colors, but not enough facilities reported color 
information to perform a meaningful ranking. Because of the 
predominance of white and off-white gel coats, these data are not 
representative for other colors. However, many facilities offer other 
colors. The pigments used in white and off-white gel coats are much 
denser than the pigments used in other colors. For that reason, weight 
percent HAP in white and off-white gel coats tends to be lower. A floor 
based on white and off-white gel coat HAP contents would preclude a 
facility using other colors.
    Based on industry comments and the recommendation of the SBAR 
panel, we determined that a HAP content of 37 percent is the minimum 
that would provide acceptable gel coat performance for gel coats with 
colors other than white and off-white. In the absence of any other 
data, we adopted a 37 percent HAP as the floor for these gel coats. The 
37 percent HAP content was converted to a point value using the 
appropriate point value equation. (See the final report of the SBAR 
Panel in the docket.) We request comments and supporting data on the 
appropriateness of 37 percent as a minimum HAP content for acceptable 
performance for gel coats with colors other than white and off-white.
    The data supplied by industry did not differentiate products that 
require higher than typical strength properties. Therefore, we could 
not determine a floor with the facility data base. We discussed this 
issue as part of the SBAR Panel with several manufacturers that produce 
high-strength products. We also reviewed the requirements of South 
Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1162. Rule 1162 specifically 
addresses high-strength products and contains the same requirements for 
high-strength products and corrosion-resistant products. As a result, 
we determined using the data for corrosion-resistant resins would be 
the most appropriate way to determine floors for high-strength 
products. Therefore, we are proposing the same floors for high-strength 
products and corrosion-resistant products. This is consistent with a 
recommendation of the SBAR Panel. We solicit comments on this approach.
    There are many facilities that use multiple operations to produce a 
product. An example of this would be a facility producing corrosion-
resistant tanks using filament winding to produce the main circular 
portion, mechanical resin application for the tank ends, and manual 
resin application to join the parts together. Industry representatives 
pointed out that the floors we had developed from the data base would 
potentially require a facility to use three different resins to produce 
a single product. This could potentially lead to problems of resin 
compatibility and product failures. The SBAR Panel report included a 
recommendation that we allow a facility to use the same resin for all 
processes.
    As a result, we reexamined the floors for facilities with multiple 
processes. We determined that, based on the data available, the 
appropriate approach would be to have a provision in the proposed 
standards to allow a facility to select one operation, determine the 
resin they could use to meet the floor, and then use that same resin in 
all other operations. We did not have the data to determine what that 
operation should be in all cases, so we are not specifying a particular 
operation in the proposed standards. We assumed that a facility would 
select the operation that allows them to use the highest HAP content 
resin.
    At the recommendation of the SBAR Panel, we also reexamined the 
floors for tooling resins. Several of the small entity representatives 
that advised the panel stated that the proposed floor for tooling 
resins will result in inferior quality tools. We believe that the 
current floor for tooling resins allows sufficient flexibility in resin 
HAP content as long as the resin can be applied with nonatomized spray 
technology. We are specifically soliciting comment on the applicability 
of nonatomized spray technology to tooling resins. Based on any 
comments, we intend to further examine the floor for tooling resins.

F. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor For New Sources?

    In developing the floor for new sources, we developed two 
subcategories--sources with emissions of 100 tpy or above and sources 
with emissions below 100 tpy. Our reason for examining sources with 
emissions below 100 tpy separately is that such facilities are likely 
to have more difficulty maintaining and operating add-on controls than 
larger-emitting sources, and we are unsure of the performance of add-on 
controls at these facilities. Separating the data into large and small 
HAP-emitting sources for developing new source MACT floors was also one 
of the recommendations of the SBAR Panel.
    In examining the facilities with emissions of 100 tpy or more, we 
found two facilities that control emissions from open molding and 
mixing by 95 percent overall. These facilities range in size from 
approximately 100 tpy to 1000 tpy of HAP emissions prior to the add-on 
control device. This level of control was chosen as the new source MACT 
floor for open molding and mixing at facilities with 100 tpy or more of 
uncontrolled emissions.
    We also considered whether to evaluate the applicability of add-on 
controls to each of the different

[[Page 40332]]

operations as was done in setting floors for existing sources. The two 
facilities that control emissions by 95 percent have operations 
including gel coat and mechanical resin application. The performance 
and cost of add-on controls is mainly a function of air flows and HAP 
concentration from the process. We have no data to suggest that the air 
flows and HAP concentrations present in other open molding production 
processes in this industry are not adequately represented by these two 
facilities.
    The two facilities produce parts that range in size from that of 
bathtubs to truck caps. It is possible that larger size parts may 
require larger enclosures. We have not identified any facilities in the 
reinforced plastic composites industry where processes producing large 
parts, such as storage tanks and swimming pools, have applied 100 
percent efficient capture systems. However, we have identified 
facilities using 100 percent efficient capture systems that apply 
coatings to large parts such as helicopters and ships. These coating 
operations have similar issues of large air flows (due to worker 
exposure concerns) and low outlet HAP emission concentrations. Based on 
this, we believe that it is technically feasible to apply 100 percent 
efficient capture systems to larger parts in the reinforced plastic 
composites industry.
    We evaluated the applicability of the 95 percent control level as 
the new source floor for other operations. Centrifugal casting, 
continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, and SMC manufacturing are 
similar in emissions characteristics to open molding. There are five 
facilities that have applied highly efficient add-on controls to these 
operations, with overall control efficiencies ranging from 90 to 95 
percent. For this reason, we chose 95 percent control as the new source 
MACT floor for these operations at facilities with uncontrolled 
emissions of at least 100 tpy.
    We also considered whether the new source MACT floor for the 
previously mentioned operations should be incorporation of the 
pollution-prevention measures that make up the existing source floors, 
combined with 95 percent control. This approach would actually result 
in a higher overall emissions reduction. In addition, incorporating the 
pollution prevention measures would reduce the potential for worker 
exposure in situations where processes have to be enclosed to meet the 
95 percent control requirement.
    However, we determined that selecting incorporation of pollution-
prevention techniques in addition to the 95 percent control requirement 
as the new source floor was not appropriate because the facilities that 
incorporate 95 percent control, which we determined represent the best 
controlled facilities, do not also incorporate the best pollution 
prevention techniques. Therefore, combining the pollution-prevention 
requirements with the 95 percent control requirements would actually 
result in an overall control level that exceeds the levels at the best 
controlled facilities.
    We are requesting comment on whether the new source floor for 
facilities that must meet the 95 percent control requirements should 
also incorporate the pollution-prevention requirements. We also request 
that commentors provide any available data on worker exposure that 
would help us quantify the benefits of incorporating pollution-
prevention requirements with the 95 percent control requirements.
    We are not proposing 95 percent control for closed molding, polymer 
casting, equipment cleaning, and resin storage, which have much lower 
emissions than the other types of operations. One of the facilities 
that sets the new source floor has a closed molding operation on site. 
This operation is not controlled through the use of an add-on control 
device. We attempted to identify other means of emissions reductions 
for these processes. For compression/injection molding, which is a type 
of closed molding, the only identified means of emission reduction was 
the work practice of uncovering one charge at a time. Therefore, this 
was chosen as the new source MACT floor for compression/injection 
molding. For polymer casting and resin transfer molding, we were not 
able to identify any means of reduction, either add-on controls or 
process modifications such as the use of low HAP resins. Thus, the new 
source MACT floor for these sources is no emissions reduction.
    For equipment cleaning, the proposed new source floor is based on 
use of cleaners with no HAP. Of the 433 facilities that reported 
information on cleaning, 353 reported using no cleaning materials 
containing HAP. However, we are not regulating solvents used for 
cleaning cured resin or gel coat from application equipment because we 
know of no means of reducing HAP emissions. Cured resin or gel coat 
inside a gun is usually the result of operator error or an equipment 
failure. To clean cured resin and gel coat, an aggressive solvent is 
needed, and no low-HAP alternatives are available. The equipment is 
usually soaked in a covered bucket resulting in little evaporation of 
the solvent. The amount of solvent needed per year is determined by the 
size of the facility, degree of operator error, and equipment failure 
rates. Because operator error and equipment failure are hard to 
predict, we could determine no basis for an annual limit of solvent 
usage that would be achievable by all facilities. These proposed 
NESHAP, therefore, allow HAP-containing solvents only for cleaning 
cured resin and gel coat from the application equipment.
    Over 250 facilities reported covering storage containers. We 
selected covering storage containers as the new source MACT floor for 
storage. We identified two facilities that vent the storage areas to a 
control device; however, we determined that the available data are 
insufficient to quantify additional emissions reductions that would 
result from controlling storage tanks and containers by 95 percent 
versus just covering the storage tanks and containers.
    We calculated separate floors for facilities with less than 100 tpy 
of emissions from open molding, centrifugal casting continuous 
lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, and BMC 
manufacturing/mixing. Though there are facilities with emissions below 
100 tpy that have add-on controls, data were not available to 
substantiate their level of control. Therefore, we could not state that 
they achieved a level of control above that achieved by the pollution-
prevention techniques, and thus, meet the definition of best controlled 
facilities. Also, smaller-emitting facilities tend to operate with 
fewer shifts than larger ones. The more frequent startups and shutdowns 
could tend to make it more difficult to maintain and operate add-on 
controls compared to larger-emitting facilities. For these reasons, the 
floor for new sources with less than 100 tpy of emissions is based on 
pollution-prevention techniques.
    For these smaller-emitting facilities, we are proposing to set the 
new source MACT floor at the same level as the existing source MACT 
floor. This approach was recommended by the SBAR Panel. We believe the 
existing source MACT floor represents the greatest degree of emissions 
reduction that is achievable for small facilities under all 
circumstances. For new sources, the CAA requires the MACT floor to be 
based on the HAP emissions control achieved in practice by the best 
controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator. The 
reinforced plastic composites industry is extraordinarily diverse. The 
products

[[Page 40333]]

produced, even in the same operation, can include skylights, bathtubs, 
and parts for automobiles. Given this diversity, it is difficult to 
identify the ``best controlled'' source. Products manufactured by this 
industry generally must meet certain minimal strength and durability 
requirements. The HAP content of the resin is a factor in meeting such 
requirements. Use of a resin with a given HAP content may be the most 
stringent level of control possible for a particular process, while it 
may be possible to use a lower-HAP resin in a different process without 
jeopardizing the strength or durability of the product.
    While some facilities are using lower-HAP materials and techniques 
than represented by the existing source MACT floor, we do not believe 
that these examples are universally applicable to all new reinforced 
plastic composites manufacturers. We have no data to precisely define 
the particular combination of requirements where these lower-emitting 
options can be used and still maintain the minimum required strength 
and durability requirements of these products. Consequently, we have 
set the proposed floor at the most stringent level that we have 
determined all sources emitting less than 100 tpy can achieve.
    We did not find that the quantity of HAP emissions from the source 
had any effect on its ability to incorporate pollution-prevention 
technology, or on the effectiveness of these technologies. For that 
reason, we did not subdivide the data for existing sources where the 
floors are based mainly on pollution prevention.
    During the SBAR Panel discussions, many of the small entity 
representatives expressed concern regarding the affordability and 
technical feasibility of add-on controls, and commented that they may 
be able to achieve similar HAP reductions using pollution-prevention 
measures, which tend to be less expensive. For example, if a facility 
could reduce its emissions by 50 percent each year for 3 years using 
the pollution-prevention alternative, it may be able to achieve 
reductions similar to thermal oxidation (nearly 90 percent versus 95 
percent). The panel recommended that EPA explore with industry the 
possibility of a more stringent pollution-prevention option as an 
alternative to add-on controls. The panel believed that this option 
should be more stringent than the pollution-prevention technology 
present in the current existing source MACT floors.
    We discussed with industry the possibility of a pollution-
prevention control option in lieu of add-on controls. We were unable to 
develop an option that we believe meets the statutory requirements of 
MACT. However, we are soliciting comment on a possible pollution-
prevention alternative to the 95 percent HAP reduction requirement. The 
specific information we are seeking is the maximum level of control 
that can be achieved by pollution prevention, and the time necessary to 
incorporate pollution-prevention techniques. The pollution-prevention 
techniques of which we are aware include low HAP resins and gel coats, 
nonatomized resin and gel coat applications, vapor suppressed resins, 
vacuum bagging, accelerated resin curing, and conversion of open 
molding processes to closed molding. We are soliciting information on 
other pollution-prevention techniques of which we are not aware, and 
information on the maximum level of emissions reductions achievable by 
these techniques.
    The general concept of an alternative would be a facility that 
elects to use this option to submit notification to the appropriate 
permitting authority of their intent. The facility would then have to 
submit a plan to meet specific emissions reductions through pollution 
prevention. The plan would outline the techniques they intend to use, 
the research and testing required, and a schedule with annual 
milestones for achieving the goal.
    In the next step, the facility would calculate an overall emission 
factor for all processes at the facility that are required to meet the 
95 percent emission reduction.
    Once a facility has determined a base year emission factor, they 
would be required to incorporate the pollution-prevention techniques 
outlined in the plan and make annual reports of progress. If a facility 
was unable to meet an interim milestone, they would be required to 
provide an updated plan within a specified time.
    We are also soliciting comment on determination of a base year and 
baseline emission factor, and reporting requirements.

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

    For existing sources, an above-the-floor control level was 
evaluated which was based on the new source floor for sources with 
emissions of 100 tpy or more. This above-the-floor control level would 
require 95 percent control of HAP emissions from all open molding, 
centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC 
manufacturing, and resin mixing/BMC manufacturing.
    We then looked at several options. These were selecting the floor 
level of control as MACT for all facilities, selecting the above-the-
floor level as MACT for all facilities, or choosing an alternative 
where facilities at or above a certain HAP emissions quantity would 
meet the above-the-floor level, and the rest would meet the floor. In 
looking at this third alternative, we also evaluated different HAP 
emission thresholds.
    The option of having all facilities meet the above-the-floor level 
of control had an incremental cost of $4,300 per additional ton of HAP 
emission reduction. The economic analysis for this option indicated 
that 126 small businesses would be impacted at a level of 3 percent of 
sales or more, and there were 90 projected closures of small 
businesses. Because of the impacts on small businesses, we believe that 
the benefit of controlling all existing sources to this level is not 
commensurate with the economic impacts. Therefore, we are not proposing 
this alternative as MACT.
    We then looked at a combination of the MACT floor for facilities 
below a specified HAP emissions quantity based on actual emissions 
prior to any add-on controls, and the above-the-floor level of control 
for larger-emitting facilities. We also examined the impacts from the 
standpoint of small businesses and their ability to obtain the capital 
to purchase pollution control equipment. We believe that the capital 
costs of the above-the-floor option for most small businesses would be 
prohibitive because they do not have the same access to capital as 
large businesses. The available data indicate that at a threshold of 
250 tpy, none of the existing small businesses in the data base would 
be impacted significantly by the above-the-floor control level. For 
this reason, we determined MACT for small businesses to be the floor 
for facilities that emit less than 250 tpy of HAP, and the above-the-
floor control level for facilities that emit 250 tpy or more. For large 
businesses, we determined MACT to be the floor for facilities that emit 
less than 100 tpy of HAP, and the above-the-floor control level for 
facilities that emit 100 tpy or more of HAP. The incorporation of the 
250 tpy threshold for small businesses was one of the recommendations 
of the SBAR Panel, and the economic impacts of the selected option are 
reasonable.
    Industry representatives independently developed costs for add-on 
controls and submitted them to the Agency. Their analysis is in the 
docket for this proposed rulemaking. The SBAR Panel recommended that we 
reconsider our estimates of costs for add-on controls in light of that 
study. The

[[Page 40334]]

industry cost estimates are at least three times higher than our cost 
estimates. The major reason for these differences in cost are the 
design assumptions for the permanent total enclosures and the estimated 
air flows. Our cost estimates assume an inlet concentration of 100 
parts per million by volume (ppmv). The industry study assumes lower 
concentrations that vary based on the specific facility. However, 
available test data for measured concentrations in the exhaust streams 
for reinforced plastic composites facilities range from 61 to 249 ppmv, 
with an average concentration of 120 and a median of 82. Based on this, 
we believe our 100 ppmv estimate is still reasonable, and we have 
decided not to revise our cost analysis at this time. We will review 
the industry's cost analysis in more depth following proposal, and make 
any appropriate changes based on our review and on comments we receive. 
We are soliciting comment on the cost and feasibility of add-on 
controls, data on design and operation of permanent total enclosures 
from this or similar industries, and data on typical exhaust HAP 
concentrations and air flows for reinforced plastic composite 
facilities.
    We did not identify an above-the-floor option for the following 
operations: closed molding, polymer casting, and equipment cleaning. We 
were able to find no examples where any closed molding process was 
controlled using add-on controls. Therefore, we believe it is not 
technically and economically feasible to use add-on controls for closed 
molding processes. We do not believe it is technically feasible to use 
add-on controls for equipment cleaning operations. In any case, 
application of the floor level of control we are proposing would 
eliminate HAP-containing cleaners, except for cases where cured resin 
has to be removed from application equipment. This floor level of 
control would achieve close to 100 percent HAP emissions reductions.
    For new sources, we examined an above-the-floor option of requiring 
all sources to meet the 95 percent control requirement for open 
molding, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/casting, 
pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, and resin mixing/BMC manufacturing. We 
determined that, even if we could resolve the issues surrounding the 
performance of add-on control devices at the smaller-emitting sources, 
the incremental cost would be $15,000 per ton of additional HAP 
emissions reduction. For this reason, we chose the floor level of 
control as MACT for new sources.
    We also considered an even more stringent above-the-floor control 
level for both existing and new sources. This control level would 
require facilities to use add-on controls to meet a 95 percent HAP 
emission reduction, and also require them to incorporate pollution-
prevention techniques such as the use of low HAP resins and gel coats, 
and nonatomized resin application techniques. As previously discussed, 
the benefits of this approach would be that by incorporating the 
pollution-prevention measures in addition to the add-on control, the 
overall HAP emissions reduction would be increased. In addition, the 
potential for worker exposure in these situations would be reduced. 
However, we determined that this control level would result in 
approximately a 2 percent incremental HAP emissions reduction compared 
to the above-the-floor control level based on a 95 percent emissions 
reduction alone. The incremental cost of a control level that combines 
95 percent HAP emissions reductions and pollution-prevention measures 
would be $36,900 per ton of additional HAP emissions reduction. Though 
there may be worker exposure benefits, we did not include this above-
the-floor control level in this proposed rule. This possibility is 
still under consideration, and we are requesting comment. We also 
request that commentors provide any available data on worker exposure 
that would allow us to quantify the additional worker exposure benefits 
of incorporating pollution-prevention requirements with the 95 percent 
control requirements.
    We did not identify an above-the-floor option for new sources for 
the following operations: Closed molding, polymer casting, and 
equipment cleaning for the same reasons as discussed above for existing 
sources.
    We also examined an above-the-floor control option for existing 
sources based on pollution prevention. As was the case with the new 
source MACT floor, we are unable at this time to develop an alternative 
that we believe meets the statutory requirements of MACT. However, we 
are specifically soliciting comments on pollution-prevention techniques 
that could be used in lieu of the above-the-floor alternative as were 
discussed in the section on new source floors.
    In addition to the previous discussion, we also evaluated non-air 
quality environmental impacts of these above-the-floors options. These 
impacts are discussed in section IV, Summary of Environmental, Energy, 
and Economic Impacts.

H. Why Are Some Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Operations Not 
Subject to These Proposed NESHAP?

    These proposed NESHAP would not regulate mold sealing and release 
agents and mold stripping and cleaning solvents because we were unable 
to set MACT floors or determine MACT for these operations. In both 
cases, the information and data available to us suggest that mold 
maintenance practices, part shape and size, and production schedules 
determine emissions more than the HAP content of these materials. We do 
not have sufficient data to identify and prescribe work practices to 
reduce emissions from these operations. Therefore, these proposed 
NESHAP do not require emissions reductions for these materials.
    For mold stripping and cleaning solvents, the amount of HAP used 
per unit of mold surface area applied depends on facility-specific mold 
maintenance practices and production requirements. These may include 
mold cycle time, how often the mold is used, and whether the mold is 
stored indoors or outdoors. The size of the part may also influence 
mold maintenance. We do not have sufficient data to identify those 
differences in production requirements or work practices that determine 
mold cleaning solvent usage. Therefore, we cannot identify a MACT floor 
or MACT.

I. How Did We Select the Proposed Compliance Dates for Existing and New 
Sources?

    The CAA instructs EPA to establish a compliance date or dates for 
existing sources that will provide for compliance ``as expeditiously as 
practicable, but in no event later than 3 years after the effective 
date.'' For existing sources, we are proposing a compliance date 3 
years from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register].
    Existing sources complying with the point value limits, which is a 
pollution-prevention approach, will need to make changes in application 
equipment and raw materials. We believe these sources need the full 3-
year period provided by the CAA in order to evaluate the effect of 
these changes on their production processes, particularly because they 
may need to try out different resins. In addition, we believe that 
providing the maximum amount of allowable time will provide more 
sources the opportunity to change their raw materials and production 
techniques so that each resin and gel coat can meet the MACT specific 
to each process type rather than averaging the HAP content

[[Page 40335]]

of resins across the source, thereby reducing the amount of records and 
paperwork needed to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance.
    We are also proposing a 3-year compliance date for existing sources 
that must use add-on controls. We believe the full 3 years provided by 
the CAA is necessary for these sources as well to allow sufficient time 
for them to design, purchase, install, and work out operational 
problems that occur in trying to start up a new control device. In 
addition, if an existing source's emissions exceed one of the 
thresholds in the proposed rule that requires an add-on control device 
to comply, the 3-year period would provide sufficient time to evaluate 
whether there are pollution-prevention approaches that would get them 
below the threshold. We encourage the use of pollution-prevention as a 
control approach, and pollution prevention could be a significant cost 
savings over add-on controls for these sources.
    The CAA instructs EPA to establish compliance dates for new sources 
that will provide for compliance upon start up, or the effective date 
of the final rule, whichever is later. These are the dates we are 
proposing in this proposed rule.
    New and existing sources that comply by meeting point values on a 
12-month rolling average must initiate collection of these data on the 
compliance date. New and existing sources that comply using add-on 
control devices must conduct the required performance testing within 
the 180-day time period as specified in the General Provisions to part 
63.
    We are also proposing to provide sources 3 years to comply from the 
time their HAP emissions reach or exceed the applicability thresholds 
requiring the installation of add-on controls, if these HAP emissions 
increase after their initial compliance date. We are providing this 
compliance time for sources under these circumstances because, as 
explained previously, we believe this is the necessary amount of time 
to get these control devices installed and operational.

J. How Did We Select the Form of These Proposed NESHAP?

    We decided to offer several forms for complying with the proposed 
NESHAP. The purpose of multiple forms is to provide the flexibility to 
comply in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. We considered 
the following factors in selecting the form of the proposed NESHAP:
     The form should allow for multiple compliance techniques 
for the various types of facilities in the industry.
     The form should simplify compliance and ensure that the 
cost of compliance is not excessive.
     The form should be enforceable.
    The form of these proposed NESHAP is based on a combination of 
emission limits (point values or percent reduction), equipment 
standards, and work practice standards.
1. Emission Limits Based on Point Values
    These proposed NESHAP for open molding operations and centrifugal 
casting operations are based on point values which are in units of 
pounds of HAP per ton of resin used. The point value development has 
been previously described. This form was chosen over an absolute 
emission limit because it accurately determines the amount of 
pollution-prevention control a source has incorporated in its process, 
but does not require a facility to perform emission testing. This form 
also allows for averaging across open molding processes or across 
centrifugal casting processes. This means that a source has the option 
to over-control some operations, under-control others (relative to the 
limit for that individual process), but still meet the overall limit 
for such operations combined. This allows a source to have additional 
flexibility in meeting the proposed standards.
    The emission limits for open molding and centrifugal casting for 
new sources are based on a percent reduction using add-on controls. 
However, we have provided an alternative standard for new sources also 
based on point values. These point values were determined by applying 
the required percent reduction requirement to the existing source MACT 
floors. The new source floor is based on a control efficiency, and the 
facilities that have these controls do not have examples of every 
possible type of open molding or centrifugal casting process. 
Therefore, we were not able to use the best-controlled sources to 
directly determine a point value that is equivalent to the 95 percent 
emissions reductions requirement for all operations. For operations 
where we could directly determine a point value equivalent, the 
approach of using existing source floors and applying 95 percent 
control is slightly more stringent. Therefore, we believe applying this 
approach to all open molding and centrifugal casting operations will 
produce a limit that is no less stringent, while providing 
opportunities for facilities to incorporate pollution prevention into 
their process, meet a percent reduction requirement less than 95 
percent, but still meet the new source floor.
2. Emission Limits Based on Percent Reduction
    The form of the standards for new open molding, centrifugal 
casting, SMC manufacturing, and resin/mixing/BMC manufacturing, and the 
standards for new and existing sources for pultrusion and SMC 
manufacturing are based on a percent reduction. These standards were 
all developed from facilities using add-on controls. It is possible to 
design a control device to meet a specified percent reduction. But 
based on the data available, it was not possible to determine an 
uncontrolled emission factor for open molding, centrifugal casting, SMC 
manufacturing, and mixing/BMC manufacturing that was generally 
applicable. Therefore, we could not develop a standard based on an 
emission factor. For continuous lamination/casting, we were able to 
develop an absolute emission limit based on the facilities that set the 
floor. These absolute emission limits are presented as alternatives to 
the percent reduction limits. In the case of pultrusion operations, 
there are alternative standards based on wet-area enclosures or direct 
die injection. Emission testing has determined that using this 
equipment as specified in the proposed rule will achieve the percent 
reductions specified in the NESHAP.
3. Emission Limits Based on Equipment/Work Practice Standards
    Section 112(h) 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 due to 
technological and economic limitations.''
    The emission limits for equipment cleaning and storage at new and 
existing sources are based on work practice and equipment standards. 
The reason for choosing work practice and equipment standards for 
storage is that storage areas may be located outside the rest of

[[Page 40336]]

the production area, and in some cases, may be located outside the 
building. We do not believe it would be practicable due to economic 
limitations to test storage areas, and we do not have sufficient data 
to calculate an emission limit for the required work practice.
    The standard for existing pultrusion facilities is based on the 
equipment standard combined with a work practice. We have proposed the 
standard as a percent reduction to allow the use of add-on controls. 
However, we do not believe it would be technologically or economically 
feasible to actually test facilities that choose to use a wet-area 
enclosure or direct die injection.
    The limits for SMC and resin mixing/BMC at existing facilities are 
also based on work practices or equipment standards. We have no data to 
determine a specific percent reduction to the work practices for these 
operations. Therefore, we could not set a specific emission limit.
    Cleaning operations may take place outside the regular production 
area. It would not be technologically or economically practicable to 
perform emission testing for cleaning operations.
4. Selection of Averaging Time for Demonstrating Compliance
    As a reinforced plastic composites manufacturer, we are proposing 
that you could show compliance with the proposed NESHAP on a 12-month, 
rolling-average basis. A 12-month rolling average is determined at the 
end of each month by calculating a weighted average actual point value 
based on that month's resin and gel coat use, and a weighted average 
floor value based on that month's resin and gel coat use. The floor 
must also be calculated because the floors for different operations are 
not the same, and the weighted average floor may change based on the 
relative amounts of resin used in different operations. You would then 
sum the current month's weighted averages (floor and actual) with the 
monthly averages for each of the previous 11 months, divide the 
resulting sums by 12, and compare the two results. If the actual 12-
month weighted average point value is less than or equal to the floor 
12-month weighted average point value, you are in compliance.
    We believe a 12-month averaging time provides a balance between 
operating flexibility and enforceability of the proposed standards. The 
12-month period is sufficiently long so that you can identify potential 
compliance problems and change your operations in time to maintain 
compliance. The rolling-average aspect provides an enforceable emission 
limit 12 times per year.
    Many reinforced plastic composites manufacturers already track 
material usage monthly to comply with State regulations and permit 
requirements, so we believe monthly tracking is consistent with current 
practice. Tracking on a more frequent basis would be unnecessarily 
burdensome for this particular industry. Reinforced plastic composites 
manufacturers need a 12-month rolling-average period to respond to both 
short-term variations in HAP content that are inherent in all chemical 
products, and to account for short-term needs for higher-HAP materials 
due to variations in product mix.
    In order to calculate a 12-month rolling average, facilities must 
have 12 months of data. For this reason, we are proposing to allow 
facilities that elect to use a 12-month rolling average to demonstrate 
compliance 12 months and 30 days after the compliance date. This 
includes the time to generate 12 months of data to determine the 
average plus 30 days to perform the necessary calculations and generate 
the compliance report. If we were to establish a demonstration date 
prior to this, as a practical matter, facilities would have to actually 
achieve compliance prior to the compliance date. For reasons previously 
discussed, we believe it is reasonable and appropriate to give 
facilities the maximum time allowed by the CAA to comply.

K. How Did We Select the Test Methods for Determining Compliance With 
the Proposed NESHAP?

    The proposed NESHAP have several options for achieving compliance. 
For open molding and centrifugal casting, this includes meeting a 
specified point value for existing sources, or a percent reduction or 
point value for new sources. For most other processes, you achieve 
compliance by using an enclosure and add-on control device to meet a 
percent reduction requirement or an absolute emission limit.
    In order to calculate a point value, under this proposed rule, you 
must determine the HAP content of the raw material. The method to 
determine material HAP content is the use of the Material Safety Data 
Sheets (MSDS) or other product specification sheets provided by the 
material manufacturer. We chose not to propose requiring testing of the 
material. The data used to develop the standards were mainly based on 
MSDS; therefore, we believe it is reasonable that MSDS be used to 
determine compliance.
    Under the proposed NESHAP, if you chose to use an enclosure and 
add-on control device, you would have to determine the capture 
efficiency of the enclosure and measure the HAP from the control 
device. To determine the capture efficiency of the enclosure, you would 
use EPA Method 204 (Criteria for and Verification of Permanent or 
Temporary Total Enclosure). If the enclosure meets the criteria in EPA 
Method 204 for a permanent total enclosure, then you could assume that 
its capture efficiency is 100 percent. If the enclosure is not a total 
enclosure, then you would build a total temporary enclosure around it 
that meets the definition of a total temporary enclosure in EPA Method 
204. You would then have to measure emissions from both the control 
device and the total temporary enclosure and use the combined emissions 
to determine compliance.
    To measure HAP, you would be able to use either EPA Method 18 
(Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas 
Chromatography) to measure the sum of individual species of HAP, or EPA 
Method 25A (Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Matter Concentration 
Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer) for total hydrocarbons (THC) as a 
surrogate for total HAP. The EPA Method 25A would allow you the 
flexibility to use a simpler method than EPA Method 18 which does not 
speciate HAP in cases where measuring THC is sufficient to demonstrate 
compliance. You could measure THC as a surrogate for total HAP if most 
of the THC emitted from an enclosure were HAP, such as styrene and MMA 
from resin and gel coat operations. For compliance determinations, the 
EPA will assume that all THC measured with EPA Method 25A are HAP.
    We have not included in this proposed rule a test method for 
determining the effectiveness of vapor suppressed resins. A draft 
protocol entitled ``Vapor Suppressant Effectiveness Test Protocol,'' 
dated April 7, 1999, has been developed by industry and is available 
for review in the docket for this proposed rule. The draft protocol is 
insufficiently detailed for inclusion in this proposed rule. We are 
currently requesting additional details and soliciting comment on the 
test protocol or an alternate test protocol.

L. How Did We Determine the Proposed Monitoring and Recordkeeping 
Requirements?

    Which monitoring and recordkeeping requirements you would meet 
depend

[[Page 40337]]

on how you choose to comply with these 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).
    This section describes how to comply with emission limits based on 
point values, emission averaging provisions, equipment and work 
practice standards, and the emission limit for an add-on control 
device.
1. Compliance With Emission Limits Based on Point Values
    For all operations subject to HAP content limits, we are proposing 
four tasks: monitor and record the HAP content of the material used, 
monitor and record the monthly consumption of the material, monitor and 
record which operations use the material, and record the computations 
to show that the weighted average point value over the past 12 months 
meets the proposed standards.
    The SBAR Panel recommended that we look for alternatives to 
simplify reporting and recordkeeping. We have identified two 
alternatives we believe simplify the reporting and recordkeeping 
process. The first is that an owner and operator may use purchase 
records to determine monthly consumption. However, an owner and 
operator can track actual material flows to each process if desired. We 
believe this is reasonable because facilities have no financial 
incentive to keep significant inventories of raw material on hand, and 
we have no evidence that keeping large amounts of raw material on hand 
is a common practice. Therefore, purchases and actual consumption 
should track fairly closely. We are requiring that the owner and 
operator have a reasonable method to estimate the amounts of each resin 
used by a specific operation. The second alternative applies where all 
the materials used in an operation result in a point value that meets 
the emission limit, in which case, an owner and operator only need to 
record HAP content and the resulting point value and do not need to 
track monthly consumption of each individual material.
2. Compliance With Averaging Provisions
    To comply with the averaging provisions for open molding operations 
and centrifugal casting operations, you must monitor and record HAP 
content as well as how use of the material is split between different 
operations, and you must record the computations needed to show 
compliance. You must use these data as well as the MACT model point 
value equations in the proposed NESHAP to calculate the point values in 
that operation for the past 12 months. Compliance is then determined 
relative to the allowable weighted average point value calculated for 
those operations for the past 12 months. Compliance would be calculated 
monthly, and monthly purchase records may be used to determine resin 
and gel coat use.
3. Compliance With Equipment and Work Practice Standards
    The proposed NESHAP require resin and gel coat mixing containers to 
be fitted with covers that have no visible gaps. You will be required 
to inspect container covers each month to ensure the covers are in 
place and properly maintained. You must record the results of the 
inspections. The inspections should be sufficient to ensure that the 
covers are in place and properly maintained. We believe monthly 
inspections are a reasonable interval because the nature of failure in 
these pieces of equipment is likely due to wear and tear and not a 
sudden failure. Longer time periods between inspections, however, would 
allow a failure to go too long before being repaired.
    The proposed NESHAP for production resin and tooling resin requires 
most manufacturers to use nonatomized resin application methods to 
comply. These methods include flowcoaters and pressure-fed resin 
rollers, among others. We could identify no parameters to monitor 
whether these methods are being used. Rather, compliance through the 
use of these methods would be determined during enforcement 
inspections. As long as flowcoaters, pressure-fed resin rollers, or 
other similar devices are installed and operated according to 
manufacturer's specifications, they will comply with the requirements 
to use nonatomized resin application methods.
4. Compliance for Sources Using Enclosures and Add-On Control Devices
    The requirements for enclosures and add-on control devices in the 
proposed NESHAP are consistent with other air quality regulations that 
require capture and control of emissions. They are the minimum needed 
to demonstrate that the capture and control system is operated 
properly.
    We are proposing that you must initially demonstrate compliance 
with the emission limit by demonstrating that the enclosure is a total 
enclosure or by also measuring the fugitive emissions that escape the 
enclosure. You would also need to measure the efficiency of the add-on 
control using EPA Method 25A for THC (as a surrogate for HAP) or EPA 
Method 18 for HAP. The EPA Method 18 measures individual HAP that you 
sum to calculate total HAP.
    After the initial compliance test, we are proposing that you must 
monitor control device parameters to demonstrate that the control 
device continues to be operated as it was during the initial test. In 
the case of thermal oxidizers, you would need to monitor and record 
combustion temperature every 15 minutes both during and after the 
performance test. We are proposing that you must calculate the average 
temperature achieved during the test. After the test, you would need to 
maintain the average temperature at or above the temperature achieved 
during the performance test. Temperature monitors and recorders are 
standard features on thermal oxidizers. For other devices we are 
proposing that you must determine appropriate parameters to monitor and 
receive our approval to use these parameters.

M. How Did We Select the Proposed Notification and Reporting 
Requirements?

    We believe that the proposed notices and reports are the minimum 
needed to determine if you are subject to the proposed NESHAP and 
whether you are in compliance. We are proposing that you must submit an 
initial notification stating that you are subject to the proposed 
NESHAP. After the compliance date for your facility, you would need to 
submit a notification of your compliance status. You would also need to 
submit semiannual reports of your compliance status. If you have an 
add-on control device and you become out of compliance, we are 
proposing that you must submit quarterly reports of your compliance 
status until we approve a request to return to semiannual reporting.
    If your facility is a new source, we are proposing that you have 
additional preconstruction notification requirements. You would also 
have additional notification and reporting requirements if you use an 
add-on control device, including notifications and reports for the 
control device performance test. These proposed notification and 
reporting requirements are consistent with those specified in the 
General Provisions. We believe that these requirements are the minimum 
needed for us to determine compliance for sources with add-on control 
devices.

[[Page 40338]]

    The SSM plan specified by the General Provisions will be required 
only for sources using an add-on control device and will apply only to 
the add-on control device. For operations not using a control device, 
the nature of the materials and equipment used to comply with the 
proposed Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP is such that 
malfunctions will not lead to excess emissions.

N. What Are Some of the Areas Where We Are Specifically Soliciting 
Comments?

    The purpose of this section is to highlight particular issues of 
concern to the EPA or to other parties. We solicit comments on these 
issues, along with data to support the comments.
    The proposed rule requires that certain new and existing sources 
control HAP emissions by 95 percent. In order to meet this requirement, 
facilities will likely have to capture 100 percent of their emissions 
from the affected processes and route these emissions to an add-on 
control device. We are soliciting data on the technical feasibility of 
permanent total enclosures (PTE); factors that affect the feasibility 
of PTE such as product size, operation grouping, and vent stream 
concentrations and air flow from the processes where capture systems 
are used; and interactions of these requirements with OSHA rules. For 
example, the feasibility of 100 percent emissions capture using PTE is 
based on data from two facilities. We believe that the process 
operations in these facilities are representative of the industry as a 
whole. However, we are soliciting comment on types of facilities that 
may not be able to apply PTE, along with data to support these 
comments. We solicit data on a facility's ability to maintain and 
operate add-on controls. We are especially interested in cost and 
design data from facilities in this industry that have successfully 
applied add-on controls. Data on control device inlet air flows and HAP 
concentrations combined with worker exposure monitoring data would be 
especially useful. We solicit data on typical operating hours in this 
industry, particularly in relation to the size of facilities and their 
operations (e.g., resin use or number of employees) since operating 
hours affect cost effectiveness and the number of start-ups and 
shutdowns.
    The proposed rule sets different thresholds for existing source 
requirements at small versus large businesses, above which control of 
HAP emissions by 95 percent is required. The higher threshold for small 
businesses is based on concerns that it is more difficult for small 
businesses to raise the necessary capital to purchase add-on controls 
to comply with the 95 percent control level. We solicit comments on 
this conclusion, along with data on capital availability for large and 
small businesses and the impact of this threshold on large businesses. 
We solicit information and data on other factors to consider in 
evaluating control requirements more stringent than the MACT floor, 
including data on costs to the industry.
    We believe that we have captured the full range of processes and 
products in our proposed operation groups. We request comments with 
supporting data on any processes or products that might not be 
adequately represented. Along these lines, we have specifically 
provided separate process groups for products with a Class I smoke and 
fire rating, and have defined high strength products as part of the 
corrosion resistant process group because of specific product 
requirements that require specialized raw materials. We solicit 
comments on this approach and data on any additional processes or 
products that have unique properties that may require separate process 
groupings for MACT floor development.
    This proposed rule contains point value equations for open molding 
and centrifugal casting. We are soliciting comments on the data and 
assumptions used to develop MACT point value equations, and information 
on other methods or emission models that could be used to rank 
facilities for the purposes of setting MACT.
    We also solicit information on the adequacy or necessity of the 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this proposed 
rule. We specifically solicit comments on the recordkeeping and 
reporting burden estimates set forth in the Paperwork Reduction Act 
discussion in this preamble and information on ways to minimize 
respondent burden.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Facilities Are Affected By the Proposed NESHAP?

    There are approximately 433 existing facilities manufacturing 
reinforced plastic composites that are major sources and would be 
subject to the proposed NESHAP. The rate of growth for the reinforced 
plastic composites industry is estimated to be 84 new facilities over 
the next 5 years.

B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    The 1997 baseline HAP emissions from the reinforced plastic 
composites industry are approximately 22,200 tpy. The proposed NESHAP 
would reduce HAP from existing sources by 14,500 tpy, a reduction of 65 
percent.
    The proposed NESHAP would result in small increases in other air 
pollution emissions from combustion devices that will be installed in 
the next 5 years to comply with today's proposed rule. These increases 
result from both the combustion device directly, and estimated 
emissions that occur at electrical generating plants to generate the 
electricity necessary to operate the add-on controls and associated air 
handling equipment. These emissions are estimated to be 38 tpy of 
sulfur oxides (SOX), 69 tpy of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), 125 tpy of carbon monoxide (CO), and 1.5 tpy of 
particulate matter (PM) emissions.

C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?

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

D. What Are the Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts?

    We estimate that the proposed NESHAP would decrease the amount of 
solid waste generated by the reinforced plastic composites industry by 
approximately 1,400 tpy. The decrease in solid waste is directly 
related to switching to nonatomized resin application equipment (i.e., 
flowcoaters and resin rollers). Switching to flowcoaters results in a 
decrease in overspray because of a greater transfer efficiency of resin 
from flowcoaters to the part being manufactured. A decrease in resin 
overspray 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 360 tpy and that cured resin solid waste will decrease by 
approximately 1,040 tpy.
    We project that the decreased overspray from flowcoaters will 
result in a decreased usage of PPE, which also consequently reduces the 
amount of solid waste. Workers who use flowcoaters typically wear less 
PPE than

[[Page 40339]]

when using spray guns because of the reduced presence of resin aerosols 
and lower styrene levels in the workplace. Because we did not have 
information on the many different types of PPE currently used, we did 
not estimate this decrease in solid waste.
    Some facilities that switch from spray guns to flowcoaters may have 
a small increase of hazardous waste from the used flowcoater cleaning 
solvents. However, most facilities would not see an increase under this 
proposed rule, and the overall impact on the industry will be small 
relative to the solid waste reductions. Nearly all flowcoaters require 
resin and catalyst to be mixed inside the gun (internal-mix) and must 
be flushed when work is stopped for more than a few minutes. External-
mix spray guns do not need to be flushed because resin is mixed with 
catalyst outside the gun. Facilities that switch from external-mix 
spray guns to flowcoaters will use more solvent. Solvent usage should 
not change at facilities switching from internal-mix spray guns to 
flowcoaters. The most common flushing solvents are acetone and water-
based emulsifiers. Only a couple of ounces of solvent are typically 
needed to flush the mixing chamber and nozzle of flowcoaters and 
internal-mix spray guns.
    We do not have adequate data to predict the potential solvent waste 
impact from switching to flowcoaters. The magnitude of the impact 
depends on the type of gun 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 determined that the overall energy demand for operations in the 
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category could increase 
by 159 million standard cubic feet per year of natural gas, and 10 
million kilowatt hours of electricity per year as a result of the 
proposed rule. We determined this net increase based on the additional 
energy demand for control devices installed to meet the proposed 
standards. No information for comparison is available on the baseline 
energy consumption for this source category.

F. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    We have estimated the capital costs for emission control equipment, 
including equipment such as open container covers, resin bath 
enclosures, capture systems, and control devices as $73.9 million for 
existing sources and $11.7 million for new sources. The capital costs 
include the costs to purchase and install the control equipment.
    We have estimated that annual costs of the proposed rule are $26.0 
million per year for existing sources and $3.2 million for new sources. 
Annual costs include fixed annual costs, such as reporting, 
recordkeeping and capital amortization, and variable annual costs such 
as natural gas. The estimated average cost of the proposed rule is 
$1,600 per ton of HAP emissions reduction for existing sources and 
$2,200 per ton of HAP emissions reduction for new sources.
    As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we will review in more 
depth the industry's analysis on the cost of this proposed rule 
following proposal. Where appropriate, we will make changes to our 
estimates of costs based on our review and on comments we receive, and 
make the results of our detailed review available in the public docket 
at promulgation.

G. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    The Agency conducted a detailed economic impact analysis to 
determine the market- and industry-level impacts associated with the 
proposed rule. We expect the aggregate price increase for reinforced 
plastic composites would be only 0.3 percent, or $0.01 per pound, as a 
result of the proposed standards. We project that directly affected 
producers would reduce total production by 0.8 percent, while producers 
not directly affected would increase their production by 0.3 percent. 
Markets for reinforced plastic composites used in general construction, 
corrosion-resistant products, and land transportation are expected to 
be more heavily impacted with price increases of up to 0.5 percent and 
reductions in directly affected domestic production of between 1 and 
1.5 percent.
    In terms of industry impacts, captive producers of reinforced 
plastic composites are expected to fully absorb their compliance costs, 
while merchant producers will attempt to pass through costs to their 
customers. Through the market impacts described above, the proposed 
NESHAP create both gainers and losers within the merchant segment. Some 
merchant facilities are projected to experience profit increases with 
the proposed rule; however, the majority that continue operating are 
projected to lose profits. Furthermore, the economic impact analysis 
indicates that 29 out of 299 merchant facilities (9.7 percent) and 73 
out of 471 product lines (15.5 percent) at these facilities are at risk 
of closure because of the proposed NESHAP. All of the facilities 
determined to be at risk for closure are believed to be small 
businesses. More information on the measures we have taken to minimize 
these impacts may be found in the Regulatory Flexibility Act discussion 
in this preamble.
    Based on the market analysis, the annual social costs of the 
proposed rule are projected to be $25.7 million. These costs are 
distributed across the many consumers and producers of reinforced 
plastic composites. Producers, in aggregate, are expected to bear $10.6 
million annually in costs, with those directly affected by the proposed 
NESHAP losing $19.3 million and those not subject to the proposed 
NESHAP gaining $8.7 million. The consumers of reinforced plastic 
composites are expected to incur the remaining $15.1 million in costs 
associated with the proposed NESHAP. For more information, consult the 
docket for this project.

V. Relationship of Proposed NESHAP to Other Standards and Programs 
Under the CAA

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

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

B. Operating Permit Program

    Under 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 Secs. 70.3(a)(1) and 
71.3(a)(1)). Therefore, all major sources subject to these proposed 
NESHAP must obtain an operating permit.
    Some reinforced plastic composites production facilities may be 
major sources based solely on their potential to emit even though their 
actual emissions are below the major source level. These facilities may 
choose to obtain a federally enforceable limit on their potential to 
emit so that they are no longer considered major sources subject to the 
proposed NESHAP.

[[Page 40340]]

Sources that opt to limit their potential to emit (e.g., limits on 
operating hours or amount of material used) are referred to by the EPA 
as ``synthetic area'' sources. To become a synthetic area source, you 
must contact your local permitting authority to obtain an operating 
permit with the appropriate operating limits. These operating limits 
will then be federally enforceable under 40 CFR 70.6(b).

C. NESHAP for Plastic Parts and Products

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

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An ICR document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. ) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the 
Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division 
(2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, 
by e-mail at ``[email protected],'' or by calling (202) 260-2740. A 
copy may also be downloaded from the internet at ``http://www.epa.gov/
icr.''
    These proposed NESHAP contain monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping requirements. We believe that the proposed notices and 
reports are the minimum needed by us to determine if you are subject to 
the NESHAP and whether you are in compliance. We believe the proposed 
recordkeeping requirements are the minimum necessary to determine 
initial and ongoing compliance. Based on reported information, we would 
decide which reinforced plastic composites facilities and what records 
or processes should be inspected. The recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are consistent with the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 
63.
    These proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 
specifically authorized by section 114 of 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.
    The EPA expects these proposed NESHAP to affect a total of 
approximately 486 facilities over the first 3 years after promulgation 
of the rule. This includes 433 existing facilities, and 53 new 
reinforced plastic composites facilities will become subject to the 
proposed NESHAP during the first 3 years.
    The estimated average annual burden for the first 3 years after 
promulgation of these proposed NESHAP for industry and the implementing 
agency is outlined below. You can find the details of this information 
collection in the ``Standard Form 83 Supporting Statement for ICR No. 
1976.01,'' in Docket No. A-94-52.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Total
                       Affected entity                        Total hours  Labor costs   annual O&M  Total costs
                                                                                           costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................................................       15,122     $673,120      $17,265     $690,385
Implementing agency.........................................       11,293      450,972           NA      450,972
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed 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, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies 
Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 
20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory

[[Page 40341]]

Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked 
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any 
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
ICR between 30 and 60 days after August 2, 2001, a comment to OMB is 
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by September 
4, 2001. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on 
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. No reinforced plastic composites 
production facilities subject to these proposed NESHAP are owned by 
State or local governments. Therefore, State and local governments will 
not have any direct compliance costs resulting from this proposed rule. 
Furthermore, these proposed NESHAP do not require these governments to 
take on any new responsibilities. Thus, the requirements of section 6 
of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule 
from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175, 
because we are not aware of any Indian tribal governments or 
communities affected by the proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of 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 proposed 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 $29.2 million per year. This proposed rule contains no 
mandates affecting State, local, or Tribal governments. Thus, today's 
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 
205 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 (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as (1) a small business ranging 
from 500-1,000 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is 
a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The 
table below presents the size threshold for small businesses by SIC 
Code.

[[Page 40342]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Maximum
                                                                                                      number of
                                                                                                      employees
                Category                          SIC codes                    NAICS codes              to be
                                                                                                      considered
                                                                                                       a small
                                                                                                       business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing..........................  3621......................  335312........................         1000
                                         3711......................  336211, 336112................
                                         3716......................  33612.........................
                                         3728......................  336213........................
                                         3743......................  336413........................
                                         ..........................  33651.........................
                                         2821......................  325211........................          750
                                         3296......................  327993........................
                                         3431......................  332998........................
                                         3531......................  33312, 33651..................
                                         3612......................  335311........................
                                         3613......................  335313........................
                                         3663......................  33422.........................
                                         3714......................  33653, 336399.................
                                         All other identified SIC    All other identified NAICS              500
                                          Codes in this source        Codes in this source category.
                                          category.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that 
could reduce that impact. The IRFA is available for review in the 
docket and is summarized below.
    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and, in some cases, area sources of HAP 
and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and 
subcategories. Reinforced plastic composites production (major sources 
only) was included on the initial list of source categories published 
on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that 
have the potential to emit greater than 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy 
of any combination of HAP.
    The objective of this proposed rule is to apply standards based on 
maximum achievable control technology to all major sources in this 
source category. The criteria used to establish MACT are contained in 
section 112 (d) of the CAA.
    Based on SBA size definitions and reported sales and employment 
data, EPA identified 278 of the 356 companies owning reinforced plastic 
composites facilities as small businesses. Although small businesses 
represent almost 80 percent of the companies within the source 
category, they are expected to incur only 31 percent of the total 
industry compliance costs of $26.0 million. The average total annual 
compliance cost is projected to be $30,000 per small company as 
compared to the industry average of $70,000 per company. Under the 
proposed standards, the mean annual compliance cost, as a share of 
sales, for small businesses is 0.7 percent, and the median is 0.4 
percent, with a range of 0.01 to 7.5 percent. The EPA estimates that 17 
percent of small businesses (or 47 firms) may experience an impact 
greater than 1 percent of sales, but only 3 percent of small businesses 
(or 8 firms) may experience an impact greater than 3 percent of sales.
    The Agency also performed an economic impact analysis (EIA) that 
accounted for firm behavior to provide an estimate of the facility and 
market impacts of the regulation. This industry is characterized by 
profit margins of 3 to 4 percent. Small businesses were found to have 
higher per-unit production costs under baseline conditions and incur 
slightly higher per-unit compliance costs. As a result of these 
factors, the economic analysis indicates that almost 10 percent of 
facilities owned by small business are at risk of closure because of 
this proposed rule.
    Although any facility closures are cause for concern, the number of 
facilities at risk for closure would be the same if this proposed rule 
required only the MACT floor level of control for all facilities. The 
MACT floor is the least stringent level allowed by statute. As 
discussed below, this proposed rule contains a significant number of 
accommodations for small business. Without additional data, we do not 
believe we can make the proposed rule any less stringent and comply 
with the objectives of the CAA. In this regard, we have requested data 
and comment elsewhere in this preamble on issues relevant to this 
industry.
    The EPA's efforts to minimize small-business impacts have 
materially improved today's proposal. Economic analysis of provisions 
under earlier consideration for inclusion in this proposed rule 
indicated greater impacts on small businesses than those proposed 
today. In earlier versions, almost 42 percent of the total industry 
compliance costs would have been incurred by small businesses (compared 
with 31 percent of costs incurred by small businesses in today's 
proposal). The average total annual compliance cost would have been 
roughly $50,000 per small company (compared with $30,000 in today's 
proposal). About 22 percent of small businesses (or 60 firms) would 
have experienced an impact greater than 1 percent of sales (compared 
with 17 percent of small businesses in today's proposal). And 7 percent 
of small businesses (or 19 firms) would have experienced impacts 
greater than 3 percent of sales (compared with 3 percent of small 
businesses in today's proposal). The reduction in small-business costs 
from earlier versions of this proposed rule is attributable to EPA's 
outreach and accommodation for small firms in keeping with both RFA and 
CAA requirements, including the conduct of a SBAR Panel, as discussed 
further below.
    The proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements for these 
small businesses include initial notifications, startup notifications 
and compliance reports. These requirements were discussed in more 
detail under the discussion of the Paperwork Reduction Act above. We 
estimate that 302 existing facilities owned by small businesses will be 
impacted by these requirements, and 53 new facilities will be impacted 
in the first three years. The professional

[[Page 40343]]

skills required to complete these reports include the ability to 
calculate emissions and resin use and read and follow report format 
guidance. All facilities impacted by this proposed rule should have 
personnel with the necessary skills because they would need these 
skills to comply with other regulatory requirements such as Toxic 
Release Inventory (TRI) reporting.
    Provisions to minimize the reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
on small business have been incorporated into this proposed rule. These 
provisions include allowing: The facility to substantiate resin and gel 
coat HAP contents with Material Safety Data Sheets rather then 
requiring testing of each resin and gel coat; use of resin purchase 
records to determine resin use; and exemption of facilities that can 
demonstrate that all their resin and gel coats comply with the required 
HAP content limits from the requirement to keep records of resin use 
and calculate point value averages. These provisions have also been 
extended to all companies subject to today's proposed NESHAP.
    These facilities may also be subject to the NESHAP being developed 
for plastic parts and products. There should be no duplication of 
effort as a result of this proposed rule and the Plastic Parts and 
Products NESHAP being developed because these NESHAP will cover 
different operations. Facilities subject to this proposed rule are also 
subject to emissions estimate reporting under the TRI requirements. In 
this proposed rule, we could determine no ways to combine TRI and the 
reporting requirements of the proposed NESHAP because the objectives 
and statutory authorities of these requirements are different. However, 
we invite comments from all interested parties on ways to combine these 
reports and still meet the statutory requirements of the CAA.
    As indicated above, we have incorporated significant alternatives 
into the proposed rule to minimize the impact on small business but 
still meet the objectives of the CAA.
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, EPA conducted outreach to 
small entities and convened a SBAR panel to review advice and 
recommendations from representatives of the small entities that 
potentially would be subject to the proposed rule requirements. The 
panel convened on April 6, 2000 and was comprised of representatives 
from OMB, the SBA Office of Advocacy, the EPA Small Business Advocacy 
Chair, and the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards of EPA. The panel solicited advice from 17 small 
entity representatives (SER) from a cross-section of the different 
industry sectors likely to be directly regulated by this action. On 
April 18, 2000, the panel distributed a package of descriptive and 
technical materials explaining the rule-in-progress to the SER. On May 
2, 2000, the panel met with the SER to hear their comments on 
preliminary options for regulatory flexibility and related information. 
The panel also received written comments from the SER in response to 
both the outreach materials and the discussions at the meeting.
    Consistent with RFA/SBREFA requirements, the panel evaluated the 
assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to the 
elements of the IRFA. A copy of the panel report is included in the 
docket for this proposed rule.
    The panel considered numerous regulatory flexibility options in 
response to concerns raised by the SER. The major concerns included the 
affordability and technical feasibility of add-on controls, the resin 
and gel coat HAP contents required to meet some of the MACT floors, and 
the regulatory treatment of speciality products.
    These are the major panel recommendations and EPA's response in 
today's proposal:
     Recommend setting higher thresholds than EPA had initially 
considered for requirements to use add-on controls.
    Response: In today's action, EPA proposes to allow facilities owned 
by small firms to emit 250 tpy (as distinct from the 100 tpy limit for 
facilities owned by large firms) before installing add-on controls.
     Recommend setting the new source floor for small-owned 
sources at the level of the existing source floor.
    Response: Today's proposal includes this provision.
     Recommend establishing separate floors for speciality 
products.
    Response: Today's proposal includes this provision.
     Explore pollution-prevention alternatives to add-on 
controls.
    Response: The EPA did explore this possibility with industry 
sources. Although we could not devise a workable pollution-prevention 
alternative to include in today's proposal, the Agency is requesting 
comment on how such a mechanism might be structured within the 
requirements of the CAA.
     Recommend allowing individual facilities to use the same 
resin in all resin application processes.
    Response: Today's proposal includes this provision.
     Reconsider the resin HAP content requirement for tooling 
resins.
    Response: Today's proposal includes a revised provision.
     Recommend separate floors for white and non-white gel 
coats.
    Response: Today's proposal includes this provision.
     Reconsider the Agency's estimates of the cost of add-on 
controls.
    Response: Even though today's proposal eliminates the likelihood 
that existing small-owned facilities will be subject to add-on 
controls, EPA has reconsidered its cost estimates in light of those 
offered by the industry. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA 
continues to believe our estimates are realistic. Nevertheless, as 
mentioned in section III-M, we are soliciting comments on all data and 
assumptions that affect add-on control costs. Moreover, as mentioned 
previously, we will review in more depth the industry's analysis on the 
cost of this proposed rule following proposal. Where appropriate, we 
will make changes to our estimates of costs based on our review and on 
comments we receive, and make the results of our detailed review 
available in the public docket at promulgation.
     Recommend grouping high-strength applications with 
corrosion-resistant operations.
    Response: Today's proposal includes this provision.
    Detailed information on all these recommendations is contained in 
the panel report in the docket for this proposed rule.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory 
and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an 
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA 
proposes in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 
3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 25, 25A, 204, and 204B, C, D, E.

[[Page 40344]]

Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify 
voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. One 
voluntary consensus standard was identified as applicable and EPA 
proposes to use this standard in this proposed rule.
    The one consensus standard, ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases 
described below for inclusion in this proposed rule in addition to the 
currently available EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A.
    Similar to EPA's performance based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also 
a performance based method for measurement of gaseous organic 
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific 
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages 
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less 
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method 
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18 
where: (1) The target compound(s) are those listed in Section 1.1 of 
ASTM D6420-99, and (2) the target concentration is between 150 parts 
per billion (volume) and 100 ppm(v).
    For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, 
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies 
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, 
as detailed in section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed, 
met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no 
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water 
soluble.
    For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, 
and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 does 
not apply.
    As a result, EPA proposes to incorporate by reference (IBR) ASTM 
6420-99 into 40 CFR 63.14 for application with proposed subpart WWWW of 
part 63. The EPA will also cite Method 18 as a gas chromatography (GC) 
option in addition to ASTM D6420-99. This will allow the continued use 
of other GC configurations.
    In addition to the voluntary consensus standards EPA proposes to 
use in this proposed rule, the search for emissions monitoring 
procedures identified 17 other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA 
determined that 13 of these 17 standards identified for measuring 
emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the 
proposed rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, 
detail, and/or quality assurance/quality control requirements. The 
remaining four of the 17 consensus standards identified are under 
development or under EPA review. Therefore, we do not propose to use 
these voluntary consensus standards in this proposed rulemaking. More 
information on the reasons we chose not to propose to use these 
standards is available in the docket for this proposed rule.
    The EPA takes comments on proposed compliance demonstration 
requirements in this proposed rulemaking and specifically invites the 
public to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
standards. Commentors should also explain why this proposed rule should 
adopt these voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to 
EPA's methods. Emission test methods and performance specifications 
submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the 
recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used 
to validate the candidate method (if method other than Method 301, 40 
CFR part 63, appendix A was used).
    Table 6 of proposed subpart WWWW lists the EPA test methods and 
performance standards. Most of the standards have been used by States 
and industry for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, under Sec. 63.7(f), 
the proposal also allows any State or source to apply to EPA for 
permission to use an alternative methods in place of any of the EPA 
testing methods or performance standards listed in the proposed NESHAP.

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: June 22, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Section 63.14 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph 
(b)(21) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.14  Incorporation's by reference

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (21) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 
spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec. 63.5798 and Sec. 63.5850.
* * * * *
    3. Part 63 is proposed to be amended by adding subpart WWWW to read 
as follows:

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

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.5780   What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.5785   Am I subject to this subpart?
63.5790   What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.5795   How do I know if my reinforced plastic composites 
production facility is a new affected source or an existing affected 
source?
63.5797   What are model point values and how are they used in this 
subpart?
63.5798   How do I determine my facility's HAP emissions on a tons 
per year (tpy) basis?

[[Page 40345]]

63.5800   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Standards

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

Options for Meeting Standards

63.5810   What are my options for meeting the standards for new and 
existing open molding and centrifugal casting operations?
63.5820   What are my options for meeting the standards for 
continuous lamination/casting operations?
63.5825   What are my options for meeting the standards for new 
pultrusion operations?
63.5830   What are my options for meeting the standards for existing 
pultrusion operations?

General Compliance Requirements

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

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

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

Additional Compliance Calculation Procedures for Continuous Lamination/
Casting Operations

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

Continuous Compliance Requirements

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

Notifications, Reports, and Records

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

Other Requirements and Information

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

Tables to Subpart WWWW of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Model Equations to Calculate Point 
Values for Specific Open Molding and Centrifugal Casting Process 
Streams
Table 2 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Compliance Dates for New and 
Existing Reinforced Plastic Composites Facilities
Table 3 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Emission Limits for Existing Small 
Business Sources Emitting Less Than 250 TPY of HAP, or Other Sources 
Emitting Less Than 100 TPY of HAP
Table 4 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
Table 5 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Alternative Emission Limits for 
Open Molding and Centrifugal Casting Operations Where the Standard Is 
Based on a Percent Reduction Requirement
Table 6 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Basic Requirements for Performance 
Tests, Performance Evaluations, and Design Evaluations for New and 
Existing Sources Using Add-On Control Devices
Table 7 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Options Allowing Use of the Same 
Resin Across Different Operations That Use the Same Resin Type
Table 8 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission 
Limits
Table 9 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Work 
Practice Standards for Existing Sources
Table 10 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Data Requirements for New and 
Existing Continuous Lamination Lines and Continuous Casting Lines 
Complying with a Percent Reduction Limit on a Per Line Basis
Table 11 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Data Requirements for New and 
Existing Continuous Lamination and Continuous Casting Lines Complying 
with a Percent Reduction Limit or a Lbs/Ton Limit on an Averaging Basis
Table 12 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Data Requirements for New and 
Existing Continuous Lamination Lines and Continuous Casting Lines 
Complying with a Lbs/Ton on a Per Line Basis
Table 13 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Applicability and Timing of 
Notifications
Table 14 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 15 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions (Subpart A) to Subpart WWWW of Part 63

What This Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.5780  What is the purpose of this subpart?

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


Sec. 63.5785  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a reinforced 
plastic composites production facility that is located at a major 
source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions. Reinforced plastic 
composites production consists of operations in which reinforced and/or 
nonreinforced plastic composites or plastic molding compounds are 
manufactured. These operations use thermoset resins and/or gel coats 
that contain styrene and/or methyl methacrylate to produce plastic 
composites, which contain materials designed to enhance the chemical, 
physical, and/or thermal properties of the product. Reinforced plastic 
composites production also includes cleaning, mixing, and material 
storage associated with the production of plastic composites. 
Facilities that only repair previously manufactured reinforced plastic 
composites are not covered by this subpart.


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

    (a) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source at 
reinforced plastic composites production facilities.
    (b) The affected source consists of all parts of your facility 
engaged in the following operations: Open molding, closed molding, 
centrifugal casting, continuous lamination, continuous casting, polymer 
casting, pultrusion, sheet molding compound (SMC) manufacturing, bulk 
molding compound (BMC) manufacturing, mixing, cleaning of equipment 
used in reinforced plastic composites manufacture, material storage, 
any other plastic composites operations.


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

    (a) A reinforced plastic composites production facility is a new 
affected

[[Page 40346]]

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


Sec. 63.5797  What are model point values and how are they used in this 
subpart?

    The model point value is a number calculated using the equations in 
Table 1 to this subpart. Equations are available for each open molding 
operation and centrifugal casting operation. The model point values 
have units of pounds (lbs) of HAP per ton of resin or gel coat applied. 
Point values are used in this subpart to determine compliance with 
certain emission limits in Tables 3 and 5 of this subpart. The model 
point values are surrogates for emissions, and the model point value 
equations are used only for determining compliance with this subpart. 
The model point value equations cannot be used in place of emission 
factor equations to demonstrate compliance with other regulations.


Sec. 63.5798  How do I determine my facility's HAP emissions on a tons 
per year (tpy) basis?

    To determine your facility's HAP emissions, you must use the 
procedures in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section and calculate 
the combined HAP emissions in tpy from the following operations: Open 
molding, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination, continuous 
casting, pultrusion, sheet molding compound manufacturing, mixing, and 
bulk molding compound manufacturing.
    (a) For existing facilities, you may use the procedures in either 
paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) Use point value equations or emission factors. Calculate a 
weighted average emission factor on a lbs/ton of resin and gel coat 
basis. Base the weighted average on the 12 months of operation prior to 
the effective date of this subpart. Multiply the weighted average 
emission factor by resin and gel coat use over the same period. You may 
calculate this emission factor based on the point value equations in 
Table 1 of this subpart, or you may use any emission factor approved by 
us such as factors from the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 
Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP-42). This 
calculation must be repeated and reported annually.
    (2) Conduct performance testing. Perform performance testing using 
the methods specified in this subpart to determine a facility-specific 
emission factor in lbs of HAP emissions per ton of resin and gel coat 
used. The test should be performed under conditions expected to result 
in the highest possible HAP emissions, or the facility must stay within 
10 percent of the same mix of operations that occurred during testing. 
Multiply this factor by annual resin and gel coat use to determine 
annual emissions.
    (b) For new facilities, calculate a weighted average emission 
factor on a lbs/ton of resin and gel coat basis. Base the weighted 
average on your projected operation for the 12 months subsequent to 
facility startup. Multiply the weighted average emission factor by 
projected resin use over the same period. You may calculate this 
emission factor based on the point value equations in Table 1 of this 
subpart, or you may use any emission factor approved by us, such as 
factors from AP-42, or emission test data from similar facilities. This 
calculation must be repeated and reported annually.


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

    (a) You must initially comply with the standards in this subpart by 
the dates specified in Table 2 to this subpart. Facilities meeting an 
emissions standard based on a 12-month rolling average must begin 
collecting data on the compliance date in order to demonstrate 
compliance.
    (b) If your facility is a new affected source and emits less than 
100 tpy of HAP at the time of initial compliance with this subpart, and 
subsequently increases its actual HAP emissions to 100 tpy or more, 
then your facility must subsequently meet the standards in 
Sec. 63.5805(d). You must be in compliance with these more stringent 
standards within 3 years of the date your facility meets or exceeds the 
100 tpy threshold.
    (c) If your facility is an existing affected source and emits less 
than 250 tpy of HAP (if you are a small business) or less than 100 tpy 
of HAP (if you are not a small business) at the time of initial 
compliance with this subpart, and subsequently increases its actual HAP 
emissions to 250 tpy or more (small business) or to 100 tpy or more 
(non-small business), then your facility must subsequently meet the 
standards at Sec. 63.5805(b). You must be in compliance with these more 
stringent standards within 3 years of the date your facility meets or 
exceeds the 250 tpy or 100 tpy threshold.

Standards


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

    All facilities must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through 
(f) of this section that apply. There are options to meeting these 
standards described in Secs. 63.5810 through 63.5830.
    (a) If you have an existing facility that is a small business, as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) regulations at 
13 CFR 121.201, and emits less than 250 tpy of HAP, or a facility that 
is not a small business and that emits less than 100 tpy of HAP from 
the combination of all open molding, centrifugal casting, continuous 
lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, and mixing/BMC 
manufacturing, you must meet the annual average emission limits in 
Table 3 of this subpart and the work practice standards in Table 4 of 
this subpart that apply to you.
    (b) If you have an existing facility that is a small business as 
defined by the SBA regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 and emits 250 tpy or 
more of HAP, or if you have a facility that is not a small business and 
emits 100 tpy or more of HAP from the combination of all open molding, 
centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC 
manufacturing, and mixing/BMC manufacturing operations, you must reduce 
the total HAP emissions from these operations by at least 95 percent by 
weight and meet any applicable work practice standards in Table 4 of 
this subpart that apply to you. As an alternative to meeting 95 percent 
by weight, you may meet the emission limits in Table 5 of this subpart. 
If you have a continuous lamination/casting operation, that operation 
may alternatively meet an emission limit of 1.47 lbs of HAP per ton of 
neat resin plus and neat gel coat plus applied.
    (c) If you have a new facility that emits less than 100 tpy of HAP 
from the combination of all open molding, centrifugal casting, 
continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, and 
mixing/BMC manufacturing, you must meet the annual average emission 
limits in Table 3 of this subpart and the work practice standards in 
Table 4 of this subpart that apply to you.
    (d) If you have a new facility that emits 100 tpy or more of HAP 
from the combination of all open molding, centrifugal casting, 
continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, and 
mixing/BMC manufacturing, you must reduce the total HAP emissions from 
these

[[Page 40347]]

operations by at least 95 percent by weight and meet any applicable 
work practice standards in Table 4 of this subpart that apply to you. 
As an alternative to meeting 95 percent by weight, you may meet the 
emission limits in Table 5 of this subpart. If you have a continuous 
lamination/casting operation, that operation may alternatively meet an 
emission limit of 1.47 lbs of HAP per ton of neat resin plus and neat 
gel coat plus applied.
    (e) If you use an add-on control device to comply with this 
subpart, you must meet all requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS.

Options for Meeting Standards


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

    You must use one of the following methods in paragraphs (a) through 
(c) of this section to meet the standards in Sec. 63.5805. The 
necessary calculations must be completed within 30 days after the end 
of the each month.
    (a) Meet the individual model point values for each operation. 
Demonstrate that you meet the individual model point values for each 
open molding operation and for each centrifugal casting operation in 
Table 3 or 5 of this subpart that apply to you. This is done in two 
steps. First, determine a point value for each individual resin and gel 
coat, application method, and control method you use in a particular 
operation. Then, calculate a weighted average of those point values 
based on resin and gel coat use. These calculations shall be performed 
monthly, and within 30 days of the end of the month. You must either be 
at or below the applicable point value in Table 3 or 5 of this subpart 
each month, or at or below the applicable point value in Table 3 or 5 
of this subpart, based on a 12-month rolling average. The procedures 
are described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Calculate your actual point values for each different process 
stream within each operation. Process streams within operations are 
different from each other if any of the following three characteristics 
vary: The neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus HAP content, the 
application technique, or the control technique. You must calculate the 
different process stream point values by using the appropriate model 
point value equations in Table 1 of this subpart for open molding and 
for centrifugal casting. If you want to use vapor suppressants to meet 
the point value for open molding, you must determine the vapor 
suppressant effectiveness by conducting testing to demonstrate the 
vapor suppressant effectiveness. If you want to use an add-on control 
device to meet the point value, you must determine the add-on control 
factor by conducting capture and control efficiency testing as 
indicated in Table 6 of this subpart. The point value calculated from 
the equations in Table 1 of this subpart is multiplied by the add-on 
control factor to calculate the point value after control. Use Equation 
1 of this section to calculate the add-on control factor used in the 
model point value equations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.000

Where:

% Control Efficiency = a value calculated from emission test 
measurements made according to the requirements of Table 6 of this 
subpart

    (2) Calculate your actual operation point value for each calendar 
month for each open molding operation and for each centrifugal casting 
operation by calculating the weighted average of the individual process 
stream point values within each respective operation. To do this, sum 
the product of your actual process stream point values and the amount 
of neat resin plus and neat gel coat plus used in each process stream 
and divide the numerator by the total amount of neat resin plus and 
neat gel coat plus used in the process streams. Use Equation 2 of this 
section to calculate your actual individual point value for each 
operation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.001

Where:

Actual Process Stream PVi = actual point value from 
process stream i, lbs/ton
Materiali = neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus used 
during the calendar month for process stream i, tons
n = number of process streams where you calculated a point value

    (b) Point value averaging option. Demonstrate each month that you 
meet the weighted average point value of the open molding operations 
and the weighted average point value of the centrifugal casting 
operations in Table 3 or 5 of this subpart that apply to you. When 
using this averaging option, do not apply the procedures across open 
molding and centrifugal casting operations.
    (1) Each month calculate the weighted average point value for your 
facility for that month to determine which point value you must meet. 
To do this, you must sum the product of the individual point values in 
Table 3 or 5 of this subpart, and the amount of neat resin plus or neat 
gel coat plus used in each operation and divide the numerator by the 
total amount of neat resin plus and neat gel coat plus used in the 
operation. Use Equation 3 of this section to calculate the weighted 
average point value.

[[Page 40348]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.002

Where:

PVi = point value from operation i, lbs/ton from Table 3 
or 5 of this subpart
Materiali = neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus used 
during the calendar month for operation i, tons
n = number of operations

    (2) Each month calculate your actual weighted average point value. 
Do this by summing the product of your actual operation point values 
and the amount of neat resin plus and neat gel coat plus used in each 
operation and dividing the numerator by the total amount of neat resin 
plus and neat gel coat plus used in the operation groupings. You must 
calculate your actual individual point values for each operation as 
described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. Use Equation 4 
of this section to calculate your actual weighted average point value.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.003

Where:

Actual Individual PVi = Actual point value from operation 
i, lbs/ton
Materiali = neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus used 
during the calendar month for operation i, tons
n = number of operations

    (3) Calculate a 12-month weighted average floor point value and 
actual point value by summing the values calculated in paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section with the values calculated in the 
previous 11 months and dividing the result by 12. If the actual value 
12-month rolling average is less than or equal to the floor 12-month 
rolling average, then you are in compliance.
    (c) Select one resin point value for multiple operations. If you 
have any combination of manual resin application, mechanical resin 
application, filament winding, or centrifugal casting, you may elect to 
meet the point value for any one of these operations and use that 
operation's same resin in all of the resin operations listed in this 
paragraph (c). If you select this option, for purposes of assigning 
point values and determining compliance, use Table 7 of this subpart 
which presents the possible combinations based on a facility selecting 
the application process that results in the highest allowable HAP 
content resin. The averaging provisions in paragraph (b) of this 
section may still be used, but you must use the point value(s) 
according to this paragraph (c) to calculate compliance.


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

    You must use one or more of the options in paragraphs (a) through 
(d) of this section to meet the standards in Sec. 63.5805. Use the 
calculation procedures in Sec. 63.5865.
    (a) Compliant line option. Demonstrate that each continuous 
lamination line and each continuous casting line complies with the 
applicable standard.
    (b) Averaging option. Demonstrate that all continuous lamination 
and continuous casting lines combined comply with the applicable 
standard.
    (c) Add-on control device option. If your operation must meet the 
58.5 weight percent emission limit in Table 3 of this subpart, you have 
the option of demonstrating that you achieve 95 percent control of all 
wet-out area emissions.
    (d) Combination option. Use a combination of options in paragraphs 
(a) and (b) of this section or, for affected sources at existing 
facilities, a combination of options in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of 
this section (in which one or more lines meet the standards on their 
own, two or more lines averaged together meet the standards, and one or 
more lines have their wet-out areas controlled to a level of 95 
percent).


Sec. 63.5825  What are my options for meeting the standards for new 
pultrusion operations?

    You must use one or more of the options in paragraphs (a) through 
(c) of this section to meet the 95 percent emission reduction standard 
in Sec. 63.5805.
    (a) Add-on control device option. Capture the emissions and vent 
them to a control device or any combination of control devices that 
achieves a 95 percent reduction of HAP emissions. Conduct capture and 
destruction efficiency testing as indicated in Table 6 of this subpart 
to determine the percent emission reduction.
    (b) Direct die injection with resin drip collection option. Use 
direct die injection pultrusion machines with resin drip collection 
systems that meet the following criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(3) of this section:
    (1) All the resin that is applied to the reinforcement is delivered 
directly to the die.
    (2) No exposed resin is present except at the face of the die.
    (3) Resin drip is captured in closed piping and recycled directly 
to the resin injection chamber.
    (c) Combination option. Use a combination of options in paragraphs 
(a) and (b) of this section in which some lines meet the standards by 
complying with paragraph (a) of this section, and the remaining lines 
meet the standards by complying with paragraph (b) of this section.


Sec. 63.5830  What are my options for meeting the standards for 
existing pultrusion operations?

    You must use one or more of the options in paragraphs (a) through 
(d) of this section to meet the 60 weight percent emission limit in 
Table 3 of this subpart as required in Sec. 63.5805.
    (a) Add-on control device option. Capture the emissions and vent 
them to a control device or any combination of control devices that 
achieves a 60

[[Page 40349]]

weight percent reduction of HAP emissions. Conduct capture and 
destruction efficiency testing as indicated in Table 6 of this subpart 
to determine the percent HAP emission reduction.
    (b) Wet area enclosure with resin drip collection option. Design, 
install, and operate wet area enclosures and resin drip collection 
systems on pultrusion machines that meet the criteria in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (11) of this section.
    (1) The enclosure must cover and enclose the open resin bath and 
the forming area in which reinforcements are pre-wet or wet-out and 
moving toward the die(s). The surfaces of the enclosure must be closed 
except for openings to allow material to enter and exit the enclosure.
    (2) For pultrusion machines with a radio frequency pre-heat unit, 
the enclosure must extend from the beginning of the resin bath to 
within 12.5 inches or less of the entrance of the radio frequency pre-
heat unit. If the stock that is within 12.5 inches or less of the 
entrance to the radio frequency pre-heat unit has any drip, it must be 
enclosed. The stock exiting the radio frequency pre-heat unit is not 
required to be in an enclosure if the stock has no drip between the 
exit of the radio frequency pre-heat unit to within 0.5 inches of the 
entrance of the die.
    (3) For open bath pultrusion machines without a radio frequency 
pre-heat unit, the enclosure must extend from the beginning of the 
resin bath to within 0.5 inches or less of the die entrance.
    (4) For pultrusion lines with a pre-wet area prior to direct die 
injection, the enclosure must extend from the point at which the resin 
is applied to the reinforcement to within 12.5 inches or less of the 
entrance of the die(s). If the stock that is within 12.5 inches or less 
of the entrance to the die has any drip, it must be enclosed.
    (5) The enclosure can only be constructed high enough to clear the 
highest part of the pultrusion line that must be inside the enclosure.
    (6) The total open area of the enclosure must not exceed 2 times 
the cross sectional area of the puller window(s) and must comply with 
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) All areas which are open need to be included in the total open 
area calculation with the exception of access panels, doors, and/or 
hatches that are part of the enclosure.
    (ii) The area which is displaced by entering reinforcement or 
exiting product is considered open.
    (iii) Areas that are covered by brush covers are considered closed.
    (7) Open areas for level control devices, monitoring devices, 
agitation shafts, and/or fill hoses must have no more than 1.0 inch 
clearance.
    (8) The access panels, doors, and/or hatches that are part of the 
enclosure must close tightly to avoid vapor leakage. Damaged access 
panels, doors, and/or hatches that allow vapor leakage must be 
replaced.
    (9) The enclosure may not be removed from the pultrusion line and 
access panels, doors, and/or hatches that are part of the enclosure 
must remain closed whenever resin is in the bath except for the time 
period discussed in paragraph (b)(10) of this section.
    (10) The maximum length of time the enclosure may be removed from 
the pultrusion line or the access panels, doors, and/or hatches and may 
be open is 30 minutes per 8 hour shift (or 45 minutes per 12 hour 
shift).
    (11) No fans, blowers, and/or air lines may be allowed within the 
enclosure. The enclosure must not be ventilated.
    (c) Direct die injection with resin drip collection option. Use 
direct die injection pultrusion machines with resin drip collection 
systems that meet all the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) All the resin that is applied to the reinforcement is delivered 
directly to the die.
    (2) No exposed resin is present except at the face of the die.
    (3) Resin drip is captured in closed piping and recycled directly 
to the resin injection chamber.
    (d) Combination option. Use a combination of options in paragraphs 
(a) through (c) of this section in which different pultrusion lines 
comply with different options described in paragraphs (a) through (c) 
of this section.

General Compliance Requirements


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

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

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements


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

    You must conduct performance tests, performance evaluations, design 
evaluations, capture efficiency testing, and other initial compliance 
demonstrations by the compliance date specified in Table 2 of this 
subpart with two exceptions. Open molding and centrifugal casting 
operations that elect to meet a point value on a 12-month rolling 
average must initiate collection of the required data on the compliance 
date, and demonstrate compliance 1 year and 30 days after the 
compliance date. New and existing sources that are required to use add-
on controls to initially meet compliance must demonstrate compliance 
180 days after the compliance date.


Sec. 63.5845  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

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


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

    (a) If you are using any add-on controls to meet an emission limit 
in this subpart, you must conduct each performance test, performance 
evaluation, and design evaluation in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, that 
applies to you.
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the specific conditions that 
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, specifies.
    (c) Each performance evaluation must be conducted according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.8(e) and under the specific conditions that 40 
CFR part 63, subpart SS, specifies.
    (d) You may not conduct performance tests or performance 
evaluations during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as 
specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
    (e) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance 
test required in this section, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each 
test run must last at least 1 hour.

[[Page 40350]]

    (f) You must conduct a design evaluation of any permanent total 
enclosures as specified by EPA Method 204. If your enclosure does not 
meet the Method 204 design and operation requirements for a permanent 
total enclosure, you must test the enclosure to determine the capture 
efficiency by Methods 2B through E or an alternative method that meets 
the data quality objectives and lower confidence limit approaches 
contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK. Test runs for Methods 2B 
through E or alternative test methods must be at least 3 hours.


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

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


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

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission 
standard in paragraphs (a) through (d) of Sec. 63.5805 that applies to 
you, as shown in Tables 8 and 9 of this subpart.
    (b) If using an add-on control device, you must establish each 
site-specific operating limit in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, that 
applies to you.

Additional Compliance Calculation Procedures For Continuous 
Lamination/Casting Operations


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

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


Sec. 63.5870  How do I calculate annual uncontrolled and controlled 
emissions from my wet-out area(s) and from my oven(s)?

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

[[Page 40351]]

estimation equations and factors, you must test the same formulae. In 
addition, you must develop both sets of equations and factors from the 
same tests.


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

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


Sec. 63.5880  How do I determine how much neat resin plus is applied to 
the line and how much neat gel coat plus is applied to the line?

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


Sec. 63.5885  How do I calculate the percent reduction to demonstrate 
compliance?

    (a) Compliant line option. If all of your wet-out areas have 
permanent enclosures that meet the requirements of Method 204 for a 
permanent total enclosure, and all of your wet-out area emissions and 
oven emissions are vented to an add-on control device, use Equation 1 
of this section to demonstrate compliance. In all other situations, use 
Equation 2 of this section to demonstrate compliance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.004

Where:

PR = percent reduction
Inlet = emissions entering the control device, lbs per year
Outlet = emissions exiting the control device to the atmosphere, lbs 
per year
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.005

Where:

PR = percent reduction
WAEu = uncontrolled wet-out area emissions, lbs per year
Ou = uncontrolled oven emissions, lbs per year
WAEc = controlled wet-out area emissions, lbs per year
Oc = controlled oven emissions, lbs per year

    (b) Averaging Option. Use Equation 3 of this section to calculate 
percent reduction.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.006

Where:

PR = percent reduction
WAEui = uncontrolled emissions from wet-out area i, lbs 
per year
Ouj = uncontrolled emissions from oven j, lbs per year
WAEci = controlled emissions from wet-out area i, lbs per 
year
Ocj = controlled emissions from oven j, lbs per year
i = number of wet-out areas
j = number of ovens
m = number of wet-out areas uncontrolled
n = number of ovens uncontrolled
o = number of wet-out areas controlled
p = number of ovens controlled

    (3) Add-on control device option. Use Equation 1 of this section to 
calculate percent reduction.
    (4) Combination option. Use Equations 1 through 3 of this section, 
as applicable, to calculate percent reduction.


Sec. 63.5890  How do I calculate an emission factor to demonstrate 
compliance?

    (a) Compliant line option. Use Equation 1 of this section to 
calculate an emission factor in lbs/ton.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.007

Where:

E = emission factor in lbs/ton of resin and gel coat
WAEu = uncontrolled wet-out area emissions, lbs per year
WAEc = controlled wet-out area emissions, lbs per year
Ou = uncontrolled oven emissions, lbs per year
Oc = controlled oven emissions, lbs per year
R = total usage of neat resin plus, tpy
G = total usage of neat gel coat plus, tpy

    (b) Averaging option. Use Equation 2 of this section to demonstrate 
compliance.

[[Page 40352]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.008

Where:

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

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

Continuous Compliance Requirements


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

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


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

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each standard 
in Sec. 63.5805 that applies to you according to the methods specified 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Compliance with emission limits for sources using add-on 
control devices is demonstrated following the procedures in 40 CFR part 
63, subpart SS. Sources using add-on controls may also use continuous 
emission monitors to demonstrate continuous compliance as an 
alternative to control parameter monitoring.
    (2) Compliance with emission limits using the point value system is 
demonstrated by maintaining a point value less than or equal to the 
appropriate point value listed in Table 3 or 5 of this subpart, on a 
12-month rolling average, or by including in each compliance report a 
certification that all resins and gel coats meet the appropriate point 
value limits, as discussed in Sec. 63.5895(d).
    (3) Compliance with the work practice standards in Table 4 of this 
subpart is demonstrated by performing the work practice required for 
your operation.
    (b) You must report each deviation from each standard that applies 
to you in Sec. 63.5805. The deviations must be reported according to 
the requirements in Sec. 63.5910.
    (c) With the exception provided in paragraph (d) of this section, 
during periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction, you must meet the 
emission limits and work practice standards that apply to you.
    (d) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, you do not 
need to meet the standard(s) in Sec. 63.5805 that require an add-on 
control device, but you must operate your affected source in accordance 
with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and meet all standards 
that do not require the operation of the add-on control device.
    (e) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that 
occur during a period of malfunction for those affected sources and 
standards specified in paragraph (d) of this section are not violations 
if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were 
operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan. The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur 
during a period of startup, shutdown, and malfunction are violations, 
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).

Notifications, Reports, And Records


Sec. 63.5905  What notifications must I submit and when?

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


Sec. 63.5910  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 14 of this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a),

[[Page 40353]]

you must submit each report by the date in Table 14 of this subpart and 
according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec. 63.5800 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is 
the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the 
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.5800.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the 
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for 
your affected source in Sec. 63.5800.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
requirements pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting 
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports 
pursuant to Sec. 70.6(3)(iii)(A) or Sec. 71.6(3)(iii)(A), you may 
submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the 
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to 
the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (c) The compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section:
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (3) Date of the report and beginning and ending dates of the 
reporting period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the 
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations 
(emission limit and operating limit) that applies to you, and there are 
no deviations from the requirements for work practice standards in 
Table 4 of this subpart, a statement that there were no deviations from 
the emission limitations or work practice standards during the 
reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which the continuous monitoring 
system (CMS), including a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), 
and operating parameter monitoring systems was out of control as 
specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods 
during the which the CMS was out of control during the reporting 
period.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (i.e., emission 
limit, operating limit) and for each deviation from the requirements 
for work practice standards that occurs at an affected source where you 
are not using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations or work 
practice standards in this subpart, the compliance report must contain 
the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section and in 
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. This includes periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (i.e., emission 
limit and operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you 
are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitation in this subpart, 
you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of 
this section and in paragraphs (e)(1) through (12) of this section. 
This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (3) The date, time and duration that each CMS was out of control, 
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
    (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction, or during another period.
    (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the 
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of 
the total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (8) An identification of each hazardous air pollutant that was 
monitored at the affected source.
    (9) A brief description of the process units.
    (10) A brief description of the CMS.
    (11) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
    (12) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls 
since the last reporting period.
    (f) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating 
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must report all deviations as 
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 
Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec. 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected 
source submits a compliance report pursuant to Table 14 of this subpart 
along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 
Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec. 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance 
report includes all required information concerning deviations from any 
emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice 
requirement in this subpart, submission of the compliance report shall 
be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in 
the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance 
report shall not otherwise affect any obligation the affected source 
may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permit 
authority.
    (g) You should submit compliance reports and startup, shutdown, 
malfunction reports based on the requirements in Table 14 of this 
subpart. You do not need to consider the requirements in Sec. 63.999 
when submitting these reports.


Sec. 63.5915  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

[[Page 40354]]

    (3) Records of performance tests, design, and performance 
evaluations as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) If you use an add-on control device, you must keep all records 
required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, to show continuous compliance 
with this subpart.
    (c) You must keep all data, assumptions, and calculations used to 
determine point values for operations listed in Tables 3 and 5 of this 
subpart.
    (d) You must keep a certified statement that you are in compliance 
with the work practice requirements in Table 4 of this subpart, as 
applicable.
    (e) For a new or existing continuous lamination/ casting operation, 
you must keep the records listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of 
this section, when complying with the percent reduction and/or lbs/ton 
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of Sec. 63.5805.
    (1) You must keep all data, assumptions, and calculations used to 
determine percent reduction and/or lbs/ton as applicable;
    (2) You must keep a brief description of the rationale for the 
assignment of an equation or factor to each formula;
    (3) When using facility-specific emission estimation equations or 
factors, you must keep all data, assumptions, and calculations used to 
derive the emission estimation equations and factors and identification 
and rationale for the worst-case formula; and
    (4) For all emission estimation equations and emission factors, you 
must keep documentation that the appropriate regulatory agency has 
approved them.


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

    (a) You must maintain all applicable records in such a manner that 
they can be readily accessed and are suitable for inspection according 
to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must retain your records of the most recent 2 years onsite, 
or your records must be accessible to an inspector while onsite. Your 
records of the remaining 3 years may be retained offsite.

Other Requirements and Information


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

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


Sec. 63.5930  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be administered by us, the EPA, or a delegated 
authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA 
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal 
agency, then that agency has the authority to administer and enforce 
this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to find out 
if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part 
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 
section are not delegated.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 
section:
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the emission standards in 
Sec. 63.5805 under Sec. 63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.


Sec. 63.5935  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40 
CFR 63.2, the General Provisions, and in this section as follows:
    Atomized mechanical application means application of resin or gel 
coat with spray equipment that separates the liquid into a fine mist. 
This fine mist may be created by forcing the liquid under high pressure 
through an elliptical orifice, bombarding a liquid stream with directed 
air jets, or a combination of these techniques.
    Bulk molding compound (BMC) means a putty-like molding compound 
that contains resins, catalysts, fillers, and reinforcements in a form 
that is ready to mold. Bulk molding compound can be used in compression 
molding and injection molding operations to manufacture reinforced 
plastic composites products.
    BMC manufacturing means a process that involves the preparation of 
BMC.
    BMC manufacturing/mixing means a grouping of processes that 
involves BMC manufacturing and/or mixing.
    Centrifugal casting means a process for fabricating cylindrical 
composites, such as pipes, in which composite materials are positioned 
inside a rotating hollow mandrel and held in place by centrifugal 
forces until the part is cured.
    Charge means the amount of SMC or BMC that is placed into a 
compression or injection mold to complete one mold cycle.
    Cleaning means removal of composite materials, such as cured and 
uncured resin from equipment, finished surfaces, floors, hands of 
employees, or any other surfaces.
    Clear production gel coat means an unpigmented, unfilled, quick-
setting resin used to improve the surface appearance and/or performance 
of composites. It can be used to form the surface layer of any 
composites other than those used for molds in tooling operations.
    Closed molding means a grouping of processes for fabricating 
composites in a way that HAP-containing materials are not exposed to 
the atmosphere except during the material loading stage (e.g., 
compression molding, injection molding, and resin transfer molding).
    Composite means a shaped and cured part produced by using composite 
materials.
    Composite materials means a combination of the following materials: 
resin, gel coat, monomer, catalyst, pigment, filler, and reinforcement.
    Compression molding means a closed molding process for fabricating 
composites in which composite materials are placed inside matched metal 
dies that are used to cure the materials under heat and pressure 
without exposure to the atmosphere. The composite materials used in 
this process are generally SMC or BMC.
    Compression/injection molding means a grouping of processes that 
involves the use of compression molding and/or injection molding.
    Continuous casting means a continuous process for fabricating 
composites in which composite materials are placed on an in-line 
conveyor belt to produce cast sheets that are cured in an oven.
    Continuous lamination means a continuous process for fabricating 
composites in which composite materials are typically sandwiched 
between plastic films, pulled through compaction rollers, and cured in 
an oven. This process is generally used to produce flat or corrugated 
products on an in-line conveyor.
    Continuous lamination/casting means a grouping of processes that 
involves the use of continuous lamination and/or continuous casting.
    Controlled emissions means those emissions that are vented from a 
control device to the atmosphere.

[[Page 40355]]

    Corrosion-resistant end-use applications means applications where 
the product is manufactured specifically for an application that 
requires a level of chemical inertness or resistance to chemical attack 
above that required for typical reinforced plastic composites products. 
These applications include, but are not limited to, chemical processing 
and storage; pulp and paper production; sewer and wastewater treatment; 
power generation; potable water transfer and storage; food and drug 
processing; pollution or odor control; metals production and plating; 
semiconductor manufacturing; petroleum production, refining, and 
storage; mining; textile production; nuclear materials storage; 
swimming pools; and cosmetic production, as well as end-use 
applications that require high strength resins.
    Corrosion-resistant industry standard includes the following 
standards: ASME RTP-1 or Sect. X; ASTM D5364, D3299, D4097, D2996, 
D2997, D3262, D3517, D3754, D3840, D4024, D4160, D4161, D4162, D4184, 
D3982, or D3839; ANSI/AWWA C950; UL 1316 or UL 1746, or written 
customer requirements for resistance to specified chemical 
environments.
    Corrosion-resistant product means a product made with a corrosion-
resistant resin and is manufactured to a corrosion-resistant industry 
standard, or a food contact industry standard, or is manufactured for 
corrosion-resistant end-use applications involving continuous or 
temporary chemical exposures.
    Corrosion-resistant resin means a resin that either: (1) Displays 
substantial retention of mechanical properties when undergoing ASTM C-
581 coupon testing, where the resin is exposed for 6 months or more to 
one of the following materials: material with a pH  12.0 or 
 3.0, oxidizing or reducing agents, organic solvents, or 
fuels or fuel additives as defined in 40 CFR 79.2. In the coupon 
testing, the exposed resin needs to demonstrate a minimum of 50 percent 
retention of the relevant mechanical property compared to the same 
resin in unexposed condition. In addition, the exposed resin needs to 
demonstrate an increased retention of the relevant mechanical property 
of at least 20 percent when compared to a similarly exposed general-
purpose resin. For example, if the general-purpose resin retains 45 
percent of the relevant property when tested as specified above, then a 
corrosion-resistant resin needs to retain at least 65 percent (45 
percent plus 20 percent) of its property. The general-purpose resin 
used in the test needs to have an average molecular weight of greater 
than 1,000, be formulated with a 1:2 ratio of maleic anhydride to 
phthalic anhydride and 100 percent diethylene glycol, and a styrene 
content between 43 to 48 percent; or
    (2) Complies with industry standards that require specific exposure 
testing to corrosive media, such as UL 1316, UL 1746, or ASTM F-1216.
    Doctor box means the box or trough on an SMC machine into which the 
liquid resin paste is delivered before it is metered onto the carrier 
film.
    Filament winding means an open molding process for fabricating 
composites in which reinforcements are fed through a resin bath and 
wound onto a rotating mandrel. The materials on the mandrel may be 
rolled out or worked by using nonmechanical tools prior to curing. 
Resin application to the reinforcement on the mandrel by means other 
than the resin bath, such as spray guns, pressure-fed rollers, flow 
coaters, or brushes is not considered filament winding.
    Filled means that fillers have been added to a resin such that the 
amount of inert substances is at least 10 percent by weight of the 
total resin plus filler mixture.
    Fillers means inert substances dispersed throughout a resin, such 
as calcium carbonate, alumina trihydrate, hydrous aluminum silicate, 
mica, feldspar, wollastonite, silica, and talc. Materials that are not 
considered to be fillers are glass fibers or any type of reinforcement 
and microspheres.
    Fluid impingement technology means a spray gun that produces an 
expanding non-misting curtain of liquid by the impingement of low-
pressure uninterrupted liquid streams.
    Food contact industry standard means a standard related to food 
contact application contained in Food and Drug Administration's 
regulations at 21 CFR 177.2420.
    Gel coat application means a process where either clear production, 
pigmented production or tooling gel coat is applied.
    High strength resins means polyester resins which have a casting 
tensile strength of 10,000 pounds per square inch or more and which are 
used for manufacturing products that have high strength requirements 
such as structural members and utility poles.
    Injection molding means a closed molding process for fabricating 
composites in which composite materials are injected under pressure 
into a heated mold cavity that represents the exact shape of the 
product. The composite materials are cured in the heated mold cavity.
    Manual resin application means an open molding process for 
fabricating composites in which composite materials are applied to the 
mold by pouring or by using hands and nonmechanical tools, such as 
brushes and rollers. Materials are rolled out or worked by using 
nonmechanical tools prior to curing. The use of pressure-fed rollers 
and flow coaters to apply resin is not considered manual resin 
application.
    Material storage means an ancillary process which involves keeping 
HAP-containing materials, such as resins, gel coats, catalysts, 
monomers, and cleaners, in containers for any length of time. 
Containers may include bulk storage terminals, tanks, totes, vessels, 
and buckets.
    Mechanical resin application means an open molding process for 
fabricating composites in which composite materials (except gel coat) 
are applied to the mold by using mechanical tools such as spray guns, 
pressure-fed rollers, and flow coaters. Materials are rolled out or 
worked by using nonmechanical tools prior to curing.
    Mixing means the blending or agitation of any HAP-containing 
materials in vessels that are 5.00 gallons (18.9 liters) or larger. 
Mixing may involve the blending of resin, gel coat, filler, 
reinforcement, pigments, catalysts, monomers, and any other additives.
    Model point value equations means algebraic expressions that were 
derived to estimate the quantity of HAP emitted based on parameters 
that can be regulated. Parameters that can be regulated include resin 
and gel coat HAP content. Model point value equations were derived for 
open molding and centrifugal casting processes. They are used to 
calculate point values that reflect the relative emission control 
status of a process. Model point value equations are not to be used to 
estimate actual emissions because not all parameters that are known to 
affect emissions are incorporated into the equations.
    Mold means a cavity or matrix into or onto which the composite 
materials are placed and from which the product takes its form.
    Neat gel coat plus means gel coat plus any organic HAP-containing 
materials that are added to the gel coat by the supplier or the 
facility, excluding catalysts and promoters. Neat gel coat plus does 
include any additions of styrene or methyl methacrylate monomer in any 
form, including in catalysts and promoters.
    Neat resin plus means neat resin plus any organic HAP-containing 
materials

[[Page 40356]]

that are added to the resin by the supplier or the facility. Neat resin 
plus does not include any added filler, reinforcements, catalysts, or 
promoters. Neat resin does include any additions of styrene or methyl 
methacrylate monomer in any form, including in catalysts and promoters.
    Non-atomized mechanical application means the use of application 
tools other than brushes to apply resin and gel coat that do not create 
a fine liquid mist. Examples include flow coaters, pressure fed 
rollers, and fluid impingement technology spray guns.
    Noncorrosion-resistant resin means any resin other than a 
corrosion-resistant resin or a tooling resin.
    Noncorrosion-resistant product means any product other than a 
corrosion-resistant product or a mold.
    Operation means a specific process typically found at a reinforced 
plastic composites facility. Examples of operations are noncorrosion-
resistant manual resin application, corrosion-resistant mechanical 
resin application, pigmented gel coat application, mixing and storage.
    Operation Group means a grouping of individual operations based 
primarily on mold type. Examples are open molding, closed molding, and 
centrifugal casting.
    Open molding means a process for fabricating composites in a way 
that HAP-containing materials are exposed to the atmosphere. Open 
molding includes processes such as manual resin application, mechanical 
resin application, filament winding, and gel coat application.
    Pigmented production gel coat means a pigmented quick-setting resin 
used to improve surface appearance and/or performance of composites. It 
can be used to form the surface layer of any composites other than 
those used for molds in tooling operations.
    Point value means a relative measure of the use of emissions 
reductions techniques and their effectiveness. Model point value 
equations were developed for each open molding and centrifugal casting 
process to calculate point values, which have units of lbs of HAP 
emissions per ton of neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus used. Point 
values are calculated by using the appropriate model point value 
equation for a given process, multiplied by any applicable control 
factors. Control factors are used to incorporate emissions reductions 
achieved from add-on control devices.
    Polymer casting means a process for fabricating composites in which 
composite materials are ejected from a casting machine or poured into 
an open, partially open, or closed mold and cured. After the composite 
materials are poured into the mold, they are not rolled out or worked 
prior to curing. The composite materials may or may not include 
reinforcements. Products produced by the polymer casting process 
include cultured marble products and polymer concrete.
    Pultrusion means a continuous process for manufacturing composites 
that have a uniform cross-sectional shape. The process consists of 
pulling a fiber-reinforcing material through a resin impregnation 
chamber or bath and through a shaping die, where the resin is 
subsequently cured. There are several types of pultrusion equipment, 
such as open bath, resin injection, and direct die injection equipment.
    Resin transfer molding means a process for manufacturing composites 
whereby catalyzed resin is transferred or injected into a closed mold 
in which fiberglass reinforcement has been placed.
    Sheet molding compound (SMC) means a ready-to-mold putty-like 
molding compound processed into sheet form. The molding compound is 
sandwiched between a top and a bottom film, and it contains resins, 
catalysts, fillers, chemical thickeners, mold release agents, 
reinforcements, and other ingredients. Sheet molding compound can be 
used in compression molding to manufacture reinforced plastic 
composites products.
    SMC manufacturing means a process which involves the preparation of 
SMC.
    Tooling means mold production or repair.
    Tooling gel coat means a gel coat that is used to form the surface 
layer of molds. Tooling gel coats generally have high heat distortion 
temperatures, low shrinkage, high barcol hardness, and high dimensional 
stability.
    Tooling resin means a resin that is used to produce molds. Tooling 
resins generally have high heat distortion temperatures, low shrinkage, 
high barcol hardness, and high dimensional stability.
    Uncontrolled oven emissions means those emissions emitted from the 
oven through closed vent systems to the atmosphere and not to a control 
device. These emissions do not include emissions that may escape into 
the workplace through the opening of panels or doors on the ovens or 
other similar fugitive emissions in the workplace.
    Uncontrolled wet-out area emissions means any or all of the 
following: Emissions from wet-out areas that do not have any capture 
and control, emissions that escape from wet-out area enclosures, and 
emissions from wet-out areas that are captured by an enclosure but are 
vented to the atmosphere and not to an add-on control device.
    Unfilled means that there has been no addition of fillers to a 
resin or that less than 10 percent of fillers by weight of the total 
resin plus filler mixture has been added.
    Vapor suppressant means an additive, typically a wax, that migrates 
to the surface of the resin during curing and forms a barrier to seal 
in the styrene and reduce styrene emissions.
    Vapor-suppressed resin means a resin containing a vapor suppressant 
added for the purpose of reducing styrene emissions during curing.

Tables to Subpart WWWW of Part 63

    As required in Secs. 63.5797, 63.5798(a)(1) and (b), and 
63.5810(a)(1), to calculate model point values for specific open 
molding and centrifugal casting process streams you must use the 
equations in the following table:

  Table 1 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Model Equations to Calculate Point Values for Specific Open Molding and
                                       Centrifugal Casting Process Streams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Use this Model Point
  If your operation type is a new or      And you use . . .            With . . .        Value (PV) Equation a b
            existing . . .                                                                       c . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Open molding operation............  a. Manual resin          i. Nonvapor-suppressed   PV = 0.028  x
                                        application.             resin.                   (%HAP)2.275
                                                                ii. Vapor-suppressed     PV = 0.028  x
                                                                 resin.                   (%HAP)2.275  x  (1-
                                                                                          (0.5419  x  VSR test
                                                                                          value))
                                                                iii. Vacuum bagging/     PV = 0.028  x
                                                                 closed-mold curing       (%HAP)2.275  x  (1-
                                                                 with roll out.           0.2133)
                                                                iv. Vacuum bagging/      PV = 0.028  x
                                                                 closed-mold curing       (%HAP)2.275  x  (1-
                                                                 without roll-out.        0.4554)

[[Page 40357]]

 
                                       b. Mechanical resin      i. Nonvapor-suppressed   PV = 0.028  x
                                        application.             resin and atomized       (%HAP)2.425
                                                                 application.
                                                                ii. Vapor-suppressed     PV = 0.028  x
                                                                 resin and atomised       (%HAP)2.425  x  (1-
                                                                 application.             (0.4559  x  VSR test
                                                                                          value))
                                                                iii. Vacuum bagging/     PV = 0.028  x
                                                                 closed-mold curing       (%HAP)2.425  x  (1-
                                                                 with roll-out and        0.1535)
                                                                 atomized application.
                                                                iv. Vacuum bagging/      PV = 0.028  x
                                                                 closed-mold curing       (%HAP)2.425  x  (1-
                                                                 without roll-out and     0.3261)
                                                                 atomized application.
                                                                v. Nonvapor-suppressed   PV = 0.028  x
                                                                 resin and nonatomized    (%HAP)2.275
                                                                 application.
                                                                vi. Vapor-suppressed     PV = 0.028  x
                                                                 resin and nonatomized    (%HAP)2.275  x  (1-
                                                                 application.             (0.5419  x  VSR test
                                                                                          value))
                                                                vii. Closed-mold curing  PV = 0.028  x
                                                                 with roll-out and non    (%HAP)2.275  x  (1-
                                                                 atomized application.    0.2133)
                                                                viii. Vacuum bagging/    PV = 0.028  x
                                                                 closed-mold curing       (%HAP)2.275  x  (1-
                                                                 without roll-out and     0.4554)
                                                                 nonatomized
                                                                 application.
                                       c. Filament winding....  i. Nonvapor-suppressed   PV = 1.675  x
                                                                 resin.                   (%HAP)1.225
                                                                ii. Vapor-suppressed     PV = 1.675  x
                                                                 resin.                   (%HAP)1.225  x  (1-
                                                                                          (0.4693  x  VSR test
                                                                                          value))
                                       d. Gel coat application  Nonvapor-suppressed gel  PV = 0.890  x
                                                                 coat.                    (%HAP)1.675
2. Centrifugal casting operation.....  Centrifugal casting....  Nonvapor-suppressed      PV = 11.16  x  (%HAP)
                                                                 resin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a To obtain the model point value for an operation with an add-on control device multiply the PV above by the
  add-on control factor calculated using Equation 1 of Sec.  63.5810. The model point values have limits of lbs
  of HAP per ton of resin or gel coat applied.
b Percent HAP means total weight percent of HAP in the resin or gel coat prior to the addition of fillers,
  catalyst, and promoters.
c VSR test value means the percent reduction in HAP emissions expressed as a decimal measured by the VSR test
  method.

    As required in Secs. 63.5800 and 63.5840 you must demonstrate 
compliance with the standards by the dates in the following table:

    Table 2 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Compliance Dates for New and
            Existing Reinforced Plastic Composites Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Then you must comply
  If your facility is . . .         And . . .           by this date:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. An existing source.......  Is a major source on  i. [Date 3 years
                               or before the         after the
                               publication date of   publication date of
                               the final rule.       the final rule], or
                                                    ii. You must accept
                                                     and meet an
                                                     enforceable HAP
                                                     emission limit
                                                     below the major
                                                     source threshold
                                                     prior to [date 3
                                                     years after the
                                                     publication date of
                                                     final rule].
2. An existing source that    Becomes a major       3 years after
 is an area source.            source after the      becoming a major
                               publication date of   source or [date 3
                               the final rule.       years after the
                                                     publication date of
                                                     the final rule],
                                                     whichever is later.
3. A new source.............  Is a major source at  Upon startup or
                               startup.              [publication date
                                                     of the final rule],
                                                     whichever is later.
4. A new source.............  Is an area source at  Immediately upon
                               startup and becomes   becoming a major
                               a major source.       source.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Secs. 63.5805 (a) and (c), 63.5810(a) through (b), 
63.5820(c), 63.5830, 63.5835, and 63.5900(a)(2), you must meet the 
appropriate emission limits in the following table:

 Table 3 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Emission Limits for Existing Small
  Business Sources Emitting Less Than 250 TPY of HAP, or Other Sources
                    Emitting Less Than 100 TPY of HAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If your operation type is .                         Your emission limit
             . .                And you use . . .        is a . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Open molding--corrosion-   a. Mechanical resin   190 lb/ton.
 resistant (CR) b.             application.
                              b. Filament winding.  163 lb/ton.
                              c. Manual resin       124 lb/ton.
                               application.
2. Open molding--non-CR.....  a. Mechanical resin   110 lb/ton.
                               application-         144 lb/ton.
                               unfilled.            178 lb/ton.
                              b. Mechanical resin   83 lb/ton.
                               application-filled.
                              c. Filament winding.
                              d. Manual resin
                               application.
3. Open molding--tooling....  a. Mechanical resin   256 lb/ton.
                               application.         123 lb/ton.
                              b. Manual resin
                               application.

[[Page 40358]]

 
4. Open molding--products     a. Mechanical resin   575 lb/ton.
 that require class 1 fire     application.
 and smoke ratings.
                              b. Filament winding.  253 lb/ton.
                              c. Manual resin       311 lb/ton.
                               application.
5. Open molding--gel coat...  a. Tooling gel        394 lb/ton.
                               coating.             265 lb/ton.
                              b. White/off white    377 lb/ton.
                               pigmented gel        504 lb/ton.
                               coating.
                              c. All other
                               pigmented gel
                               coating.
                              d. Clear production
                               gel coating.
6. Centrifugal casting--CR..  N/A.................  536 lb/ton.
7. Centrifugal casting--non-  N/A.................  396 lb/ton.
 CR.
8. Pultrusion...............  N/A.................  Reduce total HAP
                                                     emissions by at
                                                     least 60 weight
                                                     percent.
9. Continuous lamination/     N/A.................  Reduce total HAP
 casting.                                            emissions by at
                                                     least 58.5 weight
                                                     percent or not
                                                     exceed an emission
                                                     limit of 15.7 lbs
                                                     of HAP per ton of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Emission limits for open molding and centrifugal casting expressed as
  lb/ton are point values calculated using the equations shown in Table
  1 of this subpart. You must be at or below these values based on a 12-
  month rolling average.
b Corrosion-resistant applications also include high-strength products.

    As required in Sec. 63.5805 (a) through (d) you must meet the 
appropriate work practice standards in the following table:

      Table 4 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. A new or existing closed molding     Uncover, unwrap or expose only
 operation using compression/injection    one charge per mold cycle per
 molding.                                 compression/injection molding
                                          machine.
 2. A new or existing cleaning           Not use cleaning solvents that
 operation.                               contain HAP.
 3. A new or existing materials storage  Keep containers that store HAP
 operation.                               materials closed or covered
                                          except during the addition or
                                          removal of materials.
 4. An existing pultrusion operation     Keep access panels, doors, and/
 using a wet-area enclosure.              or hatches closed whenever
                                          resin is in the bath, except
                                          that access panels, doors, and/
                                          or hatches may be open 30
                                          minutes per 8-hour shift, or
                                          45 minutes per 12-hour shift.
 5. An existing SMC manufacturing        Close or cover the doctor box
 operation.                               on each SMC manufacturing
                                          machine.
 6. An existing SMC manufacturing        Fold or seal edges of SMC prior
 operation.                               to storage and/or transport.
 7. An existing SMC manufacturing        Use a nylon film or a film with
 operation.                               an equal or lower permeability
                                          to styrene than nylon to
                                          enclose SMC.
 8. A new or existing BMC manufacturing/ Use mixer covers with no
 mixing operation a.                      visible gaps present in the
                                          mixer covers.
 9. An existing BMC manufacturing/       Not actively vent mixers to the
 mixing.                                  atmosphere.
10. A new or existing BMC manufacturing/ Keep the mixer covers closed
 mixing operation a.                      during mixing except when
                                          adding materials to the mixing
                                          vessels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Containers of 5 gallons or less may be open when active mixing is
  taking place, or during periods when they are in process (i.e., they
  are actively being used to apply resin). For polymer casting mixing
  operations, containers of 21 gallons or less may be open while active
  mixing is taking place.

    As specified in Sec. 63.5805 (b) and (d), as an alternative to the 
95 percent HAP emission reduction requirement, you may meet the 
appropriate emission limits in the following table:

  Table 5 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Alternative Emission Limits for
  Open Molding and Centrifugal Casting Operations Where the Standard Is
                Based on a Percent Reduction Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Your emission
 If your operation type is . .     And you use . . .    limit is \a\ . .
---------------.------------------------------------------------.-------
1. 0pen molding--corrosion-     a. Mechanical resin     10 lb/ton.
 resistant (CR).                 application.           9 lb/ton.
                                b. Filament winding...  7 lb/ton.
                                c. Manual resin
                                 application.
2. Open molding--non-CR.......  a. Mechanical resin     8 lb/ton.
                                 application-unfilled.  6 lb/ton.
                                b. Mechanical resin     9 lb/ton.
                                 application-filled.    4 lb/ton.
                                c. Filament winding...
                                d. Manual resin
                                 application.
3. Open molding--tooling......  a. Mechanical resin     13 lb/ton.
                                 application.           7 lb/ton.
                                b. Manual resin
                                 application.
4. Open molding--products that  a. Mechanical resin     29 lb/ton.
 require Class 1 Fire and        application.           13 lb/ton.
 Smoke Ratings.                 b. Filament winding...  16 lb/ton.
                                c. Manual resin
                                 application.

[[Page 40359]]

 
5. Open molding--gel coat.....  a. Tooling gel coating  20 lb/ton.
                                b. White/off white      14 lb/ton.
                                 pigmented gel coating. 19 lb/ton.
                                c. All other pigmented  26 lb/ton.
                                 gel coating.
                                d. Clear production
                                 gel coating.
6. Centrifugal Casting--CR....  N/A...................  27 lb/ton.
7. Centrifugal Casting--Non-CR  N/A...................  20 lb/ton.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The emission limits are calculated using the equations shown in
  Table 1 of this subpart. You must be at or below these values based on
  a 12-month rolling average.
\b\ Corrosion-resistant applications also include high-strength
  products.

    As required in Secs. 63.5810(a)(1), 63.5825(a), 63.5830(a), and 
63.5870, you must conduct performance tests, performance evaluations, 
and design evaluation according to the requirements in the following 
table:

   Table 6 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Basic Requirements for Performance Tests, Performance Evaluations, and
                  Design Evaluations for New and Existing Sources Using Add-On Control Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            According to the
             For . . .                  You must . . .             Using . . .           following requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each enclosure used to collect   a. Determine the       i. EPA methods 204 and      (1) Enclosures that meet
 and route HAP emissions to an add-  capture efficiency     204B through E in           the requirements for a
 on control device.                  of each enclosure      Appendix M of 40 CFR part   permanent total
                                     used to capture HAP    51, or.                     enclosure are assumed to
                                     emissions to sent to  ii. An alternative test      have a capture
                                     an add-on control      method that meets the       efficiency of 100%.
                                     device.                data quality objectives     Enclosures that do not
                                                            and lower confidence        meet permanent total
                                                            limit approaches for        enclosure requirements
                                                            alternative capture         must determine the
                                                            efficiency protocols and    capture efficiency by
                                                            test methods contined in    constructing a temporary
                                                            40 CFR part 63 subpart      total enclosure
                                                            KK, appendix A.             according to the
                                                                                        requirements of EPA
                                                                                        Method 204 and measuring
                                                                                        the mass flow rates of
                                                                                        the HAP in the exhaust
                                                                                        streams going to the
                                                                                        atmosphere and to the
                                                                                        control device, or,
                                                                                       (2) Use an alternative
                                                                                        test method that meets
                                                                                        the requirements of 40
                                                                                        CFR part 51, appendix M.
                                                                                        Follow the requirements
                                                                                        in 1.a.i (1) and (2) of
                                                                                        this table.
2. Each control device used to      Determine the control  The appropriate test        Testing and evaluation
 comply with an percent reduction    efficiency of each     methods specified in 40     requirements are
 requirement, or a point value       control device used    CFR part 63, subpart SS.    contained in 40 CFR part
 limit.                              to control HAP                                     63, subpart SS.
                                     emissions.
3. Each control device used to      a. Determine the       The appropriate test        Testing and evaluation
 comply with a emission factor       control efficiency     methods specified in 40     requirements are
 limit for continuous lamination/    of each control        CFR part 63 subpart SS.     contained in 40 CFR part
 continuous casting.                 device used to                                     63, subpart SS.
                                     control HAP
                                     emissions, or
                                     determine the mass
                                     HAP emission rate at
                                     the control device
                                     outlet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec. 63.5810(c), when selecting one resin point 
value for multiple operations you must use the values in the following 
table:

Table 7 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Options Allowing Use of the Same Resin Across Different Operations That Use
                                               the Same Resin Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      The point
                                                                                                        value
   If your facility has the following resin      The highest resin weight percent HAP                 assignd to
         application  operation . . .                content you can use for . . .        Is . . .   all uses of
                                                                                                      this resin
                                                                                                       is . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Corrosion-resistant (CR) nonatomized         a. CR mechanical......................         48.3          190
 mechanical.                                    b. CR filament winding................         48.3          190
                                                c. CR manual..........................         48.3          190
                                                d. CR centrifugal casting.............         48.3          190
2. CR centrifugal casting.....................  a. CR filament winding................           48          536
                                                b. CR manual..........................           48          536
                                                c. CR centrifugal casting.............           48          536

[[Page 40360]]

 
3. CR filament winding........................  a. CR filament winding................           42          163
                                                b. CR manual..........................           42          163
4. Non-CR filament winding....................  a. Non-CR mechanical (filled or                  45          178
                                                 unfilled.                                       45          178
                                                b. non-CR manual......................           45          178
                                                c. non-CR centrifugal casting.........
5. Non-CR nonatomized filled mechanical.......  a. non-CR nonatomized unfilled                  144         42.8
                                                 mechanical.                                    144         42.8
                                                b. non-CR manual......................          144         42.8
                                                c. non-CR centrifugal casting.........
6. Non-CR nonatomized unfilled mechanical.....  a. non-CR manual......................          110           38
                                                b. non-CR centrifugal casting.........          110           38
7. Non-CR centrifugal casting.................  a. non-CR manual......................         35.5          396
                                                b. non-CR atomized filled mechanical..         35.5          396
8. Non-CR atomized filled mechanical..........  a. non-CR manual......................         33.9          144
9. Non-CR manual..............................  a. Non-CR atomized unfilled mechanical         33.6           83
10. Tooling nonatomized mechanical............  a. tooling manual.....................         55.1          256
11. Tooling atomized mechanical...............  a. tooling manual.....................           43          256
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

  Table 8 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
                                 Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          You have
                               That must meet the   demonstrated initial
          For . . .            following emission     compliance  if . .
                                   limit . . .                .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Open molding and           a. A point value      i. You have met the
 centrifugal casting           emission limit        appropriate point
 operations.                   shown in Table 3 or   value for these
                               5 of this subpart.    operations as
                                                     calculated using
                                                     the procedures in
                                                     Sec.  63.5810 on a
                                                     12-month rolling
                                                     average 1 year plus
                                                     30 days after the
                                                     appropriate
                                                     compliance date,
                                                     or,
                                                    ii. You demonstrate
                                                     by using the
                                                     appropriate point
                                                     value model
                                                     equations in Table
                                                     1 that all resins
                                                     and gel coats
                                                     considered
                                                     individually meet
                                                     the appropriate
                                                     point value
                                                     emission limit.
2. Open molding, centrifugal  Reduce total HAP      Total HAP emissions,
 casting, continuous           emissions by at       based on the
 lamination/casting, SMC       least 95 percent by   results of the
 manufacturing mixing/BMC      weight.               capture efficiency
 manufacturing operations.                           and destruction
                                                     efficiency testing
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     6 of this subpart,
                                                     are reduced by at
                                                     least 95 percent by
                                                     weight.
3. Continuous lamination/     a. Reduce total HAP   Total HAP emissions,
 casting operations.           emissions by at       based on the
                               least 58.5 weight     results of the
                               percent or.           capture efficiency
                                                     and destruction
                                                     efficiency testing
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     6 of this subpart
                                                     and the calculation
                                                     procedures
                                                     specified in Secs.
                                                     63.5865 through
                                                     63.5890, are
                                                     reduced by at least
                                                     58.5 percent by
                                                     weight.
                              b. Not exceed an      Total HAP emissions,
                               emission limit of     based on the
                               15.7 lbs. of HAP      results of the
                               per ton of neat       capture efficiency
                               resin plus and neat   and destruction
                               gel coat plus 95      efficiency testing
                               percent by weight.    specified in Table
                                                     6 of this subpart
                                                     and the calculation
                                                     procedures
                                                     specified in Secs.
                                                     63.5865 through
                                                     63.5890, do not
                                                     exceed 15.7 lbs. of
                                                     HAP per ton of neat
                                                     resin plus and neat
                                                     gel coat plus.
4. Continuous lamination/     a. Reduce total HAP   Total HAP emissions,
 casting operations.           emissions by at       based on the
                               least 95 weight       results of the
                               percent or.           capture efficiency
                                                     and destruction
                                                     efficiency testing
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     6 of this subpart
                                                     and the calculation
                                                     procedures
                                                     specified in Secs.
                                                     63.5865 through
                                                     63.5890, are
                                                     reduced by at least
                                                     95 percent by
                                                     weight or,

[[Page 40361]]

 
                              b. Not exceed an      Total HAP emissions,
                               emission limit of     based on the
                               1.47 lbs. of HAP      results of the
                               per ton of neat       capture efficiency
                               resin plus and neat   and destruction
                               gel coat plus 95      efficiency testing
                               percent by weight.    specified in Table
                                                     5 and the
                                                     calculation
                                                     procedures
                                                     specified in Secs.
                                                     63.5865-63.5890, do
                                                     not exceed 1.47
                                                     lbs. of HAP per ton
                                                     of neat resin plus
                                                     an neat gel coat
                                                     plus.
5. Pultrusion operations....  a. Reduce total HAP   i. Total HAP
                               emissions by at       emissions, based on
                               least 60 percent by   the results of the
                               weight.               capture efficiency
                                                     and add-on control
                                                     device destruction
                                                     efficiency testing
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     6 of this subpart,
                                                     are reduced by at
                                                     least 60 percent by
                                                     weight, or
                                                    ii. As part of the
                                                     notification of
                                                     initial compliance
                                                     status, the owner/
                                                     operator submits a
                                                     certified statement
                                                     that all pultrusion
                                                     lines not
                                                     controlled with add-
                                                     on control device
                                                     are using direct
                                                     die injection and/
                                                     or wet-area
                                                     enclosures that
                                                     meet the criteria
                                                     of Sec.  63.5825.
6. Pultrusion operations....  a. Reduce total HAP   i. Total HAP
                               emissions by at       emissions, based on
                               least 95 percent by   the results of the
                               weight.               capture efficiency
                                                     and add-on control
                                                     device destruction
                                                     efficiency testing
                                                     specified in Table
                                                     6 of this subpart,
                                                     are reduced by at
                                                     least 95 percent by
                                                     weight, or,
                                                    ii. As part of the
                                                     notification of
                                                     initial compliance
                                                     status, the owner/
                                                     operator submits a
                                                     certified statement
                                                     that all pultrusion
                                                     lines not
                                                     controlled by an
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device are using
                                                     direct die
                                                     injection that meet
                                                     the criteria of
                                                     Sec.  63.5825.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec. 63.5860(b), you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with work practice standards as specified in the following 
table:

    Table 9 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Work
                           Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          You have
                               That must meet the   demonstrated initial
          For . . .           following standard .    compliance  if . .
                                       . .                    .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A new or existing closed   Uncover, unwrap or    The owner or
 molding operation using       expose only one       operator submits a
 compression/injection         charge per mold       certified statement
 molding.                      cycle per             in the notice of
                               compression/          compliance status
                               injection molding     that only one
                               machine.              charge is
                                                     uncovered,
                                                     unwrapped or
                                                     exposed per mold
                                                     cycle per
                                                     compression/
                                                     injection molding
                                                     machine.
2. An existing SMC            Close or cover the    The onwner or
 manufacturing operation.      doctor box on each    operator submits a
                               SMC manufacturing     certified statement
                               machine.              in the notice of
                                                     compliance status
                                                     that the doctor box
                                                     on each SMC
                                                     manufacturing
                                                     machine is closed
                                                     or covered.
3. An existing SMC            Fold edges of SMC     The owner or
 manufacturing operation.      prior to storage      operator submits a
                               and/or transport.     certified statement
                                                     in the notice of
                                                     compliance status
                                                     that the edges of
                                                     SMC are folded
                                                     prior to storage
                                                     and/or transport.
4. An existing SMC            Use nylon film or a   The owner or
 manufacturing operation.      film with an equal    operator submits a
                               or lower              certified statement
                               permeability to       in the notice of
                               styrene than nylon    compliance status
                               to enclose SMC.       that a nylon film
                                                     or film with an
                                                     equal or lower
                                                     permeability to
                                                     styrene than nylon
                                                     is used to enclose
                                                     SMC.
5. A new or existing BMC      Use mixer covers      The owner or
 manufacturing/mixing          with no visible       operator submits a
 operation.                    gaps present in the   certified statement
                               mixer covers.         in the notice of
                                                     compliance status
                                                     that each mixer is
                                                     equipped with a
                                                     cover that does not
                                                     contain any visible
                                                     gaps.
6. An existing BMC            Keep the mixer        The owner or
 manufacturing/mixing          covers closed         operator submits a
 operation.                    during mixing         certified statement
                               except when adding    in the notice of
                               materials to the      compliance status
                               mixers.               that mixer covers
                                                     are closed during
                                                     mixing except when
                                                     adding materials to
                                                     the mixers.

[[Page 40362]]

 
7. An existing BMC            Not actively vent     The owner or
 manufacturing/mixing.         mixers to the         operator submits a
                               atmosphere.           certified statement
                                                     in the notice of
                                                     compliance status
                                                     that mixers are not
                                                     actively vented to
                                                     the atmosphere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec. 63.5865(a), in order to comply with a percent 
reduction limit for continuous lamination lines and continuous casting 
lines you must determine the data in the following table:

   Table 10 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Data Requirements for New and
    Existing Continuous Lamination Lines and Continuous Casting Lines
      Complying with a Percent Reduction Limit on a Per Line Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each line where the wet-                        You must determine .
       out area . . .          And the oven . . .            . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is uncontrolled..  i. Annual
 not a PTE and the captured                          uncontrolled wet-
 emissions are controlled by                         out area emissions;
 an add-on control device.                          ii. Annual
                                                     controlled wet-out
                                                     area emissions;
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     emissions;
                                                    iv. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     wet-out area
                                                     enclosure;
                                                    v. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device; and
                                                    vi. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
2. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is uncontrolled..  i. Annual
 a PTE and the captured                              uncontrolled wet-
 emissions are controlled by                         out area emissions;
 an add-on control device.                          ii. Annual
                                                     controlled wet-out
                                                     area emissions;
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     emissions;
                                                    iv. That the wet-out
                                                     area enclosure
                                                     meets the
                                                     requirements of
                                                     Method 204 for a
                                                     PTE;
                                                    v. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device; and
                                                    vi. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
3. Is uncontrolled..........  a. Is controlled by   i. Annual
                               an add-on control     uncontrolled wet-
                               device.               out area emissions;
                                                    ii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     emissions;
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     controlled oven
                                                     emissions;
                                                    iv. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     oven;
                                                    v. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device; and
                                                    vi. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
4. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is controlled by   i. Annual
 not a PTE and the captured    an add-on control     uncontrolled wet-
 emissions are controlled by   device.               out area emissions;
 an add-on control device.                          ii. Annual
                                                     controlled wet-out
                                                     area emissions;
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     emissions;
                                                    iv. Annual
                                                     controlled oven
                                                     emissions;
                                                    v. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     wet-out area
                                                     enclosure;
                                                    vi. Inlet emissions
                                                     to the add-on
                                                     control device;
                                                    vii. Outlet
                                                     emissions from the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device; and
                                                    viii. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied
5. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is controlled by   i. That the wet-out
 a PTE and the captured        an add-on control     area enclosure
 emissions are controlled by   device.               meets the
 an add-on control device.                           requirements of
                                                     Method 204 for a
                                                     PTE;
                                                    ii. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     oven; and
                                                    iii. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec. 63.5865, in order to comply with a percent 
reduction limit or a lbs/ton limit on an averaging basis for continuous 
lamination lines and continuous casting lines you must determine the 
data in the following table:

   Table 11 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Data Requirements for New and
  Existing Continuous Lamination and Continuous Casting Lines Complying
 With a Percent Reduction Limit or a Lbs/Ton Limit on an Averaging Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       For each . . .              That . . .        You must determine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wet-out area.............  Is uncontrolled.....  Annual uncontrolled
                                                     wet-out area
                                                     emissions.

[[Page 40363]]

 
2. Wet-out area.............  a. Has an enclosure   i. The capture
                               that is not a PTE.    efficiency of the
                                                     enclosure; and
                                                    ii. Annual emissions
                                                     that escape the
                                                     enclosure.
3. Wet-out area.............  Has an enclosure      That the enclosure
                               that is a PTE.        meets the
                                                     requirements of
                                                     Method 204 for a
                                                     PTE.
4. Oven.....................  Is uncontrolled.....  Annual uncontrolled
                                                     oven emissions.
5. Line.....................  a. Is controlled or   i. The amount of
                               uncontrolled.         neat resin plus
                                                     applied; and
                                                    ii. The amount of
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
6. Add-on control device....  N/A.................  Total annual inlet
                                                     emissions; and
                                                     total annual on
                                                     outlet emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required in Sec. 63.5865(b), in order to comply with a lbs/ton 
emission limit for continuous lamination lines and continuous casting 
lines you must determine the data in the following table:

   Table 12 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Data Requirements for New and
    Existing Continuous Lamination Lines and Continuous Casting Lines
              Complying With a Lbs/Ton on a Per Line Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each line where the wet-                        You must determine .
       out area . . .          And the oven . . .            . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Is uncontrolled..........  a. Is uncontrolled..  i. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled wet-
                                                     out area emissions;
                                                    ii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     emissions; and
                                                    iii. Annual neat
                                                     resin plus and neat
                                                     gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
2. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is uncontrolled..  i. Annual
 not a PTE, and the captured                         uncontrolled wet-
 emissions are controlled by                         out area emissions;
 an add-on control device.                          ii. Annual
                                                     controlled wet-out
                                                     area emissions;
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     emissions;
                                                    iv. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     wet-out area
                                                     controlled
                                                     enclosure;
                                                    v. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device; and
                                                    vi. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
3. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is uncontrolled..  i. Annual
 a PTE, and the captured                             uncontrolled wet-
 emissions are controlled by                         out area emissions;
 an add-on control device.                          ii. Annual
                                                     controlled wet-out
                                                     area emissions;
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     emissions;
                                                    iv. That the wet-out
                                                     area enclosure
                                                     meets the
                                                     requirements of
                                                     Method 204 for a
                                                     PTE;
                                                    v. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device; and
                                                    vi. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
4. Is uncontrolled..........  a. Is controlled by   i. Annual
                               an add-on control     uncontrolled wet-
                               device.               out area emissions;
                                                    ii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     emissions;
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     controlled oven
                                                     emissions;
                                                    iv. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     oven;
                                                    v. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device; and
                                                    vi. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
5. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is controlled by   i. Annual
 not a PTE and the captured    an add-on control     uncontrolled wet-
 emissions are controlled by   device.               out area emissions;
 an add-on control device.                          ii. Annual
                                                     controlled wet-out
                                                     area emissions;
                                                    iii. Annual
                                                     uncontrolled oven
                                                     emissions;
                                                    iv. Annual
                                                     controlled oven
                                                     emissions;
                                                    v. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     wet-out area
                                                     control enclosure;
                                                    vi. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     oven;
                                                    vii. The destruction
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     add-on control
                                                     device; and
                                                    viii. The amount of
                                                     neat resin plus and
                                                     neat gel coat plus
                                                     applied.
6. Has an enclosure that is   a. Is controlled by   i. That the wet-out
 a PTE, and the captured       an add-on control     area enclosure
 emissions are controlled by   device.               meets the
 an add-on control device.                           requirements of
                                                     Method 204 for a
                                                     PTE;
                                                    ii. The capture
                                                     efficiency of the
                                                     oven;
                                                    iii. Inlet emissions
                                                     to the add-on
                                                     control are device;
                                                     and
                                                    iv. Outlet emissions
                                                     from the add-on
                                                     control control
                                                     device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 40364]]

    As required in Sec. 63.5905, you must determine the applicable 
notifications and submit them by the dates shown in the following 
table:

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

    As required in Sec. 63.5910(a) through (b) and (f) through (g), you 
must submit reports on the schedule shown in the following table:

     Table 14 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must     You must submit the
    You must submit a(n)          contain . . .         report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report........  a. A statement that   Semiannually
                               there were no         according to the
                               deviations during     requirements in
                               that reporting        Sec.  63.5910(b).
                               period if there
                               were no deviations
                               from any emission
                               limitations
                               (emission limit,
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               visible emission
                               limit) that apply
                               to you and there
                               were no deviations
                               from the
                               requirements for
                               work practice
                               standards in Table
                               4 of this subpart
                               that apply to you.
                               If there were no
                               periods during
                               which the CMS,
                               including CEMS, and
                               operating parameter
                               monitoring systems,
                               was out of control
                               as specified in
                               Sec.  63.8(c)(7),
                               the report must
                               also contain a
                               statement that
                               there were no
                               periods during
                               which the CMS was
                               out of control
                               during the
                               reporting period.
                              b. The information    Semiannually
                               in Sec.  63.5910(d)   according to the
                               if you have a         requirements in
                               deviation from any    Sec.  63.5910(b).
                               emission the
                               limitation
                               (emission limit,
                               operating limit, or
                               work practice
                               standard) during
                               the reporting
                               period. If there
                               were periods during
                               which the CMS,
                               including CEMS, and
                               operating parameter
                               monitoring systems,
                               was out of control,
                               as specified in
                               Sec.  63.8(c)(7),
                               the report must
                               contain the
                               information in Sec.
                                63.5910(e).
                              c. The information    Semiannually
                               in Sec.               according to the
                               63.10(d)(5)(i). If    requirements in
                               you had a startup,    Sec.  63.5910(b).
                               shutdown or
                               malfunction during
                               the reporting
                               period, and you
                               took actions
                               consistent with
                               your startup,
                               shutdown, and
                               malfunction plan.
2. An immediate startup,      a. Actions taken for  By fax or telephone
 shutdown, and malfunction     the event.            within 2 working
 report if you had a                                 days after starting
 startup, shutdown, or                               actions
 malfunction during the                              inconsistent with
 reporting period that is                            the plan.
 not consistent with your
 startup, shutdown, and
 malfunction plan.
                              b. The information    By letter within 7
                               in Sec.               working days after
                               63.10(d)(5)(ii).      the end of the
                                                     event unless you
                                                     have made
                                                     alternative
                                                     arrangements with
                                                     the permitting
                                                     authority. (Sec.
                                                     63.10(d)(5)(ii)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As specified in Sec. 63.5925, the parts of the General Provisions 
which apply to you are shown in the following table:

[[Page 40365]]



Table 15 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions (Subpart A) to Subpart WWWW of Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Subject to the
 The general provisions reference . .    That addresses . . .    And applies to subpart    following additional
                  .                                              WWWW of Part 63 . . .      information . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1(a)(1).....................  General applicability    Yes....................  Additional terms
                                        of the general                                    defined in subpart
                                        provisions.                                       WWWW of Part 63; when
                                                                                          overlap between
                                                                                          subparts A and WWWW of
                                                                                          Part 63 of this part,
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63 takes precedence.
Sec.  63.1(a)(2) through (4).........  General applicability    Yes.
                                        of the general
                                        provisions.
Sec.  63.1(a)(5).....................  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.1(a)(6) through (7).........  General applicability    Yes.
                                        of the general
                                        provisions.
Sec.  63.1(a)(8).....................  General applicability    Yes.
                                        of the general
                                        provisions.
Sec.  63.1(a)(9).....................  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.1(a)(10) through (14).......  General applicability    Yes.
                                        of the general
                                        provisions.
Sec.  63.1(b)(1).....................  Initial applicability    Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        determination.                                    clarifies the
                                                                                          applicability in Secs.
                                                                                          63.5780 and 63.5785.
Sec.  63.1(b)(2).....................  Title V operating        Yes....................  All major affected
                                        permit requirement.                               sources are required
                                                                                          to obtain a title V
                                                                                          permit.
Sec.  63.1(b)(3).....................  Record of the            Yes.
                                        applicability
                                        determination.
Sec.  63.1(c)(1).....................  Applicability of this    Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        part after a relevant                             clarifies the
                                        standard has been set                             applicability of each
                                        under this part.                                  paragraph of subpart A
                                                                                          to sources subject to
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.  63.1(c)(2).....................  Title V operating        Yes....................  All major affected
                                        permit requirement.                               sources are required
                                                                                          to obtain a title V
                                                                                          operating permit. Area
                                                                                          sources are not
                                                                                          subject to subpart
                                                                                          WWWW of Part 63.
Sec.  63.1(c)(3).....................  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.1(c)(4).....................  Requirements for an      Yes.
                                        existing source that
                                        obtains an extension
                                        of compliance.
Sec.  63.1(c)(5).....................  Notification             Yes.
                                        requirements for an
                                        area source that
                                        increases HAP
                                        emissions to major
                                        source levels.
Sec.  63.1(d)........................  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.1(e)........................  Applicability of permit  Yes.
                                        program before a
                                        relevant standard has
                                        been set under this
                                        part.
Sec.  63.2...........................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                                                                          defines terms in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5935. When overlap
                                                                                          between subparts A and
                                                                                          WWWW of Part 63
                                                                                          occurs, you must
                                                                                          comply with the
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63 definitions, which
                                                                                          take precedence over
                                                                                          the subpart A
                                                                                          definitions.
Sec.  63.3...........................  Units and abbreviations  Yes....................  Other units and
                                                                                          abbreviations used in
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63 are defined in
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.  63.4...........................  Prohibited activities    Yes....................  Sec.  63.4(a)(4) is
                                        and circumvention.                                reserved and does not
                                                                                          apply.
Sec.  63.5(a)(1) through (2).........  Applicability of         Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        construction and                                  not become
                                        reconstruction.                                   reconstructed under
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.  63.5(b)(1).....................  Relevant standards for   Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        new sources upon                                  not become
                                        construction.                                     reconstructed under
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.  63.5(b)(2).....................  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.5(b)(3).....................  New construction/        Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        reconstructed.                                    not become
                                                                                          reconstructed under
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.  63.5(b)(4).....................  Construction/            Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        reconstruction                                    not become
                                        notification.                                     reconstructed under
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.  63.5(b)(5).....................  Construction/            Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        reconstruction                                    not become
                                        compliance.                                       reconstructed under
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.  63.5(b)(6).....................  Equipment addition or    Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        process change.                                   not become
                                                                                          reconstructed under
                                                                                          subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.

[[Page 40366]]

 
Sec.  63.5(c)........................  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.5(d)(1).....................  General application for  Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        approval of                                       not become
                                        construction or                                   reconstructed under
                                        reconstruction.                                   subpart WWWW of Part
                                                                                          63.
Sec.  63.5(d)(2).....................  Application for          Yes.
                                        approval of
                                        construction.
Sec.  63.5(d)(3).....................  Application for          No.
                                        approval of
                                        reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(d)(4).....................  Additional information.  Yes.
Sec.  63.5(e)(1) through (5).........  Approval of              Yes.
                                        construction or
                                        reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(f)(1) through (2).........  Approval of              Yes.
                                        construction or
                                        reconstruction based
                                        on prior State
                                        preconstruction review.
Sec.  63.6(a)(1).....................  Applicability of         Yes.
                                        compliance with
                                        standards and
                                        maintenance
                                        requirements.
Sec.  63.6(a)(2).....................  Applicability of area    Yes.
                                        sources that increase
                                        emissions to become
                                        major sources.
Sec.  63.6(b)(1) through (2).........  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        new and reconstructed                             clarifies compliance
                                        sources.                                          dates in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5800.
Sec.  63.6(b)(3) through (5).........  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        area sources that                                 clarifies compliance
                                        become major sources.                             dates in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5800.
Sec.  63.6(b)(6).....................  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.6(b)(7).....................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        new sources resulting                             clarifies compliance
                                        from new unaffected                               dates in Sec.
                                        area sources becoming                             63.5800.
                                        subject to standards.
Sec.  63.6(c)(1) through (2).........  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        existing sources.                                 clarifies compliance
                                                                                          dates in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5800.
Sec.  63.6(c)(3) through (4).........  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.6(c)(5).....................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        existing area sources                             clarifies compliance
                                        that become major.                                dates in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5800.
Sec.  63.6(d)........................  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.6(e)(1) through (2).........  Operation & maintenance  Yes.
                                        requirements.
Sec.  63.6(e)(3).....................  Startup, shutdown, and   Yes....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        malfunction plan and                              requires a startup,
                                        recordkeeping.                                    shutdown, and
                                                                                          malfunction plan only
                                                                                          for sources using add-
                                                                                          on controls.
Sec.  63.6(f)(1).....................  Compliance except        No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        during periods of                                 requires compliance
                                        startup, shutdown, and                            during periods of
                                        malfunction.                                      startup, shutdown, and
                                                                                          malfunctions, except
                                                                                          startup, shutdown, and
                                                                                          malfunctions for
                                                                                          sources using add-on
                                                                                          controls.
Sec.  63.6(f)(23)....................  Methods for determining  Yes.
                                        compliance.
Sec.  63.6(g)(1) through (3).........  Alternative standard...  Yes.
Sec.  63.6(h)........................  Opacity and visible      No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        emission Standards.                               does not contain
                                                                                          opacity or visible
                                                                                          emission standards.
Sec.  63.6(i)(1) through (14)........  Compliance extensions..  Yes.
Sec.  63.6(i)(15)....................  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.6(i)(16)....................  Compliance extensions..  Yes.
Sec.  63.6(j)........................  Presidential compliance  Yes.
                                        exemption.
Sec.  63.7(a)(1).....................  Applicability of         Yes.
                                        performance testing
                                        requirements.
Sec.  63.7(a)(2).....................  Performance test dates.  No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                                                                          initial compliance
                                                                                          requirements are in
                                                                                          Sec.  63.5840.
Sec.  63.7(a)(3).....................  Section 114 authority..  Yes.
Sec.  63.7(b)(1).....................  Notification of          Yes.
                                        performance test.
Sec.  63.7(b)(2).....................  Notification of          Yes.
                                        rescheduled
                                        performance test.
Sec.  63.7(c)........................  Quality assurance        Yes....................  Except that the test
                                        program, including                                plan must be submitted
                                        test plan.                                        with the notification
                                                                                          of the performance
                                                                                          test.
Sec.  63.7(d)........................  Performance testing      Yes.
                                        facilities.
Sec.  63.7(e)(1) through (4).........  Conditions for           Yes....................  Performance test
                                        conducting performance                            requirements are
                                        tests.                                            contained in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5850. Additional
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          conducting performance
                                                                                          tests for continuous
                                                                                          lamination/casting are
                                                                                          included in Sec.
                                                                                          63.5865.
Sec.  63.7(f)........................  Use of alternative test  Yes.
                                        method.

[[Page 40367]]

 
Sec.  63.7(g)........................  Performance test data    Yes.
                                        analysis,
                                        recordkeeping, and
                                        reporting.
Sec.  63.7(h)........................  Waiver of performance    Yes.
                                        tests.
Sec.  63.8(a)(1) through (2).........  Applicability of         Yes.
                                        monitoring
                                        requirements.
Sec.  63.8(a)(3).....................  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.8(a)(4).....................  Monitoring requirements  Yes.
                                        when using flares.
Sec.  63.8(b)(1).....................  Conduct of monitoring    Yes.
                                        exceptions.
Sec.  63.8(b)(2) through (3).........  Multiple effluents and   Yes.
                                        multiple monitoring
                                        systems.
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(i)..................  Ensure immediate repair  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        or replacement of CMS                             you elect to use a CMS
                                        parts to correct                                  to demonstrate
                                        ``routine'' or                                    continuous compliance
                                        otherwise predictable                             with an emission
                                        malfunctions.                                     limit.
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii).................  Report CMS malfunctions  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        that are not addressed                            you elect to use a CMS
                                        by the startup,                                   to demonstrate
                                        shutdown, and                                     continuous compliance
                                        malfunction plan.                                 with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(iii)................  Compliance with CMS      Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        operation and                                     you elect to use a CMS
                                        maintenance                                       to demonstrate
                                        requirements.                                     continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.8(c)(2) through (3).........  Monitoring system        Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        installation.                                     you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.8(c)(4).....................  CMS requirements.......  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                                                                          you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.8(c)(5).....................  COMS minimum procedures  No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                                                                          does not contain
                                                                                          opacity standards.
Sec.  63.8(c)(6) through (8).........  CMS calibration and      Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        periods CMS is out of                             you elect to use a CMS
                                        control.                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.8(d)........................  CMS quality control      Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        program, including                                you elect to use a CMS
                                        current test plan and                             to demonstrate
                                        all previous versions.                            continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.8(e)(1).....................  Performance evaluation   Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        of CMS.                                           you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.8(e)(2).....................  Notification of          Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        performance evaluation.                           you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.8(e)(3) through (4).........  CMS requirements/        Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        alternatives.                                     you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.8(e)(5)(i)..................  Reporting performance    Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        evaluation results.                               you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.8(e)(5)(ii).................  Results of COMS          No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        performance evaluation.                           does not contain
                                                                                          opacity standards.
Sec.  63.8(f)(1) through (3).........  Use of an alternative    Yes.
                                        monitoring method.
Sec.  63.8(f)(4).....................  Request to use an        Yes.
                                        alternative monitoring
                                        method.
Sec.  63.8(f)(5).....................  Approval of request to   Yes.
                                        use an alternative
                                        monitoring method.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6).....................  Request for alternative  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        to relative accuracy                              you elect to use a CMS
                                        test and associated                               to demonstrate
                                        records.                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.8(g)(1) through (5).........  Data reduction.........  Yes.
Sec.  63.9(a)(1) through (4).........  Notification             Yes.
                                        requirements and
                                        general information.
Sec.  63.9(b)(1).....................  Initial notification     Yes.
                                        applicability.
Sec.  63.9(b)(2).....................  Notification for         Yes.
                                        affected source with
                                        initial startup before
                                        effective date of
                                        standard.
Sec.  63.9(b)(3).....................  Notification that        Yes.
                                        subject to the rule
                                        for new or
                                        reconstructed affected
                                        source with initial
                                        startup after
                                        effective date and for
                                        which an application
                                        for approval of
                                        construction or
                                        reconstruction is not
                                        required.

[[Page 40368]]

 
Sec.  63.9(b)(4)(i) through (iii)....  Notification for a new   Yes.
                                        or reconstructed major
                                        affected source with
                                        initial startup after
                                        effective date for
                                        which an application
                                        for approval of
                                        construction or
                                        reconstruction is
                                        required.
Sec.  63.9(b)(4)(iv).................  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.9(b)(4)(v)..................  Notification for a new   Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        or reconstructed major                            not become
                                        affected source with                              reconstructed under
                                        initial startup after                             subpart WWWW of Part
                                        effective date for                                63.
                                        which an application
                                        for approval of
                                        construction or
                                        reconstruction is
                                        required.
Sec.  63.9(b)(5).....................  After effective date of  Yes....................  Existing facilities do
                                        standard, notification                            not become
                                        of intended                                       reconstructed under
                                        construction or                                   subpart WWWW of Part
                                        reconstruction.                                   63.
Sec.  63.9(c)........................  Request for compliance   Yes.
                                        extension.
Sec.  63.9(d)........................  Notification of special  Yes.
                                        compliance
                                        requirements for new
                                        source.
Sec.  63.9(e)........................  Notification of          Yes.
                                        performance test.
Sec.  63.9(f)........................  Notification of opacity  No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        and visible emissions                             does not contain
                                        observations.                                     opacity or visible
                                                                                          emission standards.
Sec.  63.9(g)(1).....................  Additional notification  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        requirements for                                  you elect to use a CMS
                                        sources using CMS.                                to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.9(g)(2).....................  Notification of          No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        compliance with                                   does not contain
                                        opacity emission                                  opacity emission
                                        standard.                                         standards.
Sec.  63.9(g)(3).....................  Notification that        Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        criterion to continue                             you elect use a CMS to
                                        use of alternative to                             demonstrate continuous
                                        relative accuracy                                 compliance with an
                                        testing has been                                  emission limit.
                                        exceeded.
Sec.  63.9(h)(1) through (3).........  Notification of          Yes.
                                        compliance status.
Sec.  63.9(h)(4).....................  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.9(h)(5) through (6).........  Notification of          Yes.
                                        compliance status.
Sec.  63.9(i)........................  Adjustment of submittal  Yes.
                                        deadlines.
Sec.  63.9(j)........................  Change in information    Yes.
                                        provided.
Sec.  63.10(a)(1) through (7)........  Applicability of         Yes.
                                        recordkeeping and
                                        reporting.
Sec.  63.10(b)(1)....................  Records retention......  Yes.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i) through (v).....  Records related to       Yes....................  Only applies to
                                        startup, shutdown, and                            facilities that use an
                                        malfunction.                                      add-on control device.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi)...  CMS records............  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                                                                          you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xii)...............  Record of waiver of      Yes.
                                        recordkeeping and
                                        reporting.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiii)..............  Record for alternative   Yes.
                                        to the relative
                                        accuracy test.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv)...............  Records supporting       Yes.
                                        initial notification
                                        and notification of
                                        compliance status.
Sec.  63.10(b)(3)....................  Records for              Yes.
                                        applicability
                                        determinations.
Sec.  63.10(c)(1)....................  CMS records............  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                                                                          you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.10(c)(2) through (4)........  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.10(c)(5) through (8)........  CMS records............  Yes....................  This section applies if
                                                                                          you elect to use a CMS
                                                                                          to demonstrate
                                                                                          continuous compliance
                                                                                          with an emission
                                                                                          limit.
Sec.  63.10(c)(9)....................  Reserved...............  No.
Sec.  63.10(d)(1)....................  General reporting        Yes.
                                        requirements.
Sec.  63.10(d)(2)....................  Report of performance    Yes.
                                        test results.
Sec.  63.10(d)(3)....................  Reporting results of     No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                        opacity or visible                                does not contain
                                        emission observations.                            opacity or visible
                                                                                          emission standards.
Sec.  63.10(d)(4)....................  Progress reports as      Yes.
                                        part of extension of
                                        compliance.
Sec.  63.10(d)(5)....................  Startup, shutdown, and   Yes....................  Only applies if you use
                                        malfunction reports.                              an add-on control
                                                                                          device.
Sec.  63.10(e)(1) through (3)........  Additional reporting     Yes....................  This section applies if
                                        requirements for CMS.                             you have an add-on
                                                                                          control device and
                                                                                          elect to use a CEM to
                                                                                          demonstrate continuous
                                                                                          compliance with an
                                                                                          emission limit.

[[Page 40369]]

 
Sec.  63.10(e)(4)....................  Reporting COMS data....  No.....................  Subpart WWWW of Part 63
                                                                                          does not data contain
                                                                                          opacity standards.
Sec.  63.10(f).......................  Waiver for               Yes.
                                        recordkeeping or
                                        reporting.
Sec.  63.11..........................  Control device           Yes....................  Only applies if you
                                        requirements.                                     elect to use a flare
                                                                                          as a control device.
Sec.  63.12..........................  State authority and      Yes.
                                        delegations.
Sec.  63.13..........................  Addresses of State air   Yes.
                                        pollution control
                                        agencies and EPA
                                        Regional Offices.
Sec.  63.14..........................  Incorporations by        Yes.
                                        reference.
Sec.  63.15..........................  Availability of          Yes.
                                        information and
                                        confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-17564 Filed 8-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P